dr. desiree skinner, dissertation, dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation chair

8/8/2019 Dr. Desiree Skinner, Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-desiree-skinner-dissertation-dr-william-allan-kritsonis-dissertation 1/120

HIGH SCHOOL COUNSELORS’ ROLES AS PERCEIVED BY HIGH SCHOOL

PRINCIPALS AND COUNSELORS IN TEXAS

A Dissertation

by

DESIREE ADAIR SKINNER

Submitted to the Whitlowe R. Green College of Education

Prairie View A&M University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

March 2010





A Dissertation

by

DESIREE ADAIR SKINNER

Approved as the style and content by:

___________________________________________

William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

(Dissertation Chair)

Edward Mason, Ph.D. Tyrone Tanner, Ed.D.(Member) (Member)

___________________________________________

Camille Gibson, Ph.D.(Member)

Lucian Yates, Ph.D. William Parker, Ed.D.

(Dean, Whitlowe R. Green (Dean, Graduate School)College of Education)

March 2010



Abstract

High School Counselors’ Role as Perceived by High School Principals and Counselors

in Texas

(May 2010)

Desiree Adair Skinner: B.S., University of Arkansas

M.Ed., Sam Houston State University

M.A., Sam Houston State University

Chair of Advisory Committee: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

Defining the job of the high school counselor is an elusive task (Ribak-

Rosenthal, 1994) and is most often done by the high school principal. Additionally, role

conflicts ensue because the counselor’s role is not always clearly defined. Through a

more collaborative relationship, principals and counselors can create a more relevant and

comprehensive school guidance and counseling program and a more defined role for the

high school counselor.

The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of high school

principals and high school counselors about the role of high school counselors.

The following questions guided the study:

1. Is there a significant correlation between high school counselors’ perceptions and

expectations on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) scores as it relates to the

American School Counselor Association (ASCA) standards?



2. Is there a significant correlation between high school principals’ perceptions and



3. Is there a significant difference between high school counselors’ and principals’

expectation scores on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) as it relates to the



perception scores on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) as it relates to the


5. What are the most important functions of the high school counselor as perceived

by the high school principal and counselor based on the ASCA standards?

This quantitative study gathered information through a survey. The modified

“Counselor Function Inventory” (2008) is a 42-item instrument that was distributed to

the head principal and lead counselor at all 5A high schools in Texas; the University

Interscholastic League (UIL) has determined 241 such schools. The data were analyzed

using bivariate correlations using Pearson r and independent sample t-tests.

The significance of the study was to indicate the agreement or disagreement,

between high school principals and counselors on the functions that counselors should

perform as they relate to the national standards. The findings revealed that counselors

and principals have little agreement between and among themselves about what

counselors do and should do. Counselors and principals do not agree about the functions

that are actually being performed. However, counselors agree amongst themselves about



what counselors should do. Counselors and principals need to revisit what counselors are

doing and should be doing to come to an understanding of perceptions and expectations.

School leaders may benefit from this knowledge in terms of utilizing the school

counselor more effectively.



Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my late dad, Robert Owen. Although

he was only in my life for 11 short years, he instilled in me the value of hard work and

determination, along with the ability to dream.

To my second family, the Rabb’s, thank you for taking me into your home and

family. I am forever grateful that you would not allow me to become a victim of my

circumstances.

To my amazing husband, Mike Skinner, your love and support got me through

this crazy process. Thank you for keeping the pressure on so I would finish.

To my beautiful daughter, Rowen, for all the laughs and smiles. I’m so glad

you’re here…and a good sleeper!



Acknowledgements

I want to thank God for putting me in this circumstance at this time. Without

Him none of this would have been possible.

I want to thank my committee for all their support and encouragement. I want to

thank Dr. William Allan Kritsonis for serving as my dissertation chair. I truly appreciate

you never accepting anything less than the best from me.

I want to thank all of my friends and family for their prayers, encouragement,

and support. I want to give a special “thank you” to my very good friends Heidi Sauer

and Justin Estes for making me a better writer. I appreciate all the time you put in for

editing. To Eric Oslund for helping me get past the statistical hump. You’re the best

tutor money could buy. I appreciate and love Rhodena and Margaret for pushing me

forward, especially after I had my baby. To Cohort III, thank you for the friendship!

What a great experience, and the lessons I’ve learned from all of you are invaluable.

Last, but definitely not least, I want to thank my husband, Mike Skinner. Thanks

for all the love and prayers that got me to the finish line.



Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................11

CHAPTER I........................................................................................................................1

Background of the Problem............................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................4

Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................4

Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................................5

Research Questions........................................................................................................6

Hypotheses.....................................................................................................................6

Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................7

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................9

Summary.......................................................................................................................10

Chapter II..........................................................................................................................11

History of Counseling ....................................................................................................... 11

History of Counseling...................................................................................................11

The Role of School Counselor ..........................................................................................15

The Role of School Counselor.....................................................................................15

Perceptions of the School Counselors’ Role................................................................16

The Role Conflict of the School Counselor.................................................................31

Accountability of the Professional School Counselor..................................................34

Readiness......................................................................................................................42

Previous Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) Results ....................................................45

Previous Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) Results................................................45

Models of School Counseling Programs .......................................................................... 46

Models of School Counseling Programs......................................................................46

Research Questions......................................................................................................48



Summary ........................................................................................................................... 49

Summary.......................................................................................................................49

Chapter III.........................................................................................................................51

METHOD.........................................................................................................................51Overview ...........................................................................................................................51

Overview......................................................................................................................51

Quantitative Questions..............................................................................................51

Participants .......................................................................................................................52

Participants...................................................................................................................52

Sample..........................................................................................................................53

Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 53

Procedure......................................................................................................................53

Instrument.....................................................................................................................54

Original Counselor Function Inventory (CFI)..............................................................54

VALIDITY .............................................................................................................. 55

RELIABILITY .........................................................................................................55

Reliability.................................................................................................................55

Modifications ............................................................................................................ 56Modifications............................................................................................................56

Research Design...........................................................................................................57

Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 58

Limitations....................................................................................................................58

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 58

Summary.......................................................................................................................58

Chapter IV........................................................................................................................60FINDINGS........................................................................................................................60

Overview......................................................................................................................60

Research Question 1.....................................................................................................61

Counselors’ Perceptions and Expectations on ASCA standards*=significance ...........................................................................................................62




Principals’ Perceptions and Expectations on ASCA standards

*=significance ...........................................................................................................65Research Question 3.....................................................................................................68



The most important functions based on the ASCA standards

*=significance ...........................................................................................................72

Summary.......................................................................................................................73

CHAPTER V....................................................................................................................74

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................74

Introduction..................................................................................................................74

Summary of Research...................................................................................................74

Summary of Findings...................................................................................................74

Implications..................................................................................................................79

Applications..................................................................................................................81

Conclusions..................................................................................................................82

Recommendations for Future Research........................................................................82

References.........................................................................................................................83

APPENDIXES..................................................................................................................94

APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................94Original \“Counselor Function Inventory\........................................................................94

APPENDIX B...................................................................................................................97

MODIFIED \“COUNSELOR FUNCTION INVENTORY\............................................97

APPENDIX C.................................................................................................................101PRINCIPAL/COUNSELOR INSTRUCTION LETTER...........................................101

appendix d.......................................................................................................................102Consent Form.............................................................................................................102

Background Information ......................................................................................... 102Risks and Benefits of being in the Study ................................................................103

College Station, TX 77845 ............................................................................................. 104

APPENDIX E.................................................................................................................105



IRB APPROVAL.......................................................................................................105

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................11

CHAPTER I........................................................................................................................1Background of the Problem............................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................4

Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................4

Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................................5

Research Questions........................................................................................................6

Hypotheses.....................................................................................................................6

Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................7



Definition of Terms........................................................................................................9

Summary.......................................................................................................................10

Chapter II..........................................................................................................................11History of Counseling ....................................................................................................... 11

History of Counseling...................................................................................................11

The Role of School Counselor ..........................................................................................15

The Role of School Counselor.....................................................................................15

Perceptions of the School Counselors’ Role................................................................16

The Role Conflict of the School Counselor.................................................................31

Accountability of the Professional School Counselor..................................................34

Readiness......................................................................................................................42

Previous Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) Results ....................................................45

Previous Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) Results................................................45

Models of School Counseling Programs .......................................................................... 46

Models of School Counseling Programs......................................................................46

Research Questions......................................................................................................48

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 49Summary.......................................................................................................................49

Chapter III.........................................................................................................................51METHOD.........................................................................................................................51

Overview ...........................................................................................................................51

Overview......................................................................................................................51

Quantitative Questions..............................................................................................51

Participants .......................................................................................................................52

Participants...................................................................................................................52

Sample..........................................................................................................................53

Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 53

Procedure......................................................................................................................53



Instrument.....................................................................................................................54

Original Counselor Function Inventory (CFI)..............................................................54

VALIDITY .............................................................................................................. 55RELIABILITY .........................................................................................................55

Reliability.................................................................................................................55

Modifications ............................................................................................................ 56Modifications............................................................................................................56

Research Design...........................................................................................................57

Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 58Limitations....................................................................................................................58

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 58

Summary.......................................................................................................................58

Chapter IV........................................................................................................................60FINDINGS........................................................................................................................60

Overview......................................................................................................................60


Counselors’ Perceptions and Expectations on ASCA standards

*=significance ...........................................................................................................62Research Question 2.....................................................................................................64

Principals’ Perceptions and Expectations on ASCA standards*=significance ...........................................................................................................65




The most important functions based on the ASCA standards

*=significance ...........................................................................................................72

Summary.......................................................................................................................73

CHAPTER V....................................................................................................................74

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................74Introduction..................................................................................................................74

Summary of Research...................................................................................................74



CHAPTER I

Background of the Problem

“What is your job?” For many professionals, this question is easy to answer;

however, for high school counselors it may be a challenging inquiry. “Unfortunately,

school counseling has lacked a consistent identity from state to state, district to district

and even school to school” (American School Counselor Association, 2003). The

expectations of the school counselors come from students, teachers, parents, school

board members, community members, administrators, and other counselors. The many

“hats” that high school counselors wear, can make the role of the school counselor

confusing.

Conflicting messages from supervisors create role conflict (Coll & Freeman,

1997). Thus, attempting to meet the needs of the school community can become an

impossible endeavor. Given that building principals tend to create the school counselor’s

role, most school prescribed duties are incongruent with state and national expectations

(Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, & Marshall, 2001).

As posited by Fitch et al. (2001), school counselors take on many tasks in the

school including scheduling, discipline, and clerical duties. Oftentimes, these tasks that

high school counselors are required to perform are outside of their job description and do

not necessarily help the student body achieve at its highest levels. Principals’ and

counselors’ role perceptions help establish duties and expectations, but role definition is

virtually impossible on a campus, let alone across the state of Texas. By examining the



2

perceptions principals and counselors have of the school counselors’ role should

alleviate inappropriate duties and clearly define the school counselors’ role.

Defining the school counselor’s role is imperative although guidelines exist

(Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005). One guideline was created by the American School

Counselor Association (ASCA) in 2003 in the form of the Comprehensive School

Guidance and Counseling Program national model with four interrelated components for

school counseling programs. The four components are: foundation, delivery system,

management system, and accountability. Another guideline is from the Texas Education

Agency (TEA). It includes eight domains as expectations for school counselors: program

management, guidance, counseling, consultation, coordination, student assessment,

professional behavior, and professional standards.

The first domain, program management, includes planning, implementing,

evaluating, promoting, and managing a comprehensive developmental guidance and

counseling program that includes Guidance Curriculum, Responsive Services, Individual

Planning, and System Support components (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §33.005, 2007). The

second domain, guidance, involves planning, conducting, and involving students,

teachers, parents, and others to implement effective guidance curriculum. The guidance

curriculum allows the school counselor to guide individuals and groups of students and

parents to plan, monitor, and manage the students’ own career and educational

development including provision of information regarding post-secondary opportunities,

personal and social development (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §33.007, 2007). The third

domain, counseling , uses proven theories and techniques to provide individual and group



3

developmental, preventive, remedial, and/or crisis counseling. The fourth domain,

consultation, occurs when the school counselor consults with parents, school personnel,

and other community members to help them increase the effectiveness of student

education and promote student success (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §33.006, 2007), and

provide knowledge to advocate for individual students and specific groups of students.

The fifth domain, coordination, involves the school counselor coordinating people and

resources in the school, home, and community to promote student success and to use a

successful procedure in referring students, parents, and/or others to special programs and

services. The sixth domain, student assessment, the school counselor assists with

interpreting standardized test scores and other assessment data to guide students in goal

setting and planning. The seventh domain, professional behavior, refers to the creating

and upholding of professional relationships with school personnel, parents, and

community members through a commitment to professional development and by

advocating for a school environment that acknowledges and respects diversity. The

eighth domain, professional standards, directs the school counselor to adhere to state,

district, and campus standards, regulations, and procedures. Texas school counselors are

expected to be committed to current professional standards of competence and practice

(19 Tex. Admin. Code § 239.15, 2009), which endorse and uphold ethical and legal

standards, and requires a display of responsible work habits using professional written

and oral communication and interpersonal skills.

While these standards exist, it is the head principal who determines the role and

capacity in which the high school counselor impacts the campus. Given this practice,



4

principals and counselors need to come to an agreement on the assigned responsibilities

and tasks for a more harmonious relationship. At stake is the effectiveness of the school

counselor, school achievement, and accountability.

Statement of the Problem

School counselors are expected to maintain a high level of performance (Beesley,

2004). However, school counselors might not do much counseling if high school

principals are not aware of the national and state expectations, of counselors. “Because

classroom bells or specific time schedules do not bind them, counselors appear readily

available and are often targets for little things to do that are not counseling and guidance

related” (Myrick, 2003, Counselor resistance to accountability section, ¶ 1). Many

stakeholders depend on the high school counselor to be a valuable part of the school

community often leaving them to execute school tasks that no one else has time to

complete. These ancillary tasks inhibit the performance of all eight domains of

counseling established by TEA.

