4 - Nichter - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - DR. KRITSONIS

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009
ACTUAL AND PREFERRED COUNSELING

ACTIVITIES AS PERCEIVED BY
SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNSELORS
AND PRINCIPALS
Mary Nichter
Rebecca Robles-Piña
Judith Nelson
Sam Houston State University
ABSTRACT
This study noted differences in perceptions of secondary school principals (N = 230) and
school counselors (N = 775) regarding school counselors’ actual and preferred activities
regarding Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and Other. Both
principals and counselors reported that school counselors do not frequently or routinely
perform activities that ACSA has determined to be necessary for effectiveness in school
counseling. Statistically significant differences between principals and counselors on
actual duties performed were found for Curriculum with principals reporting that
counselors actually spend more time performing this activity than counselors reported.
Statistically significant differences were found between principals and counselors on the
following preferred activities: (a) Consultation with principals reporting preferring
counselors spend more time on this activity than counselors reported and (b) Other (non-
counseling duties) with principals reporting preferring counselors spend more time on
this activity than counselors reported.
P rincipals and school counselors must negotiate how to best use

school counselors to contribute to the overall performance of
educational systems. Effective use of school counselors’ time
has been defined by various professional organizations and researchers
in this area to include Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum,
Coordination and not include activities that fall into the Other category
70
71 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
such as clerical work (American School Counselor Association

[ASCA], 2005; Bemak, 2000; Bemak & Chung, 2005; House & Sears,
2002; Martin, 2002).
The literature on principals’ perceptions on how best to utilize

school counselors in improving school systems is mixed (Allan, Doi,
& Reid, 1997; Amatea & Clark, 2005; Bemak, 2000; Clark & Stone,
2000; Deitz, 1972; Kaplan, 1995; Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005; Light,
2005; Mallory & Jackson, 2007; McDougall & Reitan, 1963; Murray,
1995; Niebuhr, Neibuhr, & Cleveland, 1999; Peterson & Littrell, 2000;
Ponec & Brock, 2000; Remley & Albright, 1998; Schmidt, Weaver, &
Aldredge, 2001; Stickel, 1992; Zalaquett, 2005). The majority of the
aforementioned studies indicated that principals have no clear idea of
the role school counselors need to perform. The purpose of this article
is to fill in the gap in the literature by increasing the sample size found
in previous studies. Further, this study proposes to investigate the
differences between Texas’ high school counselors and principals
about their perceptions regarding school counselors’ roles, a
comparison that is lacking in the literature. Findings from this study
will benefit schools by assisting principals and school counselors to
begin to communicate about how to best utilize counselors for the
educational benefit of student’s academic and emotional needs.
Early Studies
One of the first studies (McDougall & Reitan, 1963) conducted

regarding the role of the school counselor measured the different
perceptions of elementary counselors and principals about school
counselors’ roles. The majority of principals (a) wanted well-trained
school counselors in psychology, counseling, and guidance and, (b)
viewed previous teaching experience as necessary. Later studies
included a survey of 169 Tennessee secondary school principals
(Deitz, 1972) and a survey of 343 elementary school counselors and
principals in Massachusetts (Ellis, 1972). The Ellis study indicated
that counselors’ activities were mainly remedial and that their role in
Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 72
developing guidance was a goal, but not a reality. Further, the results
of this study indicated that unless school counselors played a more
active part in defining their role, their importance would decrease.
The findings from an international study surveying the

perceptions of school principals and teachers from 124 schools in
British Columbia provided the following insights (Tatar, 1995). First,
the services of a counselor were sought at least 2-3 days a week and a
school-based teacher-counselor was preferred to a counselor coming to
the school. Second, the perceptions were that counselors needed
training in developmental, preventive, and remedial approaches. Third,
counselors were needed to provide direct services to teachers and
students alike and should provide consultation services to parents.
Recent literature has suggested that professional school

