In search of the profession's finest hour: a critique of four views of 21st century school counseling - response to Stan Baker and others, Professional School Counseling, vol. 5, p. 75, 84, 96, 106, December 2001

Professional School Counseling, Feb, 2002 by Christopher A. Sink

Given the steady progress of the school counseling profession over the years, one would expect to find several publications where the authors have discussed its stage-like trajectory, while concurrently providing insightful recommendations to guide its future direction. As I scanned the literature, a number of such commentaries were found (e.g., Bemak, 2000; Carroll, 1985; Drury, 1984; Forrest, 1984; Hays & Johnson, 1984; House & Martin, 1998; Mustaine & LaFountain, 1993). Quite recently four additional perspectives, meriting further discussion, were published in this journal (Baker, 2001; Green & Keys, 2001; Gysbers, 2001; Paisley & McMahon, 2001). In an attempt to critically review these "focus" articles, my aims are to: (a) contextualize my remarks for readers who are unfamiliar with my professional orientation; (b) comment on the publications' central themes in light of previous literature; and (c) recommend additional salient issues to be considered by school counselors.

A Point of Reference

In 1938, Helen Heffernan (as cited in Froehlich, 1958), an elementary school principal, appeared to suggest that the goal of education was inexorably tied to the work of contemporary school counselors. She stated:

   education must take the child where he is and help him to make increasingly
   more effective adjustments to his environment. The process by which
   education helps children to become happy, wholesome, self-controlled,
   self-directed, and socially minded persons is called guidance. The purposes
   of guidance and the purposes of education are identical because education
   is guidance. (p. 357)

This principal's educational outlook not only reflects, in part, my professional focus, but also is congruent with the developmental theories espoused (and used to support the work of school counselors) by such notable psychologists as Piaget, Erikson, Kohlberg, Maccoby, and others (Parke, Ornstein, Rieser, & Zahn-Waxler, 1994). Given that I work as a university-level counselor educator in a large, diverse, and urban city, I witness file need for school counselors (and educators) to assist students to become adaptable, self-regulated, mature, and healthy learners in a vibrant, pluralistic society.

To this end, however, I believe counselors must operate and be taught within a general organizing framework (i.e., a comprehensive guidance and counseling program). Examples are elucidated in the American School Counselor Association's (ASCA; 1997) position statement on comprehensive counseling programs, the National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Dahir, Sheldon, & Valiga, 1998), and Gysbers and Henderson's (e.g., 2000, 2001) publications. Furthermore, I reconceptualize (perhaps, too narrowly) contemporary school counselors as psychoeducational resource specialists within the context of a comprehensive program, where they assist students to reach various developmental outcomes using a wide array of systemic as well as targeted interventions (Sink, 2000). Counselors are not, therefore, the central fixtures in a school counseling program or the chief advocates for students and their caregivers; rather, they are highly educated, collaborative individuals who can effectively coordinate direct and indirect services as well as the available resources (e.g., school and community personnel, funding) required for students to thrive in the school environment and, hopefully, in the community. Obviously then, the consultative role is a significant aspect of the educative process. Succinctly stated, professional school counselors should be competent at mobilizing people in support of students and their caregivers; act as role models for students, staff, and family members; and serve as skilled program managers. Having outlined my perspective on the 21st Century school counselor, in the next section I respectfully critique articles published in the December 2001 issue of Professional School Counseling that focused on the profession.

Connecting and Disconnecting Themes

Interestingly, Gysbers (2001) and Baker (2001) centered their articles on a historical rendering of the profession, while Paisley and McMahon (2001) and Green and Keys (2001) seemed to take more a future-focused orientation. I consider each pair of articles below.

Since Gysbers and Baker have been seminal school counseling researchers for several decades, their longitudinal perspectives are quite informative. They have observed and contributed to the major shifts in the profession. By recounting the profession's evolution, I found myself nodding and largely agreeing with their analyses. For example, these scholars recommended, and appropriately so, that school counselors for years have failed to clearly define themselves; their roles were haphazardly articulated from state to state and school district to school district. Although, this issue continues to be hotly contested in the literature (e.g., Bemak, 2000; Burnham & Jackson, 2000; Coy, 1999; Paisley & Borders, 1995; Studer & Allton, 1996), I concur with both authors when they indicate that the emergence of developmental guidance and counseling in the 1970s and 1980s provided a central organizing structure for counselors and counselor educators to reframe their work.