Although school counselors are team players who understand fair-share

responsibilities within a school system, they cannot be fully effective when they

are taken away from essential counseling tasks to perform non-counseling

activities such as: master schedule duties, testing coordinators, detention room

coverage, discipline, classroom coverage, and clerical responsibilities (American

School Counselor Association, 2003).

Ideally, job tasks should be in line with national and state guidelines, the district’s

mission statement, and the needs of the campus.



6

Research Questions

The following questions guided this study:

QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONS:















Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no statistically significant correlation between high school counselors’

perceptions and expectations on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) scores as it

relates to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) standards.



7

Ho2: There is no statistically significant correlation between high school principals’



Ho3: There is no statistically significant difference between high school counselors’ and

principals’ expectation scores on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) as it relates to

the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) standards.

Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference between high school counselors’ and

principals’ perception scores on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) as it relates to

the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) standards.

Conceptual Framework

For counselors to be effective they need to understand their roles; this is crucial

to an employee’s success and satisfaction. It is common for counselors to be assigned

responsibilities that are not related to counseling (Nelson, Robles-Pina, & Nichter,

2008). All stakeholders should be clear in regard to the counselors’ role. The conceptual

framework for this study is role theory. Discovering the perceptions and expectations of

principals and counselors of the counselors’ role will reveal potential confusion. Role

theory exists when there are inconsistent expectations causing stress, dissatisfaction, and

less effective performance (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). “The appropriate and

effective utilization of school counselors appear to be unclear, not only to students, but

to practicing counselors, school leaders, and the larger educational community”

(Lieberman, 2004, p. 553). When principals give high school counselors inconsistent

messages ineffectiveness and disorder may result; and school counselors may become



8

dissatisfied. Unclear job expectations produce a lot of stress, and frustration will result

when the concepts of counseling remain unclear (Levitt & Jacques, 2005).

Role theory emphasizes (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964) that role

ambiguity “will result in coping behavior by the role incumbent, which may take the

form of attempts to solve the problem to avoid the sources of stress, or to use defense

mechanisms which distort the reality of the situation” (Rizzo et al., 1970, p. 151).

According to role theory, ambiguity will increase an employee’s dissatisfaction with the

job role, increase anxiety, distort reality, and lead to less effective performance. On the

other hand, role congruence, and certainty, is linked to happiness and life satisfaction

(Perrone, Webb, & Blalock, 2005).

The high school principal determines a high school counselor’s role. Johnson

(1989) found highly significant positive correlations for agreement between the

following four comparison groups: principal perceptions-counselor perceptions,

principal expectations-counselor expectations, principal perceptions-principal

expectations, and counselor perceptions-counselor expectations. These perceptions and

expectations must be synchronized or role conflict and ambiguity will set in among the

high school counselors.

Miscommunication can create role conflict and ambiguity through

inconsistencies. Based on the work of Falls and Nichter (2007) “high school counselors

are challenged with role ambiguity, role conflict, and work overload on a consistent

basis resulting in exposure to chronic job stress, which research indicates can lead to

burnout” (Nelson et al., 2008, pp. 41-42). The researcher used a modified Counselor



9

Function Inventory (CFI) to measure perceptions and expectations of the high school

counselors’ role by principals and counselors as the functions relate to the ASCA

standards.

Definition of Terms

COUNSELOR

A counselor is a certified counseling professional serving in Texas public high

schools as a counselor. This professional has spent two years in the classroom, holds a

master’s degree, and has passed the state certification test. “The holder of a school

counselor certificate issued under the provisions of the Texas Administrative Code may

provide counseling services to students in regular education programs, career and

technology education programs and special education programs in pre-kindergarten

through grade 12” (19 Tex. Admin. Code § 239.15, 2009).

5A high school

A 5A high school is a school that is a tax supported school with open enrollment

in Texas with the enrollment of 1,985 students (University Interscholastic League,

Subchapter 1, Section 351).

PRINCIPAL

A principal is a certified professional serving in Texas public high schools in a

head principal position. “The principal of a school is the instructional leader of the

school and shall be provided with adequate training and personnel assistance to assume

that role” (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §11.202(a), 2007)).



10

Summary

Confusion exists about the roles of high school counselors. The expectations of

the high school counselor may not be in line with national and state models. The purpose

of this study was to describe the perceptions of high school principals and high school

counselors about the role of high school counselors.

The study has five chapters. Chapter one provides an introduction and overview

of the problem. Chapter two provides a review of the literature. Chapter three consists of

data collection methods, procedures, protocols, instrumentation, and data analysis.

Chapter four reports the results of the study. Chapter five provides a summary,

conclusions, and recommendations.



Chapter II

Review of Literature

This chapter provides an overview of the following: history of counseling, the

role of the school counselor, perceptions of the school counselors’ role, role conflict of

school counselors, Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) results in the literature, and

models of school counseling programs. The purpose of this study was to describe the

perceptions of high school principals and high school counselors about the role of high

school counselors. Many of the cases of school counselor roles largely reflect elementary

level counselors; therefore, a need exists for studies to be done at secondary levels,

especially the high school level.

History of Counseling

Guidance and counseling goes back as early as the 1900s. It got its start with

vocational guidance in the 20th century. In the early 1900s, Jesse B. Davis was the first to

set up an orderly and organized guidance program in the public schools (Gladding,

2000). He organized English teachers to incorporate character education and problem

solving skills into their classroom lessons. Frank Parsons also was very influential in the

counseling profession; he was influential in the founding of career counseling, which

was the forerunner of professional counseling, vocational psychology, and counseling

psychology (Pope & Sveinsdottir, 2005). He is considered the “primary architect of

vocational guidance in the United States” (Herr, 2003, p. 22). He is regarded as the

“Father of Guidance” for having established the Boston Vocational Bureau to help

young people make career decisions. Parsons was interested in working with young



12

people who were making decisions impacting their careers. This passion was spurred by

immigrants’ difficulty in searching for job opportunities, which was their main reason

for immigrating to the United States. Parsons upheld high ideals and progressive

attitudes to impact the success of humanity (Pope & Sveinsdottir, 2005).

The Great Depression of the 1930s influenced researchers and practitioners to

emphasize helping strategies and counseling methods that related to choosing and

obtaining employment (Gladding, 2000). John Brewer wrote Education as Guidance

(1932), proposing teachers are counselors and that vocational guidance can be

incorporated into school curriculum. The government became more interested in

counseling during this decade and established the U.S. Employment Service, which

published the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The DOT is a resource for

career information in the United States and has coded positions according to job titles

(Gladding, 2000).

The creation of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) and the

National Defense Education Act (NDEA) took place in the 1950s. NDEA had the

biggest impact on school counseling, identifying scientifically and academically talented

students in order to foster their development (Gladding, 2000). This was the space race

era and “school counselors became indirect participants in the Cold War between the

United States and the Soviet Union” (Herr, 2003, p. 31). With the lack of mathematics

and science students to compete with the Russians, American schools were perceived to

have failed. Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, was launched in 1957 by the

Soviet Union and that signaled the loss of the “space race” for the United States. Not



13

only was the Soviet Union the first country to enter space, but this feat implied that the

quality of the United States’ science and engineering capabilities were inferior. This

indicated that American schools failed to prepare students to be competitive with the

Soviet Union (Herr, 2003). There was a vocational thrust to develop technology based

literacy programs that studied the major industries of the time. Research and

development was now greatly infused into the technology education curriculum (Ritz,

2006). NDEA was determined to create a conduit for the United States to regain its

prestige.

Central to the provisions of the NDEA was the training of large numbers of

secondary professional school counselors and their placement in schools

primarily to test students, identify those capable of entering higher education in

the sciences, and encourage them to do so (Herr, p. 32).

NDEA also intended to raise the nation’s literacy in technical and scientific education

(Ritz, 2006).

The education system was evolving into the vehicle for grooming students to

keep the United States competitive with the eastern world. Education was being used to

restructure society through identification of academically inclined students, and school

counselors were pivotal in this process (Herr). Along with the “space race,” the 1950s

birthed many new counseling theories. These theories included: applied behavioral,

cognitive learning, self-concept, and career development.

The impact of the Civil Rights and Women’s Liberation movements, as well as

legislation effectively mainstreaming all special education students, diverted the



14

attention of professional school counselors to greater emphasis on diversity in

schools and the needs of special populations for guidance and counseling (Herr,

2003, p. 34).

With all these issues being introduced into the school system, counselors were striving to

define best practices to serve their population. To address these issues, the focus was

placed on crisis counseling and short-term interventions (Gladding, 2000).

School counseling truly came into its own as a profession in the 1980s. During

this time training and certification was standardized, counseling was recognized as a

respectable profession, there was an increase in the diversification of counselor

specialties, and emphasized human growth and development (Gladding). Professional

groups such as the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) allow counselors to

come together for purposes such as fellowship, client advocacy, information sharing, and

practice concerns (Ginter, 2002). With efforts such as those of ASCA, counseling has

been able to sustain its importance in schools. Counselors’ identities have grown through

professional organizations such as: American School Counselor Association (ASCA) for

school counselors and American Counseling Association (ACA) for professional

counselors.

With NCLB the expectation for school counselors to be accountable has become

just as strong as it is for other educators. Quality research is mandatory in order for

school counselors to maintain and grow quality school counseling programs. With

quality data, “school counselors will be able to provide active advocacy and leadership

in developing and implementing comprehensive, development, and culturally responsive



15

approaches to removing systemic barriers to the academic achievement of all students”

(Sabella, 2006, p. 413). Tying academic achievement to personal and social development

supports the need for school counseling programs.

The Role of School Counselor

School counselors have a position that is multifaceted. A priority in the school

system is for professional school counselors to implement a comprehensive school

counseling program promoting and enhancing student achievement” (ASCA, 2004).

Developmental stages of students determine the work done by the counselor to ensure

equal opportunities for rigorous educational experiences (ASCA). To promote the school

guidance and counseling program, ASCA has created the following four standards:

1) Foundation. A professional school counselor will create a mission statement

for the school guidance and counseling program that maintains the mission of the school

and promotes all students’ academic, career, and personal/social development. This

foundation will incorporate collaborating with other professionals on the campus and

organizations in the community.

2) Delivery. Professional school counselors will offer assistance to students,

parents, school staff, and the community through school guidance curriculum, individual

student planning, responsive services, and system support.

3) Management . Processes are used to reflect the duties of the professional

school counselor and include: agreements how school counseling programs are

organized and what goals will be accomplished; advisory councils to evaluate school

counseling program results and to make recommendations; student data to make certain



16

every student is benefiting from the school guidance and counseling program; action

plans defining student competencies and achievement results; professional school

counselor’s time of 80% in direct services; and calendars informing and encouraging

active participation in the school guidance and counseling program.

4) Accountability. Professional school counselors will validate the effectiveness

of the school guidance and counseling program through measurable terms. Data will be

used to show how students are benefited because of the school guidance and counseling

program by reporting on immediate, intermediate, and long-range results.

Perceptions of the School Counselors’ Role

School counselors are expected to fulfill many functions in the school setting.

School counselors can aid in enabling families to strengthen their relationship with the

school by strengthening ties and facilitating potential meetings for families to build

relationships with each other. Teaming with staff to organize staff development that

addresses the needs of teachers is often another expectation of school counselors

(Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007).

Bemak and Chung (2008) looked at reasons that school counselors are reluctant

to new professional roles as required by the ASCA National Model and federal and state

accountability measures. Virtually all school counselors have a desire to please, and the

perception of being “nice people” leads them away from any role that may be viewed as

controversial, confrontational, or challenging (Bemak & Chung, 2008). This attitude is

what contributes to counselors maintaining the status quo and conforming to the

expectations of other school counselors. By using data to strengthen the guidance and



17

counseling program may lead to school counselors having to give up particular duties

assigned in the past, meaning other educators would pick them up. For example,

assistant principals may not be able to rely on school counselors to aid in discipline.

Many counselors feel that if data were to prove that a comprehensive guidance and

counseling program increases student achievement they would not be supported. With

the stress of perpetuating the “nice people” image school counselors fear being

ostracized, being labeled as trouble makers, personal apathy, quilt, anger, powerless, and

personal discomfort if they attempt to be more upfront in using data to close the

achievement gap (Bemak & Chung). Professionally, school counselors feel barriers that

contribute to their inability to implement change include: professional paralysis and

inaction, being viewed as supplemental to teachers and administrators, being bound to

the duties given out by administrators, and job security (Bemak & Chung). It is

imperative for school counselors to be aware of their personal and professional barriers

that keep them from being proactive in their respective roles. To redefine their

professional roles to be aligned with the ASCA National Model and the school and

district’s mission and goals, school counselors will have to be purposeful to incorporate

a comprehensive guidance and counseling program (Bemak & Chung).

In 2005, Zalaquett conducted a study on principals’ perceptions of counseling in

elementary schools in Florida. The study revealed that 500 elementary principals

perceived school counselors as having a positive impact on a student’s academic,

behavioral, and mental health development. The results also indicated that principals



18

held a positive view of the duties and responsibilities of elementary school counselors,

along with agreement of the ASCA National Model (2003).