counselors must re-define their roles as advocates for all students and
leaders in the educational reform movement (American School
Counselor Association [ASCA], 2005; Bemak, 2000; Bemak &
Chung, 2005; House & Sears, 2002; Martin, 2002). Trusty and Brown
(2005) reviewed the American School Counselor National Model
(ASCA, 2005) and found advocacy to be one of the themes that
underpins all of the activities and services school counselors perform.
As advocates and leaders of school counseling programs, school
counselors must be accountable for their programs through data
collection and outcome research (ASCA, 2005; Astramovich & Coker,
2007; Myrick, 2003; Stone & Dahir, 2004).
The new vision for professional school counselors according to

the educational reform movement broadens the traditional view to
include program development, management, and evaluation.
Individual and group counseling (traditional responsive services) as
part of the new vision’s delivery system are only two components of a
comprehensive developmental guidance program. Greater emphasis is
now placed on counselor-generated programs that promote academic
success for all students, are data driven, and that elevate the school
counselor to a new leadership role (ASCA, 2005; Bemak, 2000;
Erford, House, & Martin, 2003; Gysbers 2005; Martin, 2002). The
new vision of the school counseling profession is built upon 13
performance standards included in the accountability section of
ASCA’s (2005) National Model. To meet professional practice
standards, the school counselor performs the following activities:
1. plans, organizes, and delivers the school counseling program

2. implements the school guidance curriculum through the use
of effective instructional skills and careful planning of
structured group sessions for all students
3. implements the individual planning component by guiding
individuals and groups of student and their parents through
the development of educational and career planning
4. provides responsive services through the effective use of
individual and small-group counseling, consultation, and
referral services
5. provides system support through effective school counseling
program management and support for other educational
programs
6. discusses the counseling department management system and
the program action plans with the school administrator
7. responsible for establishing and convening an advisory
council for the school counseling program
8. collects and analyzes data to guide program direction and
emphasis
9. monitors the students on a regular basis as they progress in
school
10. uses time and calendar to implement an efficient program
11. develops a results evaluation for the program
12. conducts a yearly program audit
13. advocates for students, is a leader collaborator and a systems
change agent (ASCA National Model, 2005, pp. 63-65).
In addition to the performance standards for school counselors,

ASCA’s (2005) National Model clearly outlines the desired framework
for writing a comprehensive guidance program. Unfortunately, as

Gysbers (2005) points out, there is often an implementation gap
between writing a comprehensive school counseling program and the
actual doing of such a program. Traditional expectations, resistance to
new ideas, and tasks that are not related to school counseling are the
main reasons for this implementation gap. An additional reason for the
implementation gap offered by DeVoss and Andrews (2006) is lack of
understanding by teachers and administrators about the role of school
counselors in achieving the mission of the school.
The Non-Counseling Counselor
When principals and counselors themselves do not understand

the benefits of implementing ASCA’s (2005) National Model for
school counseling programs and do not agree on the transformed
counselor role and responsibilities, too many non-counseling duties
may be assigned to the counselor. Too often counselors are assigned
responsibilities that have little or nothing to do with counseling. These
non-counseling duties have been the topic of research studies
(Gysbers, 2005; Perusse, Goodnough, Donegan, & Jones, 2004) and
are reported to significantly detract from counselors’ delivery of a
comprehensive school counseling program. After a thorough
investigation of what counselors do with their time, Campbell and
Dahir (1997) offered the following list of inappropriate activities for
school counselors that is endorsed by the ASCA National Model:
1. registering and scheduling of all new students

2. coordinating/administering cognitive, aptitude and
achievement tests
3. signing for students who are absent/tardy
4. performing disciplinary actions
5. sending students home who are not appropriately dressed
6. teaching classes for absent teachers
7. computing GPA
8. maintaining student records
9. supervising study halls

