The transformative individual school counseling model: an accountability model for urban school counselors

Professional School Counseling, Feb, 2005 by Robert Eschenauer, Stuart F. Chen-Hayes

The realities and needs of urban students, families, and educators have outgrown traditional individual counseling models. The American School Counselor Association's National Model and National Standards and the Education Trust's Transforming School Counseling Initiative encourage professional school counselors to shift roles toward implementing comprehensive developmental school counseling programs focused on systemic change to overcome institutional K-12 school barriers. This article reconceptualizes individual counseling as a collaborative act of advocacy and accountability used by professional school counselors and researchers to close achievement and opportunity gaps. The Transformative Individual School Counseling model utilizes a functional behavioral assessment approach to define problems; systemic, solution-focused, and narrative counseling approaches to address problems; and single-case study designs to document the effectiveness of interventions.

**********

The profession of school counseling continues to evolve in its role in K-12 educational settings. The effort to redefine professional school counseling is evidenced by the American School Counselor Association's (ASCA) National Model and National Standards and the Education Trust's National Center for Transforming School Counseling initiatives. Also, these preceding initiatives were due, in part, to the increased calls for accountability in education and increased attention to the access, equity, and success for every student (ASCA, 2003; Bailey, Getch, & Chen-Hayes, 2003; Erford, House, & Martin, 2003; Green & Keys, 2001; Gysbers, 2001; Stone & Dahir, 2004). As a precursor to the changes in professional school counseling, the introduction of educational standards to improve curricula, raise achievement, and serve as a measure for the assessment of outcomes has changed the image and functioning of K-12 schools in the United States. As a result, the idea of aligning the professional identity of a school counseling program with the educational mission and philosophy of the school became critical, and educational goals became the focus of ASCA's National Model for School Counseling Programs (Dahir, 2001; Erford et al.; Green & Keys; Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Perusse & Goodnough, 2004).

Developing school counseling program accountability models has been addressed in the literature (Borders, 2002; Green & Keys, 2001; Hughes & James, 2001; Otwell & Mullis, 1997; Stone & Dahir, 2004). Accountability in the counseling profession, however, is not new. In 1970, Arbuckle wrote a seminal article that resulted in a spate of articles promoting accountability (Baker, 2001). What is unique about the current accountability mandate is the specificity of attention to academic outcomes (Carey & Boscardin, 2003; Colbert & Colbert, 2003; Green & Keys; Johnson, 2002; Perusse & Goodnough, 2004). The focus of this article, therefore, is to reconceptualize the role of individual counseling performed by urban professional school counselors as a tool to advocate for and demonstrate accountability in closing K-12 achievement and opportunity, gaps (Johnson).

THE SCOPE OF THE NEED FOR A NEW INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING MODEL IN URBAN SCHOOLS

Although individual counseling cannot meet the needs of all students in K-12 urban schools, it can remain a vital component of a school's comprehensive program (Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Myrick, 2003; Newsome & Gladding, 2003; Paisley & McMahon, 2001). There are a number of concerns, however, regarding individual counseling in the schools. These concerns include the overemphasis on individual counseling in K-12 schools, the lack of research data and accountability for individual counseling outcomes in K-12 school settings (Whiston, 2003; Whiston & Sexton, 1998), and how individual school counseling is conceptualized to address achievement and opportunity gaps. Burnham and Johnson (2000) suggested that there might be an overreliance on individual counseling because it is consistent with traditional counselor education training and/or because it is a convenient and comfortable way to work with students. However, in today's climate of accountability in urban schools, neither of these reasons is an adequate justification.

Individual counseling is part of a comprehensive counseling program that needs to be aligned closely with the educational mission and philosophy of K12 schools--educating all students to high levels of academic, career, and personal/social success. Within this framework, a greater emphasis is placed on interventions that benefit all students, such as group counseling and developmental school counseling lessons (Perusse & Goodnough, 2004). Individual counseling should be used when group counseling or developmental school counseling lessons are not appropriate. Providing an urban student with individual counseling during the school day lessens critical instructional time. In environments where high-stakes testing influences much of what occurs, teachers and administrators are justifiably reluctant to release students for activities that have not been empirically tested for effectiveness (Baker, 2001; Green & Keys, 2001).