The link between principals’ perception of the counselor’s role and support for

the school guidance program could be seen when elementary counselors in an urban

setting were studied by Walsh, Barrett, and DePaul (2007). The purpose of Walsh et al.’s

(2007) study was to consider whether or not first year counselors could implement new

practices that had emerged in the recent literature along with the directions in the

Delivery Systems of the ASCA National Model. Three trends were selected for this

study because they appeared most relevant: (a) the implementation of programmatic

approaches to school counseling, (b) the development of collaborative practice, and (c) a

focus on prevention and advocacy (Walsh et al., 2007). Programmatic approaches

include the school counselor working in a more consultation role versus direct

counseling and crisis management. This involves the school counselor working within a

more coherent program that can potentially effect change in the student and the system

such as school, family and the community. Collaborative practices involve the physical,

psychological, social, and family development. All of these influences work together to

offer the student more support. Prevention and advocacy provide services that protect the

student from problems that will impede learning opportunities. A preventive approach is

provided by the national standards that is collaborative and defines a consistent identity

and philosophy for school counselors to implement on their respective campuses (Walsh

et al., 2007). All these elementary counselors reported directly to the campus principal.

In this study the results indicated that newly hired urban school counselors could work in



19

alignment with the ASCA National Model Delivery System, as well as keeping up with

new trends in the profession. By executing the new trends and guidelines these

counselors were also able to earn the support of the principal.

In addition to the perception principals have, the perception of school counselors

of their own roles is part of a guidance program’s success. Holcomb-McCoy and

Mitchell (2005) conducted a study to ascertain how urban school counselors follow the

Gysbers and Henderson (2000) Missouri Model and Myrick’s (1993) model of school

counseling programs. The Missouri Model includes four components: a guidance

curriculum, individual planning, responsive services, and system support. Myrick’s

(1993) model consists of six interventions for school counselors: individual counseling,

small group counseling, classroom guidance/large group guidance, consultation,

coordination, and peer facilitation. One hundred and six counselors, out of 269,

completed the Urban School Counselor Questionnaire. These counselors were from six

urban centers: New York; Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia; Washington, DC; Trenton,

New Jersey; and Baltimore. These counselors were selected from the American School

Counselor Association (ASCA). The questionnaire was created to discover urban school

counselors’ perceptions of their experiences and roles in their perspective schools.

Holcomb-McCoy and Mitchell (2005) conducted a study with the purpose of

exploring the roles, functions, and perceptions of school counselors in an urban setting.

The major issues that these counselors faced were low family functioning/parenting,

academic achievement, and poverty. This study indicated that non-guidance activities

have not been eliminated from the urban counselors’ role due to the time being spent on



20

doing administrative or clerical work (Holcomb-McCoy & Mitchell). The counselors in

this study reported perceiving themselves as being effective and performing typical

school counseling duties, such as counseling, consultation, and coordinating as

prescribed by Gysbers and Henderson and Myrick (Holcomb-McCoy & Mitchell).

National guidelines advise school counselors devote 80% of their time to

individual counseling services. In a study among school social workers, school

psychologists, and school counselors, Agresta (2004) found that school counselors were

only spending 10% of their time on individual counseling. One hundred sixty-six school

counselors were randomly selected. All were members of the American School

Counselor Association (ASCA). They completed a survey asking to indicate the

proportion of his or her time spent on 21 roles, including the ideal amount of time

dedicated to each role. The respondents also indicated how appropriate each role was for

the position. The professional school counselors in the study indicated that their roles

had turned away from the more traditional duties of academic advisement and

scheduling, as well as college advisement (Agresta, 2004). Conversely, counselors

specified that they would like to spend more of their time on individual and group

counseling services.

Foster, Young, and Hermann (2005) conducted a national study to discover

school counselors’ perceptions of the value of performing work activities that promote

students’ academic, career, and personal/social development. The work activities that

were identified by the counselors as important for student success were also identified as

work activities that are being performed by the counselors. Two questions were



21

addressed: 1) the school counselors’ perceptions of the importance of counselor

effectiveness in performing work activities that promote students’ academic, career, and

personal/social development, and 2) the frequency with which school counselors

performed critical work activities that promote students’ academic, career, and

personal/social development. This study utilized archival data from the National Board

for Certified Counselors (NBCC), including a survey which investigated school

counselors’ ratings of importance and performance frequency of a defined set of work

activities was used (Foster et al.). The survey was given to 2,400 National Certified

Counselors and 526 surveys were returned. All of the participants considered themselves

as school counselors across grade levels. To ensure confidentiality six panel members

were used to organize the work behaviors listed on the survey. The results from the

study indicated that school counselors considered their work important in promoting

students’ academic, career, and personal/social development (Foster et al.). This study

revealed that school counselors were functioning in ways that promote the success of a

student from academic, career, and personal/social development.

Kirchner and Setchfield (2005) conducted a study where 23 counselors and 42

principals completed a survey. The University of Puget Sound offered a course for

principals and counselors in training to introduce each position to the other. The purpose

of their study was to determine how principals and counselors took the information from

the course and used it in their respective roles (Kirchner & Setchfield). Perceptions of

the school counselors’ role by principals and counselors do not usually coincide, creating

a need for congruence. Given that common practice requires that principals assign tasks



22

to school counselors, principal perceptions are significant. This remains a concern of the

profession (Kirchner & Setchfield). Whether or not school counselor roles coincide with

state and national models should be the driving force when defining the school

counselor’s role. Principals and counselors agree about duties that are role congruent,

but do not agree about duties not considered role congruent (Kirchner & Setchfield).

These inconsistencies cause conflict about what school counselors should be doing. With

this confusion a need for further investigation on perceptions exists given that they will

impact role duties and assignments via the principals. However, it may not be the

principals’ lack of knowledge regarding school counselors’ roles that counselors find

themselves performing duties not congruent with national standards; it may just be the

everyday needs of a campus that find principals assigning counselors to duties that need

to be completed (Kirchner & Setchfield).

Pérusse, Goodnough, Donegan, and Jones (2004) conducted a national survey

asking school counselors and elementary and secondary principals about appropriate and

inappropriate tasks for school counselors. All the respondents agreed that the national

standards should be given emphasis by school counseling programs. However, “more

than 80% of secondary school principals identified the following inappropriate tasks as

appropriate: registration and scheduling of all new students; administering cognitive,

aptitude, and achievement tests; and maintaining student records” (Pérusse et al., 2004,

Results section, ¶ 7). The data from the study indicated that school principals and

counselors have not come to an agreement about what the appropriate and inappropriate

job functions are for school counselors. School counselors have the experience and



23

educational background to provide counseling, coordination, guidance and referrals in a

school setting (Pérusse et al., 2004). The roles for the school counselor must be more

clearly defined.

An effective and collaborative relationship between the school principal and

counselor is vital for counselors to fulfill appropriate roles effectively (Chata & Loesch,

2007). Chata and Loesch conducted a study of future school principals’ view about the

school counselors’ role in alignment with the ASCA National Model. Principals-in-

training were able to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate professional

school counselor job duties as related to recommendations in the ASCA National Model

(Chata & Loesch). The results of this study are positive for school counselors, and future

principals are to some extent aware of appropriate roles for the counselor as outlined by

ASCA.

A qualitative study conducted by Amatea and Clark (2005) assessed 26

administrators’ perceptions of the school counselor’s role. From the study most of the

administrators agreed upon work responsibilities done by the counselor, but they did not

agree upon the value they gave to some of the work responsibilities. Four role

conceptions were defined: the innovative school leader, the collaborative case

consultant, the responsive direct service provider, and the administrative team player.

These four role conceptions are similar to school guidance and counseling program

models that have been given support in the past (Amatea & Clark). As listed in the

ASCA National Model (2003), the innovative school leader role is the most

contemporary and, yet was least described by administrators as a preference for their



24

counselors (Amatea & Clark). This statement implies, and the study confirms, that

principals prefer the role of the counselor to be more traditional. This preference for the

traditional could be the result of a lack of knowledge about school counselor roles.

Clark and Amatea (2004) also examined the perceptions of 23 elementary,

middle, and high school teachers about counseling and guidance services, how the

services should be delivered, and the expectations of how school counselors contribute

and their working relationships. The researchers also interviewed school counseling

graduate students regarding their future role. Teachers were asked voluntarily to

participate based on working in a public school for at least two years, worked in a school

with at least one school counselor, and willing to participate in a 30-45 minute interview.

Several themes resulted from the interviews: teacher perceptions of school counselors,

valuing of direct services to students, counselor visibility and school-wide involvement,

and knowledge about special students’ needs. The themes that emerged from the

interviewers’ accounts of their experience in talking with the teachers were: building

relationships: collaboration and teamwork, counselor visibility, educating teachers, and

classrooms and schools as systems. School counselors need to be a part of the school

system to create a collaborative working environment with a principal’s support this is

possible. Through national and state guidelines, models provide the foundation and

rationale for the common goal of helping students achieve inside and outside the

classroom (Clark & Amatea, 2004).

In 2002 Aluede and Imonikhe investigated how secondary school teachers and

students in the city of Benin in Edo State, Nigeria, view the role of the school counselor.



25

The purpose of the study was to determine the level of clarity and definition surrounding

the perceived roles of school counselors among students and teachers in the Nigerian

school system (Aluede & Imonikhe, 2002). It was a descriptive study that included 540

students and 120 teachers from all of the public secondary schools in Benin Metropolis

of Edo State, Nigeria. Two instruments were used: the Students’ Perception of School

Counselor Roles Scale (SPSCRS) and the Teachers’ Perception of School Counselor’s

Roles Scale (TPSCRS). Results from the study indicate that students view the counselor

as an academic advisor and that teachers believe counselors make a positive contribution

to the instructional program by providing professional or technical advice.

A study of the perceptions of future administrators of the school counselors’ role

was conducted by Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, and Marshall in 2001 at two Kentucky

universities; this study indicated that administrators are not knowledgeable about the role

of counselors because they do not understand what school counselors have been

educated to do. Graduate administrative courses do not educate future school principals

about the role of the school counselor or the details of a comprehensive school guidance

and counseling program (Fitch et al.). Administrators glean most of their knowledge

from their personal experiences with school counselors from when they were in school

and as their supervisor. Usually administrators determine the role of the counselor,

which leads to duties that are often incongruent with state and national role statements

(Fitch et al., 2001). This is critical because administrators supervise school counselors

and the implementation of the school guidance and counseling program. Campus

principals determine the roles and functions that school counselors carry out, as opposed



26

to what the standards require (Chata & Loesch, 2007). Barriers were identified to

implementing school guidance and counseling program: scheduling, discipline, and

clerical duties absorb much of a school counselor’s time (Fitch et al.).

In 2007, Dollarhide, Smith, and Lemberger conducted a qualitative study that

researched events that may give reason for the support of the principal for a school

counselor. Principals were surveyed to establish the critical incidents they identify as

meaningful and significant in their appreciation of school counseling (Dollarhide et al.).

The principals that agreed to participate in the study had at least one of the following

qualifications: had been awarded by their state ASCA organization for their support of

school counseling, were principal of a school that had a Recognized ASCA Model

Programs (RAMPs), or were recognized by ASCA as supporting a comprehensive

school counseling program. There were a total of 61 principals invited to participate, and

19 accepted. The principals were asked open-ended interview questions and they were

allowed to respond via e-mail or telephone. Three domains were extrapolated from the

interviews, they were: prior exposure to school counseling, present perspectives on

school counseling, and recommendations for school counseling. The results of this study

did not support evidence that k-12 contact or graduate studies training determined

support (Dollarhide et al.). Relationships built between the principal and the school

community was the most important indicator of a successful school counseling program

(Dollarhide et al.). Principals in the study realized that the support of the school

counseling program may create a home and school connection, as well as possibly

among teachers, administrators, and students.



27

Scarborough and Culbreth (2002) studied the congruence between the actual

practice of school counselors and preferred practice in relation to a comprehensive

guidance and counseling program. Elementary, middle, and high school counselors were

surveyed from two southern states with a total of 361 useable surveys returned. The

individuals completed the School Counselor Activity Rating Scale (SCARS), the

Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale (CSS), and the School Climate Scale (SCS). Counselors

reported they preferred not to spend their time associated with non-guidance-related

duties (Scarborough & Culbreth). Unlike elementary school counselors, high school

counselors were least likely to be practicing the way they preferred (Scarborough &

Culbreth). High school counselors wanted to spend more time in individual counseling,

consultation, coordination, and curriculum activities compared to the amount of time

they were spending (Scarborough & Culbreth). This finding indicates that at least some

school counselors want to spend more time participating in a comprehensive guidance

and counseling program. Evidently, experience accounted for differences between

“actual and preferred” counseling tasks (Scarborough & Culbreth). Basically this study

suggests that school counselors

were more likely to be engaging in tasks as they preferred if they believe that the

tasks led to particular outcomes and if they, as well as the tasks they were

performing, were supported by members of the organizational system of the

school where they were employed (Scarborough & Culbreth, 2002, p. 456).

School counselors prefer to spend their time performing functions that are congruent

with a comprehensive developmental school guidance and counseling program



28

(Scarborough & Culbreth). All grade level counselors want to participate in their

counseling role as defined by best practice, ASCA.

In the spring of 2008, a study was done to research the differences between the

actual practice and the preferred practice of Texas high school counselors. Nelson,

Robles-Pina, and Nichter (2008) used the School Counselor Activity Rating Scale

[SCARS] (Scarborough, 2002) to survey the role of Texas high school counselors that

focus on the national standards as defined by the American School Counselor

Association (ASCA). A total of 475 Texas high school counselors completed an online

survey, SCARS (Scarborough), with a return rate of 31%. The majority of the

respondents were Caucasian, suburban high school counselors with 10-20 years (Nelson

et al., 2008). The findings from the study “indicated that in the activities related to

counseling, consultation, curriculum, and coordination, high school counselors actually

do less but would prefer to do more of these activities and less other or clerical duties”

(Nelson et al., 2008, p.38). As in Scarborough and Culbreth’s study, counselors with

more experience participate in more counseling activities. Nelson et al. discovered high

school counselors spent much of their time participating in non-counseling or other

activities (2008). It was also discovered, similar to Scarborough and Culbreth , that

counselors with more than 10 years experience reported more counseling activities

(Nelson et al., 2008). Nelson et al. (2008) found that high school counselors in urban

settings do more counseling than counselors in suburban settings, and Hispanic

counselors do more counseling than Caucasian and African American high school

counselors.