10. clerical record keeping and data entry
11. assisting with duties in the principal’s office
12. work with one student at a time in a therapeutic, clinical mode
13. preparation of individual educational plans, teams and review
boards
14. data entry (p. 13)
The Transformed Professional School Counselor
The transformation of the school counseling profession guides

the experts in defining effective school counseling interventions.
Myrick (2003) identified the following as counselor interventions:
individual counseling, small group counseling, large group guidance,
peer facilitator projects, and consultation. In addition, Myrick defined
the professional school counselor as the guidance coordinator and
discussed the issues of accountability in school counseling programs.
Erford, House, and Martin (2003) suggested that school counselors
should plan and implement a 21st century comprehensive
developmental school counseling program in which the counselor is a
partner in student achievement and produces programs that are
accountable for that achievement. Baker and Gerler (2004) promoted a
“balanced” approach to school counseling which included prevention
programs as well as interventions. Clearly professional school
counselors are in a position to implement powerful and creative
programming to encourage academic success, leadership and advocacy
skills, and civic engagement in all students. The following appropriate
school counselor activities would promote such programs according to
Campbell and Dahir (1997):
1. individual student academic planning

2. counseling students who are tardy, absent, have disciplinary
problems and about appropriate school dress
3. collaborating with teachers

4. analyzing GPA in relationship to achievement
5. interpreting student records
6. making suggestions to teachers about study halls
7. ensuring records are maintained as per state and federal
regulations
8. assisting school principal to resolve issues
9. provide small and large group counseling services
10. advocating for students
11. disaggregated data analysis (p. 13)
Activities of High School Counselors
Unlike elementary school counselors who must single-

handedly coordinate the counseling program, high school counselors
often work in teams, with up to five or six counselors required at large
high schools. High school counselors could have as many as 450 or
more students in their caseload (Sink, 2005). With multiple counselors,
the student population is divided into separate caseloads by alphabet,
grade level or other classifications providing a more manageable
number of students assigned to each counselor. The grouping of
students among counselors is only one way high school counselors
differ from elementary counselors. Other differences reported in the
literature confirm high school counselors engage in more clerical
duties (Coll & Freeman,1979), less large group guidance (Myrick,
2003), and more office work including writing recommendations,
transcript evaluation, and data entry (Sink). Consequently, high school
counselors more than elementary school counselors are engaged in
non-counseling tasks that limit time spent in counseling, consultation,
coordination, and curriculum activities (Scarborough, 2005). In
addition, Hardesty and Dillard (1994) reported that high school
counselors perform less consultative/coordination activities; more
administrative activities such as scheduling and paperwork; and
worked less systemically with families, teachers, and community
agencies when compared to elementary school counselors.
Purpose of the Study
In light of recommendations from ASCA and from experts in the field,

the purpose of this study was to examine the activities of secondary
school counselors in Texas as perceived by principals and counselors.
Our research question asked “What are the differences between
secondary school principals and secondary school counselors on their
perceptions of actual and preferred duties of Texas’ school
counselors?” We were curious about how and where secondary school
counselors in Texas are actually spending their time and whether or
not they are doing what they prefer to be doing based on their training
and the recommendations of their professional organizations. In
addition, we wanted to add to the literature by increasing the sample
size to obtain more reliable data about principals’ and counselors’
perception of school counseling activities.
Methodology
Participants
A total of 1005 educators responded to this survey including

230 middle and high school principals and 775 middle and high school
counselors. The following demographic characteristics were noted (see
Table 1). Gender was not a characteristic that was requested of
participants. The majority of middle and high school principals had 1-
5 years of experience, and the majority of middle school counselors
also had from 1-5 years of experience, however, the majority of high
school counselors had from 10-20 years of experience. The majority of
high school principals reported working in rural settings, and the
majority of middle school principals reported working in suburban
settings. High school counselors and middle school counselors
reported working in suburban settings. The majority of middle and
high school principals as well as middle and high school counselors

reported ethnic group as Caucasian or White.
Instrument
The SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) was used to collect data. The

