A descriptive study of urban school counseling programs

Professional School Counseling, Feb, 2005 by Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, Natasha Mitchell

A descriptive study was implemented to determine how urban school counselors adhere to the Gysbers and Henderson (2000) and Myrick (1993) models of school counseling programs. One hundred and two & = 102) counselors in six urban centers (New York; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia; Washington, DC; Trenton, NJ," and Baltimore) completed the Urban School Counselor Questionnaire. The results indicated that urban school counselors participate in typical school counseling activities (e.g., counseling, consulting, coordinating) as prescribed by Gysbers and Henderson and Myrick. The participants in this study (i.e., urban school counselors) perceived low family functioning and academic achievement among the most prevalent issues in urban schools.

**********

Urban school counselors often are challenged by low student performance in reading and mathematics, high student mobility rates, chronic absenteeism, and unmet psychosocial development needs (Holcomb-McCoy, 2001). These issues often are exacerbated by school counselors' need to balance the competing priorities of the school, the community, and the central office. Because of these challenges in urban schools, school counseling programs that are balanced between intervention responses and proactive prevention programming are greatly needed. Utilizing a comprehensive and developmental school counseling model such as the Missouri Comprehensive Guidance Program model (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000) is an option when designing an urban school counseling program. Although many counselor education programs have taken steps to train pre-service counselors to develop comprehensive and developmental school counseling programs, little has been written about whether or not these types of programs are occurring in urban school settings.

Because urban school counseling has been explored in such a limited manner, the purpose of this current study was to explore the roles, functions, and perceptions of urban school counselors. We examined the roles and functions of urban school counselors by using the programmatic component of the Missouri model (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000) and Myrick's (1993) six interventions of developmental guidance. The programmatic component of the Missouri model consists of a guidance curriculum, individual planning, responsive services, and system support. The guidance curriculum consists of structured developmental experiences presented systematically through classroom activities to enhance students' mental health and acquisition of life skills. The curriculum is organized around career planning and exploration, knowledge of self and others, and educational development. The suggested time allotted to this component ranges from 15% at a minimum at the high school level to as much as 45% at the elementary level.

The individual planning component of the Missouri model consists of activities that help all students set goals, plan, and manage their own learning as well as their personal and career development. Individual planning can include advisement, assessment, placement, planning, and follow-up. These activities can encompass 5% to 35% of the counselor's time. Conversely, the responsive services component consists of activities to meet students' immediate needs and concerns. These services can be in the form of counseling, consultation, referral, or information sharing. The suggested time a counselor should spend on this component can range from 15% to as much as 40%. The system support component consists of management activities that establish, maintain, and enhance the guidance program as a whole. Professional development, staff and community relations, consultation with teachers, advisory councils, community outreach, program management, and research and development make up this component. System support requires 10% to 25% of a counselor's time.

Gysbers and Henderson (2000) referred to all tasks that do not fit in the four preceding major components as nonguidance activities. Gybers (1996) made no time allowance for nonguidance activities. However, he recommended that counselors develop a plan to eliminate all nonguidance-related activities from their role.

Another popular model that has been used to guide the structure of school counseling programs is Myrick's (1993) model. Myrick identified six counselor interventions or functions in which school counselors work: individual counseling, small group counseling, classroom guidance/large group guidance, consultation, coordination, and peer facilitation. He proposed that individual counseling should consume about 2 to 6 hours per week and be provided on a caseload basis for approximately 12 sessions. This is about 5% to 15% of the counselor's time. Myrick recommended that small group counseling be allotted 10% to 25% of a counselor's weekly time. Classroom guidance should take no more than 7% to 8% of a counselor's time, and no more than 7% of a counselor's time should be devoted to consultation. Myrick suggested flexibility and variability with the amount of time allotted to coordination and gave no specific percentage of time for this role. Peer facilitation or the training of students to help other students, according to Myrick, should receive a time commitment of 1 to 5 hours weekly. Myrick stated that the emphasis in developmental guidance programs is on prevention rather than remediation and that counselors should shift from a crisis-based orientation to a planned orientation.