29

Virtually all research points to what the ASCA National Model outlines as the

professional duties of a school counselor and the assignments that principals give school

counselors are not congruent (Leuwerke, Walker, & Shi, 2009). Due to all the demands

and expectations from the state regarding student accountability, principals are

challenged to utilize all personnel to make gains in student achievement. This stress can

cause strain between principals and counselors. Campus principals often delegate

administrative duties to school counselors that are not aligned to the national standards

as developed by ASCA (Leuwerke, Walker, & Shi). Leuwerke, Walker, and Shi

conducted a study to examine principals exposure to the ASCA standards and if that

exposure had an impact on their perceptions of school counselors. A total of 337

principals in Iowa completed an online survey, 93 of the principals were from high

school campuses. From the results it was discovered that over half of the principals have

never been exposed to the ASCA National Model. When principals were provided

information regarding the amount of time counselors should spend according to the

national model, principals were agreeable to the idea. Principals also agreed that

appropriate tasks, as listed by ASCA, were much more important than inappropriate

tasks. Once principals were educated about the ASCA National Model, principals

supported counselors spending more time for delivery of the guidance curriculum,

system, and responsive services (Leuwerke, Walker, & Shi). School counselors taking

time to educate principals on the ASCA National Standards will improve the campus’

guidance and counseling program.



30

To have a better understanding of the secondary school counselors’ role,

principals must embrace a comprehensive school guidance and counseling program

(McGlothlin & Miller, 2008). With the national standards provided by ASCA, principals

confirm, or refute, their perceptions of the school counselors’ role. Counselors are

obligated to provide services that are conducive to the district and campus goals. School

counselors must also ensure creating guidance and counseling programs that are linked

to the mission of the school and district and strive to increase academic success

(McGlothlin & Miller). As principals realize the impact a comprehensive guidance and

counseling program can have on student achievement, hiring effective counselors is

imperative. During interviews, secondary principals and counselors can begin dialog

about goals for a guidance and counseling program within the school, and the role the

counselor will play (McGlothin & Miller). When principals and counselors can outline

the role of the counselor from the start of a working relationship, role conflict may be

avoided. Throughout the initial job interview principals should pay attention to answers

that are in line with the missions of their schools and are congruent for effective

counseling programs (McGlothin & Miller).

Once a district determines it is ready to implement the ASCA National Model,

increasing academic success must be tied to the goals of the school district as well as the

secondary school counselors (McGlothin & Miller, 2008). The ASCA National Model

not only guides schools to work with students in crisis while promoting academics, but it

also can steer hiring and keeping school counselors. Principals need to use counselors in

the most effective way to increase student achievement without overwhelming them with



32

Findings from this study suggest some of the reasons for this confusion: (a) all

key players do not know what a school counselor’s role is, and when they do,

they do not always agree on that role; (b) the power differentials inherent in the

relationships among key players make it difficult for the school counselor’s role

to become institutionalized; and (c) economic, regional, local, and student needs

play a significant part in altering the daily functioning of an individual

professional school counselor’s duties (Monteiro-Leitner et al., ¶ 25).

These findings give more support to the idea that schools should follow state and

national models. ASCA (2003) developed guidelines that enhance the efficacy of the

school counselor’s role within the school. ASCA (2007) supports the school counselor’s

effort in developing students’ abilities to focus on academic, personal/social and career

development in order to achieve success and be contributing members to society. The

four components: foundation, delivery system, management systems, and accountability

guide schools in designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating a comprehensive,

developmental and systematic school counseling program (ASCA, 2003).

There seems to be a lack of professional identity among school counselors. Role

expectations vary by professionals, campuses, districts, and states. Coll and Freeman

(1997) studied perceptions that cause role conflict among elementary counselors. The

researchers found that extra duties such as: substitute teaching, lunchroom and

playground duty, and administrative tasks that the elementary school counselors were

performing are not consistent with national standards (Coll & Freeman, 1997). School

counselors view their roles with dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which their



33

professional skills and abilities are used by the building principal (Chata & Loesch,

2007). Role conflict can result in negative consequences that are both personal and

professional (Coll & Freeman, 1997). Kahn et al. (1964) identified several consequences

of role conflict: intensified internal conflict, increased tension associated with various

aspects of the job, reduced satisfaction with the job and its various components,

decreased confidence in superiors and organization, and social and psychological

withdrawal. Although little research has been done on role conflict of school counselors

Coll and Freeman (1997) concluded that elementary school counselors experience more

role conflict because they have more roles and functions than school counselors at the

secondary level.

School guidance and counseling programs need to become more parallel with

national and state standards. Without this interconnection school counselors have

different views about their roles and how to best use their time and skills (Burnham &

Jackson, 2000). What counselors are doing and what the national and state models

expect them to do, need to ensure implementing successful school guidance and

counseling programs. Burnham and Jackson discussed the role of school counselors and

discrepancies in role implementation based on models. Based on results from the study,

school counselors are performing duties described in current program models (Burnham

& Jackson), although discrepancies and variations exist. The authors suggest more

consultation concepts; group guidance, group counseling, and implementation of a

guidance program; leadership skills for advocating for students, and assessment skills.



34

Burnham and Jackson identified non-guidance duties as the most troublesome in

defining the counselors’ role, and these duties need to be identified and reassigned.

Accountability of the Professional School Counselor

The ASCA National Model provides opportunities for counselors to use and

assess quantitative and qualitative data-gathering techniques (Sabella, 2006).

Accountability has become a necessity in all schools and districts, including school

counseling programs. Decisions for student academic improvement and success must be

made and evaluated through the use of data. ASCA put together a research summit in St.

Louis focusing on: 1) defining major research questions, 2) developing usable research

strategies focusing on accountability, 3) discussing the structural elements of a nation

research agenda, 4) identifying researchers and practitioners to collaborate, and 5)

identifying a dissemination and recognition plan (Sabella). This summit led to ASCA

creating the National School Counseling Research Center (NSCRC). The NSCRC is

supportive and encouraging of school counselors to maintain accountability at the

national, state, and local levels.

In a replicated study by Webb, Brigman, and Campbell (2005) a counselor-led

intervention was put into place using a structured group approach. This group was to

improve academic and social skills of elementary and middle school students. The goal

of this replication was to strengthen the intervention while contributing to the body of

empirically based school counseling outcome research (Webb, Brigman, & Campbell,

2005). The intervention is the Student Success Skills (SSS) and focuses on a) cognitive

and metacognitive skills such as goal setting, progress monitoring, and memory skills; b)



35

social skills such as interpersonal skills, social problem solving, listening, and teamwork

skills; and c) self-management skills managing attention, motivation, and anger. With

this study, the outcome of the students can be tied to the performance of the school

counselor. Putting into place an accountability measure indicates whether or not a

counseling program is effective (White, 2007).

Student success and achievement needs to improve. School counselors have

specific knowledge in order to implement a comprehensive guidance and counseling

program to increase student academic achievement (White, 2007). School counselors are

trained to apply research-based interventions that can increase academics. Through the

accountability of school counseling programs, can come an agreement of academic

outcomes between school counselors and other educational stakeholders. By advocating

for an accountability system, counselors can promote their profession and alleviate some

of the role ambiguity they face (Curry & Lambie, 2007). The ability to measure the

impact that counselors have on students’ achievement can possibly present significant

data in advocating for the role of school counselors and comprehensive guidance and

counseling programs. All students should have the opportunity to benefit from a

guidance and counseling program and to demonstrate the positive impact it can have on

their academic achievement (Curry & Lambie, 2007).

Accountability and achievement create an opportunity for school counselors to

become more involved in the educational process affecting academic outcomes (Webb,

Brigman, & Campbell, 2005). A total of 418 students from 20 schools in Florida

participated in this study. Half of the students were elementary students and the other



37

In 2005 Eschenauer and Chen-Hayes wrote an article discussing the

Transformative Individual School Counseling (TISC) model and its use with urban

school counselors. The TISC model utilizes a functional behavioral assessment to define

problems; systemic, solution-focused, and narrative counseling approaches to address

problems; and single-case study designs for assessment (Eschenauer & Chen-Hayes).

The idea is that individual counseling can be an aid in closing achievement and access

gaps in education (Eschenauer & Chen-Hayes). It is a component of a comprehensive

school guidance and counseling program outlined by ASCA. Individual counseling

should be supported with empirical data and models, and school counselors should

evaluate the interventions used in their work (Eschenauer & Chen-Hayes). Without

connecting practice to research, school counselors risk the invalidity of their work. With

more and more accountability standards being placed on schools, there is pressure for

school counselors to also practice in ways that can be measured. The authors created the

TISC model to assess results to address achievement and opportunity gaps in urban

schools (Eschenauer & Chen-Hayes). The model guides the counselor through data

collection to evaluate the success of counseling interventions, particularly, individual

counseling. Using the TISC model facilitates the documentation of outcomes given by

the ASCA National Standards (Eschenauer & Chen-Hayes).

Sink and Spencer (2007) did a psychometric study on the validity and reliability

of The My Class Inventory-Short Form for teachers. This form is for elementary school

counselors as an accountability tool to use to determine the effectiveness of their school

guidance and counseling program. The My Class Inventory-Short Form “assesses



38

teachers’ perceptions of the classroom climate as they relate to five scales: overall

student satisfaction with the learning experience, peer relations, difficulty level of

classroom materials, student competitiveness, and school counselor impact on the

learning environment” (Sink & Spencer, ¶1).

To determine the psychometric characteristics of the instrument, descriptive

statistics were used. Three hundred and seventy-one K-6th grade elementary teachers

from the western Washington area working at ethnically diverse urban elementary

schools participated. Each school with participating teachers had at least a half-time

certified professional school counselor. The findings from the study indicate that the

instrument adequately measures classroom climate as perceived by teachers (Sink &

Spencer, 2007). Ultimately, this is a research-based accountability tool (Sink &

Spencer). Through the evaluation of the school guidance and counseling program, school

counselors can demonstrate their effectiveness through measures that are cost-effective

and psychometrically sound.

Isaacs (2003) wrote an article that discusses accountability of school guidance

and counseling programs from a national level. A new national office, Student

Achievement and School Accountability (SASA), “promotes accountability for

improving student achievement by ensuring that states implement rigorous systems of

standards, assessments, and accountability that motivate educators to assume

responsibility for getting each and every student to achieve at high levels” (Isaacs, ¶ 3).

With schools being held to higher and higher accountability standards, there is a need to

incorporate school counselors. High expectations in education are being applied to all



39

educators and this includes school counselors. ASCA has created a national model for

schools to use in implementing a school guidance and counseling program. Along with

this program is an accountability component. When school counselors take ownership of

accountability standards, such as those posed by ASCA, the element of role confusion is

removed. The minimal accountability that professional school counselors have provided,

have left many counselors without appropriate data to justify a guidance and counseling

program (Isaacs).

As educational standards and goals increase, school counselors need a clearly

defined role. Professional school counselors must become more concerned about the

data in order to effectively transform school counseling programs into responsive

interventions based on information (Isaacs, 2003). With the use of data, school

counselors can provide evidence of what their jobs entail. The data can also be applied to

academic achievement, which in the end is what schools want to improve. Through data

collection, decision-making, and evaluation school counseling programs can provide

appropriate and measurable accountability systems (Isaacs). Unfortunately, some school

counselors may back away from using data to make decisions due to their inexperience

in collecting and applying data. Nonetheless, the time has come for school counselors to

become comfortable with using and applying data because accountability is here to stay

and will aide in legitimizing the school counselors’ role. “By conducting needs

assessments, aligning with school improvement goals, identifying achievement barriers

specific to their students, and engaging other educators and stakeholders in the process,



40

school counselors can effectively direct their professional expertise and time to

contribute to achievement improvement” (Isaacs, Conclusion section, ¶ 40).

M.E.A.S.U.R.E (Dahir and Stone, 2003) is an accountability system for school

counselors to utilize in making decisions to strengthen a school and district’s

comprehensive guidance and counseling program. It is a model to collect information so

data-driven decisions can be made in order to raise student achievement. As supported

by the ASCA National Model, M.E.A.S.U.R.E is a model that enables school counselors

to document the impact of the school counseling program. Through an accountability

system counselors can demonstrate their ability to aid in closing the achievement gap.

In 2009 Dahir and Stone summarized school counselors’ action research to align

counseling programs with accountability standards and the ASCA National Model. The

counselors used the MEASURE model (Dahir & Stone, 2003), a seven-step process to

enable counselors to assess their efforts by using data. The acronym stands for: mission

(tie the goals of the counseling program to the mission of the district and each campus),

elements (using critical data elements that are important to all stakeholders), analyze

(analyzing data to determine what is adversely affecting student achievement),

stakeholders unite (determine which stakeholders need to be involved in addressing

school improvement issues), results (use outcome data to determine effectiveness of

goals and decide whether to make changes while addressing the guidance and counseling

program), and educate (publicize the positive impact that the school guidance and

counseling program has on student achievement). Utilizing a counselor-led model to



41

show the positive impact a school guidance and counseling program has, gives it

credibility and accountability when discussing student achievement.