SCARS (Scarborough) is used primarily to collect process data about
how school counselors actually spend their time versus how they
would prefer to spend their time. The SCARS (Scarborough) is a
questionnaire of 54 items that requests participants to rate themselves
based on a 5-point Likert-scale on two dimensions: actual activities
performed and preferred activities.
The following anchors were used to collect data on degree of

time spent on the actual activity: 1 = never do this; 2 = rarely do this;
3 = occasionally do this; 4 = frequently do this; and, 5 = to routinely
do this. Similarly, the following anchors were used to collect data on
the amount of preferred time on a particular activity: 1 = would prefer
to never do this; 2 = would prefer to rarely do this; 3 = would prefer
to occasionally do this; 4 = would prefer to frequently do this; and, 5
= would prefer to routinely do this.
Reliability
Evidence of reliability was provided using Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients. The following were calculated for both actual and
preferred activities in each category: (a) actual counseling, .85, prefer
counseling, .86; (b) actual consultation, .77, prefer consultation, .78;
(c) actual curriculum, .93, prefer curriculum, .93; (d) prefer
coordination, .86, actual coordination , .87; and, (e) actual “other,” .61,
prefer “other,” .68. This analysis indicated that Curriculum actual and
preferred activities had more reliability, consistency in scoring
patterns, than did actual and preferred Other activities. A reason for
this might be because the other activities are quite diverse in
relationship to curriculum activities.
Validity
Evidence of construct validity for the SCARS (Scarborough, 2005)

was determined using a factor analysis and the following four-factor
solution was found for the original items: (a) counseling, (b)
coordination, (c) consultation, and (d) curriculum. Subsequent items
loaded on what was determined to be the other category. Examples of
items in the different categories are the following: (a) counseling,
“Conduct small groups regarding family/personal issues (e.g., divorce,
death);” (b) consultation, “Consult with school staff concerning
student behavior;” (c) curriculum, “Conduct classroom lessons
regarding substance abuse;” (d) coordination, “Coordinate school-
wide response for crisis management and intervention.” Finally, an
example of an item in the other category is “Participate on committees
within the school.”
Procedures
Permission to use the SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) is on the

website of the National Center for Outcome Research in School
Counseling (http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling/). A survey
company (www.freeonlinesurveys.com) was used to set up the SCARS
(Scarborough) in an Internet format. Professional school counselors
received an email requesting their participation in the survey and
directing them to the link provided to complete the survey. The
informed consent assured participants that their responses were
anonymous and confidential. The survey company collected the
survey responses and aggregated them into an EXCEL file which
could then be used in SPSS. Personal email addresses of participants
were not reported to the researchers.
The instrument “…was designed to measure how school

counselors actually spend their time versus how they would prefer to
spend their time in job related activities” (Scarborough, 2005, p. 274).
The SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) can provide important information
to stakeholders regarding the daily activities of school counselors.
Collecting this data can also provide an opportunity for counselors,

administrators, teachers, students, and parents to dialogue about any
noticeable discrepancies in actual and prescribed practice.
Since there is not a list of email addresses of professional

school counselors in Texas, two phases of data collection were
employed. First, the SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) was sent through
email in an Internet format via the survey company to middle and high
school counselors whose email addresses were listed on the state’s
Education Service Center websites. The recipients of the email were
asked to click on the link provided in the email which routed them to
the survey. The response to this method was low; therefore, the second
phase of data collection was used. In the second phase, the SCARS
(Scarborough) instrument was sent using the same survey company to
the Directors of Guidance in Texas in the same format. The Directors’
email addresses were available through a list that had been compiled
informally through colleagues in the field. The Directors were
requested to forward the survey to the middle and high school
counselors in their districts and the response rate increased.
Internet surveys are being used increasingly in academic

research as a tool for study in social science (Van Selm & Jankowski,
2006). Van Selm and Jankowski point out benefits of internet surveys
such as economic advantage, efficiency of data collection, ability to
reach potentially adequate numbers of respondents across large
geographic regions, the absence of interviewer bias, and convenience
for the respondents. The main problem with online surveys is the
impossibility of calculating the response rate (Schleyer & Forrest,
2000; Van Selm & Jankowski) since the researchers cannot pinpoint
who actually received the information. According to Schonlau,
Fricker, and Elliott (2002), return rates of online surveys range from 7
to 44% as compared to mail surveys with a 25 to 79% return rate.
Recognizing the drawbacks of using an Internet format, we improved
our response rate by sending the internet survey using two different
contact methods.
Results
An overall examination on mean scores for principals and

