Raising achievement test scores of early elementary school students through comprehensive school counseling programs

Professional School Counseling, June, 2003 by Christopher A. Sink, Heather R. Stroh

While the trajectory of institutional change tends to be more gradual in American education, elementary and secondary schools have not been immune to the accelerating pace of societal evolution (e.g., socio-technological advances or changes in the family structure). Moreover, the publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and the subsequent passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (U.S. Congress, 1994), have further hastened the pace of school reorganization and reform already underway in various states. Genuine modifications, however, to the industrial model of schooling and traditional pedagogy are often times difficult to detect, especially in secondary buildings (Herr, 2002), and educational scholars and pundits remain unconvinced that American schools will ever truly remake themselves for the better (e.g., Kinsler & Gamble, 2001; McNeil, 2000).

During the past two or so decades, the school counseling profession has transitioned through a reorganizational process as well, with its traditional emphases yielding to a more broad-based structure of assisting schoolchildren and their caregivers (see Erford, House, & Martin, 2003; Gysbers, 2001; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; MacDonald & Sink, 1999; Sink, 2002; Sink & MacDonald, 1998, for further discussions). Paralleling to some extent school reform, the comprehensive school counseling movement introduced a programmatic orientation to working with students and their caregivers (American School Counselor Association, 2003; Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Dahir, 2001; Dahir, Sheldon, & Valiga, 1998; Gysbers; Gysbers & Henderson).

In order for school reform to be deemed efficacious, student performances in a variety of areas must demonstrate real improvement. Similarly, leading scholars in the school counseling profession have argued that counselors must show student growth across these developmental domains: academic, career, and personal-social (e.g., Adelman & Taylor, 2002; Gysbers, 2001; Herr, 2002; House & Hayes, 2002; Paisley & Hayes, 2003). To realize this difficult goal, schools need to realign their counseling interventions and services within the context of a comprehensive school counseling program or CSCP (Gysbers & Henderson, 2001; Lehr & Sumarah, 2002; Sink, 2002).

Over the past decade or so, this programmatic approach to school counseling has emerged as the most commonly deployed organizational structure for the profession (Sink & MacDonald, 1998), endorsed strongly by national leaders in the field and the professional guild, the American School Counselor Association (e.g., ASCA, 1997, 1999, 2003; Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Cobia & Henderson, 2003; Dahir, 2001; Dahir et al., 1998; Erford et al. 2003; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Myrick, 2003b; Schwallie-Giddis, ter Maat, & Pak, 2003; Wittmer, 2000a, 2000b). With the recent publication of The American School Counselor Association National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003) school counselors now possess a user-friendly blueprint to structure their work with students and their caregivers (Schwallie-Gaddis et al.).

LINKAGE BETWEEN COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAMS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

In keeping with Lapan's (2001) recent recommendations for CSCP evaluation, Green and Keys (2001) and others (e.g., Adelman & Taylor, 2002; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Whitfield, 1991; Myrick, 2003a; Schmidt, 2000) emphasized that school counseling programs (a) align their student targets with the goals of school reform, (b) use evidence-based best practices, and (c) report outcome-based data as way of ensuring accountability of their work with students and their caregivers.

Several prominent scholars in the school counseling profession have recommended that CSCPs should include results-based assessments, where school counseling program outcome data ought to be directly aimed at improving student learning (e.g., Gysbers, 2001; Lapan, 2001; Lapan, Kardash, & Turner, 2002; Paisley & Hayes, 2003). For instance, House and Martin (1998) and House and Hayes (2002), resonating with the positions of Green and Keys (2001) and Gysbers, called for school counselors to provide evidence that they positively impact student achievement and other relevant outcomes (see also Paisley & Hayes). Bemak (2000) pressed the issue a bit farther. He suggested that by revising school counselors' position descriptions to include the advancement of student academic achievement, the highly publicized performance gap among low income, disadvantaged pupils and other student groups would diminish. As if to put a exclamation point on the issue, a leading school counseling researcher and his colleagues (Lapan et al., 2002) posited, in the context of a CSCP: "By performing a more proactive leadership role in empowering students to become self-regulated learners, professional school counselors will both motivate young people to more fully realize their academic potential [italics added] ..." (p. 264).