Dahir and Stone (2009) collected data from 2003 to 2006. More than 175 school

counselors submitted results from their action research using the MEASURE model: 14

from elementary schools, 6 from middle schools, 33 from high schools, and 24 were part

of one district. When identifying school improvement goals more than 50% of

elementary counselors chose improving grades and raising test scores, 50% of the

middle school counselors chose improving grades, and slightly less than 50% of the high

school counselors chose improving grades. Of all the plans 89% chose an academic goal

as their primary focus. Elementary counselors had the high gains in student grades with a

2% increase on the targeted group and up to 50% of the 4th and 5th graders. Eighty-five

percent of high school plans targeted 9th grade failures and decreased the failure rate and

increased promotion of students to the 10 th grade. The focus of this study was to

demonstrate school counselors’ ability to use an accountability model to focus on school

improvement needs and by using that data increase student achievement.

Through accountability school counselors can provide evidence that the school

guidance and counseling program positively contributes to academic achievement.

Collecting data gives support to the unique contribution school counselors make on

instruction (Otwell & Mullis, 1997). With an appropriate accountability system,

counselor can tie interventions to cognitive development and learning, along with

improved grades and test scores (Otwell & Mullis). When planning a comprehensive

school guidance program, counselors must take into consideration ways to help students



42

learn more effectively and efficiently, combined with accountability efforts (Otwell &

Mullis). This will reveal the importance of the school counseling program on a campus

and the impact it makes on student achievement.

Readiness

Authors Carey, Harrity, and Dimmitt (2005) discussed an assessment instrument

to determine a school district’s readiness to implement the ASCA standards. As

accountability becomes more prevalent in public schools, school counselors will also be

expected to demonstrate their impact on achievement. Academic student achievement is

possible with standards-based educational reform interventions and is linked to the

ASCA National Model (Carey et al.). The self-assessment instrument designed by the

authors allows all stakeholders to identify the readiness of a district to determine

successful implementation of the ASCA model.

Seven readiness factors were identified: Community Support, Leadership,

Guidance Curriculum, Staffing/Time Use, School Counselors’ Beliefs and Attitudes,

School Counselors’ Skills, and District Resources. Three days were spent observing the

ASCA model in an Arizona school district. Twenty school counselors at the 2003

Massachusetts School Counselors Association conference then reviewed the instrument.

From the feedback, revisions were made. Then the instrument was used in consultations

with three New England school districts. The assessment is designed for use in the early

stages of the implementation process. The assessment is to be completed by counselors,

administrators, and teachers. This should assist principals in understanding the role of



44

Dahir et al. (2009) research indicated that gaps exist in the counselors’ ability to

accept and implement the model during the initial phases and need professional

development. This could be due to the fact that most states do not hold trainings to

support the implementation of the model. This lack of support may be the cause of the

high school counselors’ readiness to embrace and progress towards the model (Dahir et

al.). For school counselors to accept a new paradigm, plenty of professional development

is needed to give support. Increasing counselors’ confidence will more easily reaffirm

their abilities to implement a comprehensive school counseling program (Dahir et al.).

In 2008, Poynton, Schumacher, and Wilczenski conducted a pilot study to

determine school counselors’ attitudes concerning implementation of a statewide

comprehensive guidance and counseling model. The Massachusetts School Counseling

Association (MASCA) developed a state comprehensive guidance and counseling

program that is congruent with the ASCA National Model. The MASCA State Model

has also included a career development component. Throughout the statewide

implementation of the program, Poynton, Schumacher, and Wilczenski (2008) studied

the perceptions of school counselors’ role change. For the framework of this study, the

researchers used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) by Hall & Hord (2001).

The CBAM (2001) presents several assumptions about change: a) change is a process,

not an event; b) change is accomplished by individuals; c) change is a highly personal

experience; d) change involves developmental growth in feelings and skills; and e)

change can be facilitated by interventions directed toward individuals and contexts.



45

Poynton, Schumacher, and Wilczenski (2008) disseminated about 1,400

questionnaires online, in the MASCA monthly newsletter, and at the MASCA annual

conference. Total participation was 10%, 140 questionnaires were returned. The findings

of the survey indicated that the school counselors were in the early stages of the CBAM

and very concerned how they would be affected personally. Through much publication

through professional organizations the study reinforced that school counselors were very

aware of the state model. The study indicated that counselors need more information on

a campus level about how their roles will change. Poynton, Schumacher, and Wilczenski

(2008) suggest professional development and mentoring with experienced participants to

understand how the model will impact the counselors’ day-to-day schedules. Using the

CBAM to study change, districts anywhere could monitor the implementation of state

model or the ASCA National Model.

Previous Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) Results

Previous CFI results generally reveal that school principals and counselors share

similar perceptions regarding what school counselors do and should be doing. (Johnson,

1989; Maser, 1971; & Moore, 1997). The present study will examine the difference in

perception between high school principals and high school counselors about the role of

high school counselors in Texas.

Arthur L. Maser (1971) studied the secondary school counselors’ role in Highline

Public School District near Seattle in an effort to clear up confusion and enhance

communication among campus staff. He studied the perceptions of the school

counselors’ role by junior high and senior high school administrators, counselors, and



47

foundation, delivery system, management systems and accountability. Unfortunately,

many situations arise when school counselors are unable to maintain the ASCA model.

ASCA supports the school counseling profession and developed national

standards to legitimize the field. In 1999, 15 school counselors and counselor educators

were gathered to develop a more comprehensive framework. In June 2002, the model

was introduced at the ASCA national convention where it was well received.

Educational stakeholders with the ability to make decisions regarding the school

counseling program should learn, embrace, and put into practice the ASCA national

model (Schwallie-Giddis, ter Maat, & Pak, 2003). The standards also provide guidelines

for evaluating the program in order to hold school counselors accountable.

The authors recommended a leadership team, counselor education, and a

framework for practicing counselors to have success with the new standards. The

Northern Virginia School Counselors’ Leadership Team then held a summit. This team

was made up of 19 counseling professionals. First, ASCA’s National Model was

introduced and described. Second, small groups were created to discuss reactions to the

model and the reality of it being implemented in their professional daily lives. Third, the

small groups discussed with an administrator the first steps toward implementation of

the model in their district and on their campus. The Summit was exceptionally

successful and made gains in initiating action and reform (Schwallie-Giddis et al., 2003).

With proper use of the national standards the needs of students should be

addressed and the achievement gap should begin to close. “The model provides

legitimacy to the school counseling profession; a profession that is often criticized,



49















Summary

The role of the high school counselor is complex. The perceptions of the role of

the high school counselor may differ between the school principal and counselor. To

better help clear up this confusion, national and state standards have been created by

ASCA and TEA to clarify the role of the high school counselor and define appropriate

roles (Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005). Knowing the perceptions of high school principals

and counselors will assist in determining, and clarifying, the high school counselors’

role. The literature is limited on the principals’ perceptions of school counselors



53

principals and 241 5A high school counselors was the targeted population, with a

potential total of 482 participants. The University Interscholastic League (UIL) has

classified these schools by population.

Sample

The sample was based on all 5A public high schools as classified by the

University Interscholastic League (UIL). This list of schools can be found on the UIL

website http://www.uil.utexas.edu/. Of the 482 potential participants, a total of 249

principals and counselors voluntarily completed the survey. Of the 249 participants,

there were 113 principals and 136 counselors. The completed surveys produced a

51.66% return rate.

Procedure

An introductory letter was mailed to each high school head principal and lead

counselor stating that the survey was available soon and requesting participation. Email

addresses were obtained through school websites. The modified CFI was emailed to each

school’s head principal and lead counselor with instructions about filling out the survey

via SurveyMonkey to approximately 241 public high school principals and 241 high

school lead counselors in 9-12 campuses classified as 5A by the UIL. Each individual

received an introductory email that provided instructions. Follow-up emails were sent to

those who did not respond on a weekly basis. The response rate was 51.66%; thus 249

surveys were analyzed.



54

Instrument

Original Counselor Function Inventory (CFI)

The Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) was constructed by Shumake and Oelke

in 1967 “to study the major service areas of the counseling program in terms of the level

of responsibility and participation on the part of the counselor” (p. 130). A modified

version of the CFI was used for this study (See Appendix B). Maser (1971), Johnson

(1989), and Moore (1997) also used the CFI in their studies, as was noted in the Review

of Literature.

The original CFI included 77 functions that were designed to cover seven areas

of counselor services: placement, counseling, follow-up, orientation, student data,

information, and miscellaneous. The CFI was meant to study selected counselor

functions in these terms (Shumake & Oelke, 1967):

1. Should the counselor personally perform the function?

2. Should the counselor have primary responsibility for the function, although

he/she might not personally perform the function?

3. Should the counselor share with other groups in planning and performing the

function, even though he/she does not have primary responsibility for the

function?

4. Should the counselor serve as a consultant for the function only upon request?

5. Should the counselor have no direct responsibility for the function?



55

VALIDITY

Once the CFI was constructed, it was submitted to educators from the fields of

counseling, research, testing, and educational psychology. These educators evaluated the

CFI’s validity to determine:

1. Whether the items of the CFI are clearly stated.

2. Whether each item is suitable to describe a given function.

3. Whether the items in each group adequately describe a stated service.

The CFI was then submitted to 30 school counselors, each completing the survey and

evaluating the items with respect to wording and purpose (Shumake & Oelke, 1967).

The educators concluded that the CFI was adequate in covering the functions of

counselors.

RELIABILITY

To ensure reliability, a re-test method was used with two groups. One group

included actively employed secondary school counselors from within the state of

Georgia, and the other group included actively employed school administrators within

Georgia. Each group was administered the survey twice several weeks apart. The

correlation between the administrations was computed by the Spearman formula for rank

order correlation. This correlation (rho) was used to compute reliability of the possible

responses. “The rank order correlation for the two administrations of the CFI to the

school counselors was .96 and to the school administrators .94” (Shumake & Oelke,

1967, p. 131).



56

MODIFIED COUNSELOR FUNCTION INVENTORY (CFI)

The CFI was selected for this study because it has been shown to have both

validity and reliability, and has been successfully used in previous studies. There have

been format modifications for this study, but the content has not been altered.

Modifications

The CFI was modified for this study in the following manner:

1. Each item is mutually exclusive.

2. By inserting a box around the Likert scale and its descriptors at the top of each

page.

3. The Likert responses state “does/should” instead of “should” to reflect

perception/expectation (Johnson, 1989).

4. A column is on each side of the items. Column A represents what functions

counselors should do. Column B represents what they currently do (Moore,

1997).

5. The modified survey contains only 42 questions. Items were eliminated that are

now outdated or considered as unethical practices. For example, each item

placing students in part-time and summer jobs and making decisions concerning

special grouping of students. Items were combined to reflect the ASCA

standards.

6. The CFI was administered in an online format through SurveyMonkey to ensure

confidentiality. SurveyMonkey allows the user to create confidential surveys and

assists in analyzing data.



57

VALIDITY

Validity was established through expert opinion. After evaluation, a panel of

educators determined the CFI as valid in addressing the different functions of school

counselors.

RELIABILITY

To determine reliability the results were run using Cronbach Alpha. The results

were α = .872, which indicates that there was consistency and reliability in what each

survey item tested.

Research Design

This study replicated Maser, Johnson, and Moore’s administration of the

modified Counseling Function Inventory (CFI) (2008) to high school principals and

counselors (Shumake & Oelke, 1967). The dependent variables are the CFI scores. The

independent variables are the type of school personnel (principals and counselors). In

this quantitative study, the population consisted of high school principals and counselors

in Texas 5A high schools that were surveyed.

On the modified CFI survey, respondents rated the 42 counselor functions on a

five-point Likert scale.

1-The counselor should personally perform this function (has total responsibility).

2-The counselor should have primary responsibility for this function, although he/she

may not personally perform the function.

3-The counselor should share with other groups in planning and performing this

function, but he/she does not have primary responsibility for function.



58

4-The counselor should serve as a consultant in this function only upon request.

5-The counselor should have no direct responsibility for this function (Johnson, 1989).

The scores were then correlated, and t-tests were run, for significant agreement

or disagreement. Scores were compared with ASCA standards, perceptions, and

expectations of high school counselors and principals. The Pearson r for rank order

correlation and independent sample t-test were used for comparison. The data were

tabulated to show the number of school counselor functions in each of the counselor

groups according to the degree and nature of participation. Both Johnson (1989) and

Moore (1997) tested for significance at .01 level, in this study the correlation was tested

for significance at .05 level.

Limitations

The study was limited to 5A public high schools in Texas. The researcher did not

identify the differences between rural, urban, and suburban schools. Participants

volunteered to participate in the study limiting the number of participants. The study did

not include an examination of elementary and middle school principals’ and counselors’

perceptions. These limitations impacted external validity, meaning that generalizing

among principals and counselors is not possible.

Summary

The research questions were answered with the responses of Texas 5A high

school principals and counselors from the modified CFI. The goal of the study was to

indicate the agreement, or disagreement, between high school principals and counselors

regarding the functions that counselors should perform in relation to the ASCA



Chapter IV

FINDINGS

Overview

The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) developed national

standards for school counselors to follow in order to maintain a complete comprehensive

guidance and counseling program. These national standards also clarify the role of the

school counselor. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of high

school principals and high school counselors about the role of high school counselors.

The population for this study was limited to only 5A high school head principals and

lead counselors, or the counselor with the most experience. Both groups were surveyed

about the functions that the school counselor should perform and actually does perform.

The variables were the CFI scores and the type of school personnel (principals and

counselors).

This chapter presents the results of the findings for the five research questions.

The questions read:

















Research Question 1

Is there a significant correlation between the high school counselors’ perceptions

and expectations on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) scores as it relates to the


Ho1: There is no statistically significant correlation between high school

counselors’ perceptions and expectations on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI)

scores as it relates to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) standards.