counselors on the five activities (Counseling, Consultation,
Curriculum, Coordination, and Other) of actual and preferred duties
presented several findings (see Table 2). First, an analysis of the range
of mean scores for both principals and counselors in both actual and
preferred duties indicated that scores ranged from a low of 2.0 (rarely
do this and prefer to rarely do this) to a high of 3.95 (occasionally do
this and would prefer to occasionally do this). Second, interestingly,
principals and counselors did not rate any of the actual and prefer
duties using 4s (frequently do this and would prefer to frequently do
this) and 5s (routinely do this and would prefer to routinely do this) in
any of the categories.
An analysis to find statistical differences and effect sizes

between principals and school counselors on actual activities
(Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and Other) was
conducted. Multiple t-tests were conducted to find statistical
differences and thus a Bonferroni correction was applied to avoid
committing a Type-I error, ability to reject the null hypothesis when
true. To calculate the Bonferroni correction, .05 was divided by the
number of tests (10) and thus statistical significance could only be
reached for categories with significance below .00.
The analyses to find group differences between counselors and

principals included several steps. First, the lowest mean scores for
actual duties were found on the following categories: (a) Curriculum,
conducting guidance lessons and (b) Coordination, planning for
school-wide responses to crisis interventions. The highest mean scores
for actual duties were found for Consultation, planning for student
interventions and Other (clerical duties).
Second, there were statistically significant differences found

between principals and counselors on actual activities only for
Curriculum (see Table 2). The results were: t(1004), 8.49, p < .00, r =
.26 (low effect size) with mean scores for principals (M = 2.48, SD =
.98) and counselors (M = 2.20, SD = .89). This indicated that
principals perceived that counselors actually performed more activities
related to Curriculum than did counselors. The effect sizes calculated
were determined to be low (Cohen, 1992).
No statistically significant differences between principals and

counselors were found for the following actual activities; Counseling,
Consultation, and Other. Further, low effect sizes were determined.
Counseling, t(1004), 5.54, p < .00., r = .17 (low effect size) with
scores for Principals (M = 3.04, SD = .70) and Counselors (M = 2.93,
SD = .64). Consultation, t(1004), 3.82, p < .00., r = .17 (low effect
size), with scores for Principals (M = 2.99, SD = .77) and Counselors
(M = 3.06, SD =.68). Coordination t(1004), 1.63, p < .00., r = .05 (low
effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 2.77, SD = .74) and
Counselors (M = 2.70, SD = .69). Other t(1004), 5.72, p < .00., r = .18
(low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.00, SD = .66) and
Counselors (M = 3.07, SD = .59). These findings indicated that
principals and counselors did not vary in their perceptions on actual
activities, except for Curriculum where principals believed counselors
actually spent more time on this activity.
Statistically significant differences were found between

principals and counselors on the following preferred activities.
Consultation, t(1004), 6.34, p < .00., r = .20 (low effect size), with
SD = .67). Other t(1004), 7.46, p < .00., r = .23 (low effect size) with
SD = .63). These findings indicate that principals prefer that
counselors spend more time on Consultation activities (talking to
school staff) as well as Other (participate in non-counseling duties).
No statistically significant differences were found for prefer on

the following activities. Counseling, t(1004), 5.51, p < .00., r = .17
(low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.89, SD = .65) and
Counselors (M = 3.82, SD = .64). Curriculum, t(1004), 6.89, p < .00.,
r = .21 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.67, SD =
.83) and Counselors (M = 3.31, SD = .81). Coordination t(1004), 3.26,
p < .00., r = .10 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.62,
SD = .68) and Counselors (M = 3.48, SD = .67).
In summary of the analyses, there were several findings. First,

the overall mean scores indicated that both counselors and principals
agree that school counselors actually rarely or occasionally perform
the activities noted as essential for effective counselors (ASCA, 2005).
Further, lack of endorsement of 4s and 5s by both counselors and
principals indicated that that counselors do not frequently or routinely
actually perform the activities determined by ASCA as essential nor do
they prefer that school counselors frequently and routinely perform the
activities. Second, there were only significant differences between
principals and counselors to counselors actually performing
Curriculum activities with principals reporting that counselors
performed this activity more than counselors believe they do. Third,
there were only significant differences found between principals and
counselors on prefer for the following activities: (a) principals
preferring counselors do more Consultation (i.e., talking with school
staff regarding student problems and (b) Other (i.e., participating in
non-counseling activities determined by ASCA).
Our purpose in conducting this research was “to fill in the gap
in the literature by increasing the sample size.” We accomplished this
purpose with our sample size, N = 1005, as the sample size of previous
studies varied between N = 512 (Deitz, 1972), N = 102 (Monteiro-
Leitner, Asner-Self, Milde, Leitner, & Skelton, 2006), and N = 75
(Schmidt et al., 2001). Therefore, with a larger sample size, it would
appear that the results of our study may more accurately reflect the
perceptions of secondary principals and school counselors about
counseling activities.
Discussion
This study examined the differences between middle school

counselors and principals and high school counselors and principals
regarding their perceptions of actual and preferred counseling
activities (Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and
Other). Results of our study indicated that school counselors struggle
with role conflict, which according to Coll and Freeman (1997) and
Remley and Albright (1998) is apparently reflective of the many
conflicting demands currently placed upon them. Specifically for our
study, none of the items on The School Counseling Activity Rating
Scale (Scarborough, 2002) received ratings of 4 (I frequently or would
prefer to frequently do this) and 5 (I routinely do this or would prefer
to routinely do this) by principals and school counselors. We
interpreted this finding to indicate that participants lack a strong
commitment and possibly a clear understanding of the actual and
preferred roles of the school counselor. Based on these results, both
principals and school counselors, are unaware of the amount of time
school counselors spend on actual duties and how they should spend
their time according to standards set up by their professional
organizations.
The results of our study are consistent with a 1972 study

conducted by Deitz and an earlier study by McDougall and Reitan
conducted in 1963 wherein results of both studies indicated that unless
school counselors played a more active part in defining their role, their
importance would decrease. Further, if school counselors’ roles are to
change, school counselors must take a more active part in defining
their role and advocating for their position to be aligned with the 13
performance standards included in the accountability section of
ASCA’s (2005) National Standards and to reflect the new vision for
professional school counselors according to the educational reform
movement.
While ASCA and the Education Trust have worked to shape the
role of the school counselor at a national level; on a local level,
according to Dahir (2000), it is the school principal who determines
what school counselors actually do. There is considerable research

(Bemark, 2000; Chata & Loesch, 2007; Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005;
Murray, 1995) to suggest that regardless of what school counselors
have been trained to do; what they believe they should do, and what
they want to do, principals define counselors’ roles and determine how
counselors spend their time. In some situations, school administrators
have been considered a challenge or barrier to transforming the school
counselor role (House & Sears, 2002). According to Dahir, the
American School Counselor Association and National Association of
Secondary School Principals agree that the success of a school
counseling program is dependent upon the principal’s support at the
building level.
According to Studer, Oberman, and Womack (2006) school

counselors have been remiss in documenting how the school
counseling program is an essential component of success for all
students. Consequently, principals may assign counselors’ duties that
have little to do with counseling in general and with student success
specifically. In order to utilize the skills and expertise counselors bring
to the entire school system, principals must become knowledgeable of
these specialized skills and understand how they enhance the school
experience for all students. Specifically, counselors are prepared to
deliver activities that include counseling, consultation, collaboration,
and coordination of school counseling programs. If counselors are to
serve in schools as they have been trained to do, they must become
strong advocates for their professional role and educate the principal
as well as teachers, support personnel, and parents. Understanding that
the principal is the leader and agent of change (Nelson & Nichter,
2006) in the school, counselors must begin to advocate for their
professional role with the principal. According to Ripley, Erford,
Dahir, & Eschbach (2003) principals control whether school
counselors can perform the roles and functions advocated by ASCA.
Exploratory analyses of our study revealed that school