To answer the question a bivariate correlation analysis using Pearson r was run at

the p = .05 level. Table 1 lists the functions from the CFI as they relate to the ASCA

standards. The functions listed are numbered to reflect the numbering from the survey.

Included are the correlation coefficient and the p level generated from the CFI scores of

high school counselors. Correlation statistically significant at p < .05 are indicated by an

asterisk.



TABLE 1

Counselors’ Perceptions and Expectations on ASCA standards *=significance

Function

Number

Function Correlation

Coefficient

Significance

1 Assisting students in selecting high school

courses.

.765 .000*

3 Providing information about individual

students to colleges at which the student has

applied.

.938 .000*

5 Counseling with students concerning

academic failures.

.572 .000*

6 Counseling with potential dropouts. .440 .000*


learning difficulties.

.644 .000*


military service.

.801 .000*

9 Counseling with students in regard to

educational and vocational plans.

.757 .000*

10 Providing the student an opportunity to

“talk through his problems.”

.658 .000*

11 Counseling with professional staff in regard

to school problems.

.800 .000*


personal decisions.

.866 .000*

13 Evaluating students’ adjustment to school

environment.

.592 .000*

14 Conducting follow-up studies of students

counseled by guidance personnel.

.546 .000*

15 Evaluating student adjustment to curriculum .863 .000*



checking credits for graduation and college entrance (p = .462). Counselors’ perceptions

and expectations of this function are in agreement about whether or not this is being

done or should be done.

The other 28 functions were significant (p < .05). The 28 functions have a

positive correlation between the high school counselors’ perceptions and expectations.

This suggests that high school counselors are not in agreement about the functions they

perceive themselves performing and the functions they expect themselves to perform.

There is a statistically significant difference between their reported actions, and what

they think their actions should be.

Research Question 2

Is there a significant correlation between high school principals’ perceptions and



Ho2: There is no statistically significant correlation between high school principals’



To answer the question a bivariate correlation analysis using Pearson r was run at the

p = .05 level. Table 2 lists the functions from the CFI as they relate to the ASCA

standards. The functions listed are numbered to reflect the numbering from the survey.

Included are the correlation coefficient and the p level generated from the CFI scores of

high school principals. Correlation statistically significant at p < .05 are indicated by an

asterisk.



TABLE 2

Principals’ Perceptions and Expectations on ASCA standards *=significance

Function

Number

Function Correlation

Coefficient

Significance

1 Assisting students in selecting high school

courses.

.793 .000*

3 Providing information about individual

students to colleges at which the student has

applied.

.899 .000*


academic failures.

.552 .000*

6 Counseling with potential dropouts. .649 .000*


learning difficulties.

.753 .000*


military service.

.940 .000*

9 Counseling with students in regard to

educational and vocational plans.

.792 .000*

10 Providing the student an opportunity to

“talk through his problems.”

.403 .000*

11 Counseling with professional staff in regard

to school problems.

.784 .000*


personal decisions.

.752 .000*

13 Evaluating students’ adjustment to school .716 .000*




environment.14 Conducting follow-up studies of students

counseled by guidance personnel.

.637 .000*

15 Evaluating student adjustment to curriculum

choices.

.185 .500

17 Planning orientation activities for entering

freshmen.

.779 .000*

19 Scheduling new students. .414 .000*

20 Conducting follow-up of new students to

determine adjustment to school

environment.

.173 .066

21 Conducting follow-up of new students to

determine academic adjustment to school.

.069 .470

24 Planning case conferences involving parents

and teachers.

.705 .000*

25 Checking credits for graduation and college

entrance.

.461 .462

26 Writing letters of reference. .969 .000*

27 Providing occupational information. .617 .000*

28 Providing college information. .903 .000*29 Providing information concerning study

habits.

.781 .000*

30 Providing information concerning personal

and social needs.

.824 .000*

32 Providing information on community

referral resources.

.829 .000*

33 Assisting students with vocational plans. .780 .000*34 Assisting students with college plans. .829 .000*

40 Compiling faculty newsletter pertaining to .905 .000*




school program.42 Planning assembly programs. .720 .000*

Of the 42 functions on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI), 29 of them were

congruent with the ASCA standards. Four of the 29 functions was not significant;

evaluating student adjustment to curriculum choices (p = .500), conducting follow-up of

new students to determine adjustment to school environment (p = .066), conducting

follow-up of new students to determine academic adjustment to school (p = .470), and

checking credits for graduation and college entrance (p = .462). Principals’ perceptions

and expectations of these functions are in agreement about whether or not they are being

done or should be done.

The other 25 were significant (p < .05). The 25 functions have a positive

correlation between the high school principals’ perceptions and expectations. This

suggests that high school principals are virtually not in agreement about the functions

they perceive counselors are performing and the functions they expect them to perform.

There is a statistically significant difference between the reported actions, and what they

think the actions should be.

To answer questions three and four an independent sample t-test was run at the

p = .05 level with the CFI scores as the dependent variables. Due to the fact that

statements are equal in their impact on a respondent’s total score, total scale scores were

used in determining the expectation scores (Huck, 2000). The total scale score for each

counselor and principal was calculated by adding all the item scores on the CFI. The

assumption was that the Likert scale had values that were evenly spaced on the scale.



The continuous scores were totaled to give a total scale score because the values range

from high to low (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). By assuming that the data were evenly

spaced, it is also assumed that the data is interval. According to Thompson (2006) many

statisticians postulate that Likert scale data should be treated as interval data because the

data is being used to approximate scaled data.

Research Question 3

Is there a significant difference between high school counselors’ and principals’

expectation total scores on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI) as it relates to the


Ho3: There is no statistically significant difference between high school

counselors’ and principals’ expectation scores on the Counselor Function Inventory

(CFI) as it relates to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) standards.

In this study, it was hypothesized that there is no significant difference between

high school counselors’ and principals’ expectation scores on the Counselor Function

Inventory (CFI) as it relates to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA)

standards. For equal variances assumed (p = .809), group statistics and t-test result for

expectations indicate the following:

TABLE 3

Group Statistics



Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference between high school

counselors’ and principals’ perception scores on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI)

as it relates to the American School Counselor (ASCA) standards.

In this study, it was hypothesized that there is no significant difference between

high school counselors’ and principals’ perception scores on the Counselor Function


standards. For equal variances assumed (p = .757), group statistics and t-test result for

perceptions indicate the following:

TABLE 5

Group Statistics

Perceptions N Mean Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Counselors 136 57.82 13.837 1.186

Principals 113 63.79 13.766 1.295

TABLE 6

Counselor and Principal Perceptions

t df Sig.(2-tailed) Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

3.394 247 .001 5.964 1.757

There is a statistically significant difference (t = 3.39, p < .05) between high

school counselors’ perception scores and principals’ perception scores; therefore, the

null is rejected. This would suggest that high school counselors and high school

principals do not agree on the functions that high school counselors are actually



performing. It appears high school counselors and principals have varying opinions on

the perceived job duties of high school counselors and they are not agreed upon.

Research Question 5

What are the most important functions of the high school counselor as perceived


At the end of the survey participants ranked 10 statements from the inventory,

from most important to least important, that are most relevant to the position of a high

school counselor at a 5A high school in Texas. In the top 10 listings, only one was not in

agreement with the national standards; the eleventh option was in agreement with the

ASCA standards. Scheduling students in classes was ranked as the ninth most important

function for a school counselor but is not congruent with ASCA standards.

Table 5 reflects the most important functions of the school counselor as

perceived by the high school principal and counselor based on the ASCA standard. The

response percentage was determined by total number of rankings, divided by total

rankings possible, and then multiplied by 100 to obtain the percentage.



TABLE 5

The most important functions based on the ASCA standards *=significance

Function Response Percentage

1. Assisting students in selecting high school courses. 80.3%2. Providing the student an opportunity to “talk though his

problems.”

79.1%

3. Counseling with potential dropouts. 71.5%4. Counseling with students concerning academic failures. 69.9%

5. Counseling with students in regard to educational and

vocational plans.

61.0%

6. Checking credits for graduation and college entrance. 60.6%

7. Counseling with students concerning personal

decisions.

54.6%

8. Providing college information. 41.0%

9. Assisting students with college plans. 34.5%10. Scheduling new students. 30.1%

Assisting students in selecting high school courses was ranked as the most

important function performed by a high school counselor. This was determined by high

school principals and counselors; with a score of 80.3% Scheduling new students was

ranked as the least important function performed by high school counselors from the CFI



by high school principals and counselors. The percentage of principals and counselors

that determined this ranking is 30.1%.

Summary

High school counselors and principals do not agree among themselves about the

functions counselors should be performing and actually perform. High school counselors

and principals agree with each other about the functions counselors should be

performing. However, high school counselors and principals are in disagreement about

the functions counselors are actually performing. In response to the fifth research

question, principals and counselors listed their perceptions of the 10 most important

functions of a high school counselor in Texas that are congruent with the national

standards. Chapter V offers a summary of research, summary of findings, implications,

applications, conclusions, and recommendations for future research.



CHAPTER V

Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations

This chapter is comprised of six sections: summary of research, summary of

findings, implications, applications, conclusions, and recommendations for future

research. An overview of the study, a review of the statistical analysis, conclusions

based on the findings for each question, the implications of the results, applications for

findings, and suggestions for future research will be presented.

Summary of Research

The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of high school

principals and high school counselors about the role of the high school counselor. The

research questions were answered through the responses of Texas 5A high school

principals and counselors from the modified CFI; the response rate was 51.66%. The

significance of the study was to indicate the agreement, or disagreement, between high

school principals and counselors regarding the functions that counselors should perform

in relation to the ASCA standards. A better understanding will allow for a more

collaborative effort in developing, and implementing, a comprehensive school guidance

and counseling program.

Summary of Findings

Research Question 1: There is a statistically significant correlation between high

school counselors’ perceptions and expectations on the Counselor Function Inventory

(CFI) scores as it relates to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA)

standards.



Of the 42 functions on the Counselor Function Inventory (CFI), 29 of them were

congruent with the ASCA standards. Twenty-eight of the 29 functions were significant

(p < .05). The function that was not significant was checking credits for graduation and

college entrance (p = .462). These results indicate that high school counselors are not in

agreement with each other about the functions that are actually being performed and the

functions that should be performed at work. All of the functions tested are congruent

with the national standards and it is possible to infer that counselors are unclear about

which functions ASCA has specified to promote a comprehensive school guidance and

counseling program. The results from this study may be an indicator of what Bemak and

Chung (2008) found counselors want to please those they work with that they tend to

back away from roles that may cause conflict on the campus. If the counselors’ roles are

not clearly defined, much confusion and dissention can set in. According to Scarborough

& Culbreth (2008) experience also plays a part of what counselors do and should do.

Nelson, Robles-Pina, and Nichter (2008) found that counselors with 10 or more years

experience have a better understanding of nationally defined expectations. Younger

counselors may cause the disagreement about the counselors’ role on a campus if they

are not familiar with ASCA.

Research Question 2: There is a statistically significant correlation between high

school principals’ perceptions and expectations on the Counselor Function Inventory

(CFI) scores as it relates to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA)

standards.



Twenty-five of the 29 functions were significant (p < .05). The four functions

that were not significant were: evaluating student adjustment to curriculum choices (p = .

500), conducting follow-up of new students to determine adjustment to school

environment (p = .066), conducting follow-up of new students to determine academic

adjustment to school (p = .470), and checking credits for graduation and college entrance

(p = .462). High school principals are not in agreement with each other about the

functions that counselors should be doing and actually are doing at work. These

standards are all congruent with ASCA.

Principals may not agree about the functions of a high school counselor because

they may be unfamiliar with the expectations and perceptions of the national standards.

Opinions of the counselor’s role may vary due to the everyday needs of the individual

campus (Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005). Disagreement can also be based upon individual

duties. Some duties may be deemed more important than others. Amatea and Clark

(2005) found that the disagreements between principals could possibly come in many

forms. Some principals do not agree with the value of the work responsibilities. The

varying opinions may come regarding the duties as a whole or individually depending on

the situation.

Research Question 3: There is no statistically significant difference between high

school counselors’ and principals’ expectations scores on the Counselor Function


standards. High school counselors and principals agree about the functions that high

school counselors should be performing.



that the most effective way for counselors to fulfill duties is to have a collaborative

relationship with the principal. When the principal has gained the knowledge and

understanding of the importance of the ASCA guidelines, the likelihood of the standards

being met increases. In another study conducted by Amatea and Clark (2005) it was

found that principals agree about the responsibilities of the counselor, but not the priority

those duties are given. This too, can cause turmoil between counselors and principals.

Research Question 5: What are the most important functions of the high school

counselor as perceived by the high school principal and counselor based on the ASCA

standards?

When principals and counselors were asked to list the top 10 most important

functions a counselor should perform, the first nine listings were all congruent with the

ASCA standards. Scheduling students in classes was listed as the ninth most important

function of a counselor, but is not congruent with the ASCA standards. The eleventh

function listed was also congruent with ASCA. As a reminder, the first nine functions

are listed and the eleventh function is listed as number ten:

1. Assisting student in selecting high school courses.

2. Providing the student an opportunity to “talk through his problems.”

3. Counseling with potential dropouts.

4. Counseling with students concerning academic failures.

5. Counseling with students in regard to educational and vocational plans.

6. Checking credits for graduation and college entrance.

7. Counseling with students concerning personal decisions.



8. Providing college information.

9. Assisting students with college plans.

10. Scheduling new students.

This leads to the belief that principals and counselors know what functions

counselors should be performing that are congruent with national standards. High school

principals and counselors knowing the role of the counselor in terms of national

standards is very positive and makes it easier for schools and districts to implement a

comprehensive guidance and counselor program. To have a better understanding of the

school counselors’ role, principals needs to embrace a complete comprehensive school

guidance and counseling program (McGlothin & Miller, 2008).

Implications

Maser’s 1971 study in Seattle, Washington revealed high agreement among

groups and between pairs of secondary principals, counselors, and teachers. These

groups share similar perceptions of the counselors’ functions. All groups demonstrated

agreement regarding the role of the school counselor.

As in Maser’s study, Johnson’s 1989 Florida study a high level of agreement was

found between what principals perceive counselors do and what they expect counselors

should do, and between what principals expect counselors should do and what

counselors expect counselors should do. A high level of agreement was also found

between what principals perceive counselors do and what counselors perceive

counselors do, and between what counselors perceive counselors do and what counselors



expect counselors should do. Basically, there seems to be similar opinion between, and

among, principals and counselors concerning job functions of the school counselor.

As in both studies done by Maser (1971) and Johnson (1989), Moore’s 1997

study in Southwestern Indiana found a high level of agreement between principals and

counselors for each of the four comparisons, which are: principal perception-counselor

perception, principal expectation-counselor expectation, principal perception-principal

expectation, and counselor perception-counselor expectation. Principals and counselors

tend to agree among themselves and with each other regarding the job duties of the

counselor.

According to role theory (Kahn et al., 1964), counselors must know what is

expected in order to perform job duties. When counselors are uncertain about job

expectations and perceptions, they too will find themselves not agreeing. The

disagreement principals have amongst themselves about the functions of the counselor

may stem from misunderstanding of how counselors’ education and the expectations set

forth by ASCA. Principals have varying opinions on what counselors’ duties entail.

Therefore, counselors may develop job survival skills to avoid conflict as well as

frustration with their job. Given that the job duties are unclear, counselors have

conformed to the role that principals expect in order to find job satisfaction. Given how

counselors are trained and the guidelines created by ASCA detail the counselors’ job

role, most campuses do not use counselors to the initial intent of the position. Many

counselors find themselves bogged down with schedule changes and paperwork; not a

lot of counseling. One might wonder if more individual counseling was happening



would the achievement gap be impacted. Since principals steer the campus, they drive

the duties of the counselors and counseling programs. Without proper knowledge of

national and state expectations, counselors are not used to their full potential and

students are not served to the fullest capacity.

Applications

Implementing a complete comprehensive school guidance and counseling

program can enhance the academics on a high school campus. It is possible to raise

achievement if counseling students is done with research-based strategies (Webb et al.,

2005). There is disagreement among and between counselors and principals regarding

the functions that should be performed and are actually performed. Counselors and

principals finding agreement on the expectations of what should be done on a daily basis

most likely comes from the practical issues a campus must perform daily. It is

imperative for counselors and principals to come to a place where they agree with each

other about the duties of the high school counselor and how the national standards are

involved. ASCA has outlined steps for states to use as a reference in creating a complete

comprehensive guidance and counseling program. High school principals and counselors

should come together, with standards in hand, to create a guidance and counseling

program that is appropriate according to state and national guidelines and increases

student achievement. It is also imperative that an accountability system is put into place

to ensure the program is working, and to keep counselors working in the most efficient

way. In order for principals to support the role of the counselor there must be clarity and

understanding of the role, as well as trust and communication (Ponec & Brock, 2000).



Conclusions

Neither counselors nor principals are in agreement regarding the functions that

are set forth by ASCA. With both of these groups having varying opinions, it would be

easy to understand the difficulty is defining a counselor’s role. These disconnects can

cause role confusion for high school counselors. The principal is responsible for running

a campus and this includes the duties of the counselor. Counselors and principals agree

with what counselors should be doing, but not with what they actually do. Referring to

the ASCA standards may alleviate some of the gaps for what a counselor should do and

actually do on a campus. It is imperative for principals to have communication with

counselors regarding campus expectations and perceptions.

Lastly, principals and counselors rated functions that were most important to

least important that were congruent with the national standards, demonstrating an

understanding from both parties about the role of the high school counselor. Campus

principals need to involve their counselors when making decisions regarding the

guidance and counseling program. Ideally, working together will allow for a more

collaborative relationship and increase communication. With increased communication

counselor job duties can be more clearly defined. Clarity will reduce job anxiety giving

counselors a sense of purpose. In the end, the goal of the campus is to increase student

performance by enhancing the guidance and counseling program.

Recommendations for Future Research

Recommendations for future studies include:



Agresta, J. (2004). Professional role perceptions of school social workers, psychologists,

and counselors. Children and School, 26 , 151-163. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Aluede, O., & Imonikhe, J. S. (2002). Secondary school students' and teachers'

perceptions of the role of the school counselor. Guidance and Counseling, 17 ,

46-50. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Amatea, E. S., & Clark, M. A. (2005). Changing schools, changing counselors: A

qualitative study of school administrators' conceptions of the school counselor

role. Professional School Counselor, 9, 16-27. Retrieved from

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/Journals

Amatea, E. S., & West-Olatunji, C. A. (2007). Joining the conversation about educating

our poorest children: Emerging leadership roles for school counselors in high-

poverty schools. Professional School Counselor, 11, 81-89. Retrieved from


American School Counselor Association. (1967). Counselor Function Inventory (CFI).

School Counselor, 15, 130-133.

American School Counselor Association (2003, February). The ASCA National Model:

A framework for school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling,

3, 165-168. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

American School Counselor Association (2004). The role of the professional school

counselor . Retrieved http://www.schoolcounselor.org



Beesley, D. (2004). Teachers' perceptions of school counselor effectiveness:

collaborating for student success. Education, 125, 259-270. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.

Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C.-Y. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies

for school counselors: A multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond

the nice counselor syndrome. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 372-

382.

Brewer, J. (1932). Education as guidance. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Brigman, G., & Campbell, C. (2003). Helping students improve academic achievement

and school success behavior. Professional School Counseling, 7 , 91-98.

Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Burnham, J. J., & Jackson, C. M. (2000). School counselor roles: Discrepancies between

actual practice and existing models. Professional School Counseling, 4, 41-49.


Carey, J., Harrity, J., & Dimmitt, C. (2005). The development of a self-assessment

instrument to measure a school district's readiness to implement the ASCA

National Model. Professional School Counseling, 8, 305-312. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.

Chata, C. C., & Loesch, L. C. (2007). Future school principals' views of the roles of

professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11, 35-41.




Clark, M. A., & Amatea, E. (2004). Teacher perceptions and expectations of school

counselor contributions: Implications for program planning and training.

Professional School Counseling , 8, 132-140. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Coll, K. M., & Freeman, B. (1997). Role conflict among elementary school counselors:

A national comparison with middle and secondary school counselors.

Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 251-261. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.

Coll, K. M., & Rice, R. L. (1993). Role conflict among community college counselors.

Community College Review, 21, 58-65. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Curry, J., & Lambie, G.W. (2007). Enhancing school counselor accountability: The large

group guidance portfolio. Professional School Counseling, 11, 145-148.


Dahir, C., Burnham, J., & Stone, C. (2009). Listen to the voices: School counselors and

comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 12,


Dahir, C., & Stone, C. (2003). Accountability: A M.E.A.S.U.R.E of the impact school

counselors have on student achievement. Professional School Counseling, 6,


Dahir, C., & Stone, C. (2009). School counselor accountability: The path to social justice

and systemic change. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87, 12-20.




Dollarhide, C. T., Smith, A. T., & Lemberger, M. E. (2007). Critical incidents in the

development of supportive principals: Facilitating school counselor-principal

relationships. Professional School Counseling, 10, 360-369. Retrieved from

http://wilsonweb.com

Eschenauer, R., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2005). The transformative individual school

counseling model: An accountability model for urban school counselors.

Professional School Counseling, 8, 244-248. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Falls, L. & Nichter, M. (2007). High school counselor's lived experiences of burnout: A

phenomenological study. Professional School Counseling, 5, 47-55. Retrieved

from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v5n13.pdf.

Fitch, T., Newby, E., Ballestero, V., & Marshall, J. L. (2001). Counselor preparation:

Future school administrators' perceptions of the school counselor's role.

[Electronic version]. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 89-99.

Foster, L. H., Young, J. S., & Hermann, M. (2005). The work activities of professional

school counselors: Are the national standards being addressed? Professional

School Counseling, 8, 313-321. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research (8th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ginter, E. J. (2002). Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD) and counseling's

interwoven nature: Achieving a more complete understanding of the present

through "historization" (musings of an exiting editor-an editorial postscript).



Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 219-222. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.

Gladding, S. T. (2000). Counseling a comprehensive profession (4th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2000). Developing and managing your school

guidance program (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing changes: Patterns, principles, and

potholes, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Herr, E. L. (2003). Historical roots and future issues. In B. T. Erford (Ed.),

Transforming the school counseling profession (21-38). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill Prentice Hall.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. & Mitchell, N. (2005). A descriptive study of urban school

counseling programs. Professional School Counselor, 8, 203-208. Retrieved

from EBSCOHost database.

Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Longman, Inc.

Isaacs, M. L. (2003). Data-driven decision making: The engine of accountability.

Professional School Counseling, 6 , 288-295. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Johnson, T. H. (1989). An analysis of senior high school guidance counselor role

perceptions and expectations by high school principals and guidance counselors



in Florida school districts (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 8917455).

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. D. (1964). Organizational stress:

Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaplan, L. S. (1995). Principals versus counselors: Resolving tensions from different

practice models. School Counselor, 42, 261-267. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Kirchner, G. L., & Setchfield, M. S. (2005). School counselors' and school principals'

perceptions of the school counselor's role. [Electronic version]. Education, 126 ,

10-16.

Knapper, E. Q. (1978). Counselor accountability. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 126 ,

27-30.

Leuwerke, W. C., Walker, J., & Shi, Q. (2009). Informing principals: The impact of

different types of information on principals' perceptions of professional school

counselors. Professional School Counselor, 12, 263-271.

Levitt, D. H., & Jacques, J. D. (2005). Promoting tolerance for ambiguity in counselor

training programs. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and

Development, 44, 46-54. Retrieved from


Lieberman, A. (2004). Confusion regarding school counselor functions: School

leadership impacts role clarity. Education, 124, 552-558.



Maser, A. L. (1971). Counselor function in secondary schools. The School Counselor,

12, 367-372.

McGlothlin, J. M., & Miller, L. G. (2008). Hiring effective secondary school counselors.

NASSP Bulletin, 92, 61-72.

Monteiro-Leitner, J., Asner-Self, K. K., Milde, C., Leitner, D. W., & Skelton, D. (2006).

The role of the rural school counselor: Counselor, counselor-in-training, and

principal perceptions. Professional School Counseling, 9, 248-251. Retrieved

from EBSCOHost database.

Moore, L. G. (1997). An analysis of existing and ideal guidance counselor roles as

perceived by high school principals and counselors in southwestern Indiana

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database (UMI No. 9724573).

Myrick, R. D. (2003). Accountability: Counselors count. Professional School

Counseling, 6 , 174-179. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003, August). High school guidance and

counseling . Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2003015/3.asp

Nelson, J., Robles-Pina, R., & Nichter, M. (2008). An analysis of Texas high school

counselors' roles: actual and preferred counseling activities. Journal of

Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory and Research, 36 (1), 30-46..




Otwell, P.S., & Mullis, F. (1997). Academic achievement and counselor accountability.

Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 343-348. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.

Perrone, K. M., Webb, L. K., & Blalock, R. H. (2005). The effects of role congruence

and role conflict on work, marital, and life satisfaction. Journal of Career

Development, 31, 225-238. Retrieved from


Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of school

counselors and school principals about the national standards for school

counseling programs and the transforming school counseling initiative.

Professional School Counseling, 7 , 152-161. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Ponec, D. L., & Brock, B. L. (2000). Relationships among elementary school counselors

and principals: A unique bond. Professional School Counseling, 3, 208-217.

Retrieved from EBSCOHost Academic Search Premier database.

Pope, M., & Sveinsdottir, M. (2005). Frank, we hardly knew ye: The very personal side

of Frank Parsons. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 105-115.


Poynton, T. A., Schumacher, R. A., & Wilczenski, F. L. (2008). School counselors’

attitudes regarding statewide comprehensive developmental guidance model

implementation. Professional School Counseling, 11, 417-422. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.



Ribak-Rosenthal, N. (1994). Reasons individuals become school administrators, school

counselors, and teachers. School Counselor, 41, 158-160. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.

Ritz, J. (2006). Technology and engineering are both addressed through technology

education. The Technology Teacher, 66 , 19-21. Retrieved from EBSCOHost

database.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in

complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org

Ross, W., & Herrington, D. (2005-2006). A comparative study of pre-professional

counselor/principal perceptions of the role of the counselor in public schools.

National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal-

Electronic, 23. Retrieved from http://www.nationalforum.com

Sabella, R. A. (2006). The ASCA national school counseling research center: A brief

history and agenda. Professional School Counseling, 9, 412-415.

Scarborough, J. L., & Culbreth, J. R. (2002). Examining discrepancies between actual

and preferred practice of school counselors. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 86 , 446-459.

Schwallie-Giddis, P., ter Maat, M., & Pak, M. (2003). Initiating leadership by

introducing and implementing the ASCA National Model. Professional School

Counseling , 6 (3), 170-174. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.



Shumake, G. F., & Oelke, M. C. (1967). Counselor function inventory. The School

Counselor, 15, 130-133.

Sink, C. A., & Spencer, L. R. (2007). Teacher version of the my class inventory-short

form: An accountability tool for elementary school counselors. Professional

School Counseling, 11, 129-139. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 239.15 (2009).

Texas Counseling Association (TCA) (2004). A model comprehensive, developmental

guidance and counseling program for Texas public schools: A guide for program

development pre-k—12th grade. Austin, TX. Texas Education Agency (TEA).

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 11.202(a) (Thompson/West 2007).

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §33.005 (Thomson/West 2007).

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §33.007 (Thomson/West 2007).

Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics an insight-based approach.

New York, NY. The Guliford Press.

University Interscholastic League (2007). Official alignments and reclassification

information. Retrieved from http://www.uil.utexas.edu/2007align/index.html

Vernon, M., Bussey, P., & Day, D. (1979). The “closure system” and accountability in

vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 4, 45-47.

Walsh, M. E., Barrett, J. G., & DePaul, J. (2007). Day-to-day activities of school

counselors: Alignment with new directions in the field and the ASCA National

Model. Professional School Counseling, 4, 370-378. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database.



Webb, L. D., Brigman, G. A., & Campbell, C. (2005). Linking school counselors and

student success: A replication of the student success skills approach targeting the

academic social competence of students. Professional School Counseling, 8, 407-

413. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

White, F. (2007). The Professional School Counselor's Challenge: Accountability.

Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory and Research, 35(2), 62-

70. Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Zalaquett, C. P. (2005). Principals' perceptions of elementary school counselors' role and

functions. Professional School Counseling, 8, 451-457. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost database

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A ORIGINAL “COUNSELOR FUNCTION INVENTORY”

Shumake, G. F., & Oelke, M. C. (1967). Counselor function inventory. The School Counselor 15. 130-133.

DIRECTIONS: Respond to each of the following items by writing in the number 1, 2, 3,4, or 5 as described here.

1—The counselor should personally perform this function.

2—The counselor should have primary responsibility for this function, although he may

not personally perform the function.3—The counselor should share with other groups in planning and performing this

function, but he does not have primary responsibility for function.

4—The counselor should serve as a consultant in this function only upon request.5—The counselor should have no direct responsibility for this function.

_____1. Assisting student in selecting high school courses. _____2. Scheduling students in classes.

_____3. Placing students in part-time and summer jobs.

_____4. Placing students in permanent jobs.



_____5. Arranging course transfers for students within the school.

_____6. Providing information about individual students to potential employers. _____7. Providing information about individual students to colleges at which the student

has applied.

_____8. Making the decisions concerning special grouping of students. _____9. Assisting student in the selection of extra-curricular activities.

____10. Sending and receiving transcripts to and from other high schools.

____11. Counseling with students concerning academic failures. ____12. Counseling with potential dropouts.

____13. Counseling with students in evaluating personal assets and limitations.

____14. Counseling with students concerning learning difficulties.

____15. Counseling with students in their development of special abilities. ____16. Counseling with students concerning discrepancy between ambitions and

abilities.

____17. Counseling with students concerning military service.

____18. Counseling with students in regard to educational and vocational plans. ____19. Providing the student an opportunity to “talk through his problems.”

____20. Counseling with professional staff in regard to school problems. ____21. Counseling with students concerning personal decisions.

____22. Conducting follow-up studies of graduates.

____23. Conducting follow-up studies of dropouts. ____24. Evaluating students’ adjustment to school environment.

____25. Evaluating student achievement as compared to capacity.

____26. Evaluating effectiveness of extra-curricular activities in meeting student needs.

____27. Conducting follow-up studies of students counseled by guidance personnel. ____28. Evaluating student adjustment to curriculum choices.

____29. Preparing an analysis of grades given each year by faculty. ____30. Evaluating effectiveness of school curriculum in meeting students’ academic

and social needs.

____31. Conducting follow-up studies to consider effectiveness of homework.

____32. Planning orientation activities for entering freshmen. ____33. Registering new students.

____34. Planning orientation for students transferring from another high school.

____35. Conducting orientation conferences for new teachers.

____36. Scheduling new students. ____37. Preparing handbook of school rules and policies for distribution.

____38. Conducting follow-up of new students to determine adjustment to school

environment. ____39. Conducting follow-up of new students to determine academic adjustment to

school.

____40. Maintaining permanent records. ____41. Organizing school testing program.

____42. Administering standardization tests.

____43. Organizing the use of test results by faculty and administration.



____44. Identifying exceptional children.

____45. Visiting homes to confer with parents. ____46. Planning case conferences involving parents and teachers.

____47. Conducting a study of a student’s out-of-school experiences.

____48. Assisting teachers in diagnosing learning difficulties of students. ____49. Administering the program for reporting pupil progress to parents.

____50. Checking credits for graduation and college entrance.

____51. Writing letters of reference. ____52. Accumulating personality data on students.

____53. Providing occupational information.

____54. Providing college information.

____55. Providing information concerning study habits. ____56. Providing information concerning personal and social needs.

____57. Providing scholarship information.

____58. Providing information on child labor laws and work permits.

____59. Providing information on economic conditions related to future employmentand education.

____60. Providing information on community referral resources. ____61. Assisting students with vocational plans.

____62. Assisting students with college plans.

____63. Teaching courses on occupational development. ____64. Conducting community surveys to determine occupational opportunities.

____65. Planning college night programs.

____66. Planning career day programs.

____67. Coordinating the school audio-visual service. ____68. Making decisions concerning student disciplinary action.

____69. Teaching academic courses other than group guidance courses. ____70. Selecting and revising curriculum content. ____71. Working with students who are delinquent in attendance.

____72. Coordinating remedial work for students.

____73. Planning PTA activities and programs. ____74. Compiling faculty newsletter pertaining to school program.

____75. Ordering school supplies and equipment.

____76. Preparing school information for distribution to public communication media.

____77. Planning assembly programs.



APPENDIX B – MODIFIED “COUNSELOR FUNCTION INVENTORY”

Please record your appropriate rating of the counselor role or function using the

following rating criteria for Column A and Column B. DIRECTIONS: Respond to each of the following items by writing in the number 1, 2, 3,

4, or 5 in Column A and Column B as described here. Each of the 42 items should berated in both Column A and Column B.

“Does”=the actual functions the school counselor is performing.

“Should Do”=the functions the school counselor should perform.

1-The counselor does/should personally perform this function.2-The counselor does/should have primary responsibility for this function, although he


3-The counselor does/should share with other groups in planning and performing thisfunction, but he does not have primary responsibility for function.

4-The counselor does/should serve as a consultant in this function only upon request.

5-The counselor does/should have no direct responsibility for this function.

“Does” “Should Do”

Column A Column B

_________ 1. Assisting student in selecting high school courses. __________



_________ 2. Scheduling students in classes. ___________

___ 3. Providing information about individual students to _____

colleges at which the student has applied.

_________ 4. Sending and receiving transcripts to and from other ___________

high schools.

_________ 5. Counseling with students concerning academic ___________

failures.

_________ 6. Counseling with potential dropouts. ___________

_________ 7. Counseling with students concerning learning ___________

difficulties.

_________ 8. Counseling with students concerning military service. ___________

_________ 9. Counseling with students in regard to educational ___________

and vocational plans.




4-The counselor does/should serve as a consultant in this function only upon request.5-The counselor does/should have no direct responsibility for this function.


Column A COLUMN B

_________ 10. Providing the student an opportunity to “talk ___________

through his problems.”

_________ 11. Counseling with professional staff in regard to ___________

school problems.

_________ 12. Counseling with students concerning personal ___________

decisions.

_________ 13. Evaluating students’ adjustment to school ___________ environment.



_________ 14. Conducting follow-up studies of students counseled ___________

by guidance personnel.

_________ 15. Evaluating student adjustment to curriculum choices. ___________

_________ 16. Evaluating effectiveness of school curriculum in ___________

meeting students’ academic and social needs.

_________ 17. Planning orientation activities for entering freshmen. ___________

_________ 18. Registering new students. ___________

_________ 19. Scheduling new students. ___________

_________ 20. Conducting follow-up of new students to determine ___________

adjustment to school environment.

_________ 21. Conducting follow-up of new students to determine ___________ academic adjustment to school.

_________ 22. Organizing school testing program. ___________






Column A COLUMN B

_________ 23. Administering standardization tests. ___________

_________ 24. Planning case conferences involving parents and ___________ teachers.

_________ 25. Checking credits for graduation and college entrance. ___________

_________ 26. Writing letters of reference. ___________

_________ 27. Providing occupational information. ___________

_________ 28. Providing college information. ___________



_________ 29. Providing information concerning study habits. ___________

_________ 30. Providing information concerning personal and ___________

social needs.

_________ 31. Providing scholarship information. ___________

_________ 32. Providing information on community referral ___________

resources.

_________ 33. Assisting students with vocational plans. ___________

_________ 34. Assisting students with college plans. ___________

_________ 35. Planning college night programs. ___________

_________ 36. Planning career day programs. ___________

_________ 37. Making decisions concerning student discipline. ___________






Column A COLUMN B

_________ 38. Teaching academic courses other than group ___________

guidance courses.

_________ 39. Working with students who are delinquent in ___________

attendance.

_________ 40. Compiling faculty newsletter pertaining to school ___________

program.

_________ 41. Ordering school supplies and equipment. ___________

_________ 42. Planning assembly programs. ___________



List ten statements from this inventory, from most important to least important, that youthink are most relevant to the position of a high school counselor.

1. _________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________

3. _________________________________________________________________

4. _________________________________________________________________ 5. _________________________________________________________________

6. _________________________________________________________________

7. _________________________________________________________________

8. _________________________________________________________________ 9. _________________________________________________________________

10. _________________________________________________________________

Position____________________________

School_____________________________

APPENDIX C – PRINCIPAL/COUNSELOR INSTRUCTION LETTER

Dear Principal/Counselor,

It is an absolute pleasure for me to contact you. My name is Desiree Skinner, and I am aPhD student in educational leadership at Prairie View A&M University/Member of theTexas A&M University System.

I am conducting research for a doctoral dissertation. I am investigating the difference in perception between high school principals and high school counselors about the role of

high school counselors.

Your prompt response to my survey is very important to my collecting data for mydissertation. All of your answers will be kept confidential and only used in my study.

Once I receive the consent form back I will email you with a link to SurveyMonkey.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at: 979-324-7582. You

may also email me at: [email protected].

Thank you very much for your time and help.



Sincerely,

Desiree A. Skinner

PhD Student in Educational LeadershipPrairie View A&M University

Whitelowe R. Green College of Education

Prairie View, Texas 77446Counselor

Bryan Independent School District

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDProfessor and Dissertation Chair

PhD Program in Educational Leadership

Whitlowe R. Green College of Education

Prairie View A&M UniversityThe Texas A&M University System

Prairie View, Texas 77446

APPENDIX D - CONSENT FORM



You are invited to be in a research study of the perceptions of high school principals and

high school counselors about the role of high school counselors. You were selected as a possible participant because all head principals and lead counselors (or the counselor with the most experience) in Texas 5A high schools were chosen. We ask that you read

this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

This study is being conducted by: Desiree A. Skinner, PhD Student in Educational

Leadership at Prairie View University.

Background Information

The purpose of this study is: to describe the perceptions of high school principals and

high school counselors about the role of high school counselors. The research questions

will address the functions performed by school counselors and whether or not there isagreement between the principal and counselor. The study will also investigate if the

functions are in line with national standards or not.



If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to

someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact Marcia Shelton([email protected]) in the Compliance Office, Off ice for Research and

Development P.O. Box 519; MS 1200 Prairie View, Texas 77446 Phone936.261.1588 Fax 936.261.1550.

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. Iconsent to participate in the study.

Signature:_____________________________________________ Date: __________________

Principal/Lead Counselor Name:__________________________________________________

Principal/Lead Counselor Email:- _______________________________________________________

Signature of Investigator:___________________________________

Date: __________________

Please fax to 979-209-2572 or mail to:

Desiree Skinner

1801 Freestone Drive

College Station, TX 77845



APPENDIX E – IRB APPROVAL

Office of Research and Development Voice.936.261.1588Prairie View, Texas 77446-4149 FAX 936.261.1599Anderson Hall, Room 104 [email protected]

Institutional Biosafety Committee Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Institutional Review

Board

DATE: July 21, 2008MEMORANDUMTO: Desiree Skinner, principal investigator – doctoral candidate, dissertation

William A. Kritsonis, advisor/chairFROM: Marcia C. Shelton, director, research complianceSUBJECT: Initial Review and Determination

PROTOCOL NUMBER: 2008-0701-105

TITLE: High School Counselors” Role as Perceived by High School Principals and

Counselors in TexasREVIEW CATEGORY: Exempt – Reviewer M. C. Shelton – signature on originalAPPROVAL PERIOD: July 14, 2008 through July 13, 2009

Approval determination was based on the following Code of Federal Regulations:

45 CFR 46.110 (b) (1) – Some or all of the research appearing on the list and found by the

reviewer(s) involve no more than minimal risk.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



(7) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and

social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation,

human factors evaluation or quality assurance methodologies.

(Note: Some research in this category may be exempt from the HHS regulations for the protection of

human subjects. 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (2) and (b) (3). This listing refers only to research that is not exempt.)

Provisions: Funding Source: none

This research project has been approved for one (1) year. As principal investigator, you assume the

following responsibilities:

1. Continuing Review: The protocol must be renewed each year in order to continue with the

research project. A Continuing Review along with required documents must be submitted 30 days

before the end of the approval period. Failure to do so may result in processing delays and/or non-renewal.

2. Completion Report: Upon completion of the research project (including data analysis and final

written papers), a Completion Report must be submitted to the IRB Office.

3. Adverse Events: Adverse events must be reported to the IRB Office immediately.

4. Amendments: Changes to the protocol must be requested by submitting an Amendment to the

IRB Office for review. The Amendment must be approved by the IRB before being implemented.

5. Informed Consent: Information must be presented to enable persons to

voluntarily decide whether or not to participate in the research project.

dr. desiree skinner, dissertation, dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation chair

Documents