counselors and principals share similar perceptions of actual and
preferred counseling activities in the areas of counseling and
coordination. The only difference between the two groups in actual

school counselor activities was in Curriculum with principals rating
this activity higher than school counselors. In preferred activities there
were differences in Consultation and Other activities with principals
reporting that they preferred that counselors spend more time on these
activities than counselors reported. These findings indicate that
principals believe school counselors should spend time in Curriculum
and Consultation are consistent with findings from an earlier study
(Kaplan, 1995) in which principals reported that the purpose of
counseling was to directly support and increase students’ school
learning and achievement. Further, principals participating in Kaplan’s
study believed that “individual and group counseling, educational
planning, and student assessment are means that should contribute
directly and empirically to improved classroom behavior and
achievement” (p. 2).
The Other activities category is an area in which principals and

counselors reported a difference in perception with principals
preferring that school counselors spend more time on Other activities,
which are inconsistent with the standards required by professional
organizations. Interestingly, on the one hand principals believe that
school counselors should spend more time on Curriculum activities
than do counselors and on the other hand principals prefer that
counselors spend more time on Consultation and Other duties. This
suggests that principals have a stronger opinion of the activities they
want school counselors to perform than do school counselors. Clearly,
school counselors must advocate strongly for how they spend their
time and how they would prefer to spend their time in relation to
student achievement. Future research is necessary for investigating
whether schools where counselors spend the majority of time on
activities deemed necessary by professional organizations actually
perform better than schools where counselors spend the majority of
time on Other duties.
Our study’s findings indicate that principals prefer that school

counselors spend time on Curriculum activities such as developing and
implementing school-wide programs on issues such as substance abuse

as well as Other duties. This finding indicates that principals may not
be aware of how much time is spent on Other duties and that time
spent on Other activities might be better spent on Curriculum activities
that would benefit students’ academic and emotional needs (Stone &
Dahir, 2005).
Perhaps principals are not aware of the time demands on

school counselors performing Other activities. Other activities have
been identified can include performing hall, bus, cafeteria duty;
coordinating the standardized testing program; and scheduling
students’ classes. Our results support an earlier national study
conducted by Perusse, Goodnough, Donegan, & Jones (2004) in which
among other questions, members from the American School Counselor
Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals,
and the National Association of Elementary School Principals were
asked about counselors’ responsibility to perform Other or non-
counseling activities. More than 80% of secondary school principals
participating in Perusse’s et al. study believed that school counselors
are responsible for non-counseling duties such as: “registration and
scheduling of all new students;” “administering cognitive, aptitude,
and achievement tests;” “maintaining student records.” Interestingly,
these non-counseling tasks were the three most frequently performed
by the secondary school counselor participants in our study. This
finding supports Dahir’s (2004) statement that school administrators at
a local level are responsible for how school counselors actually spend
their time.
Implications and Future Research
Our findings indicate that professional school counselors in

Texas may not know how to advocate for their appropriate roles.
Counselor educators will be instrumental in providing the knowledge,
advocacy skills, and experiences that will prepare future professional

school counselors for the challenge of advocating for appropriate
counseling activities. One activity that may help in this preparation is
to assign an advocacy project with students preparing a list of “talking
point” to present to a state legislator, local school board, or a
principals’ professional organization. Empowering prospective school
counselors during their pre-service training encourages a continuation
of such advocacy after graduation. A longitudinal study on the effects
of learning advocacy skills in pre-service training would be excellent
data to disseminate to counselor educators.
Many participants in our study have been working as school

counselors for more than 10 years (approximately 50% of high school
counselors and 40% of middle school counselors). Directors of
Guidance and Counseling have a responsibility to update professional
school counselors through professional development opportunities
regarding the most current research, legislation, and thinking in the
field. Leaders and supervisors of school counselors must provide new
training each year so that their supervisees do not become complacent
or resigned to providing services that are not within the guidelines of
appropriate school counseling activities.
Limitations
Interpretation of the present findings should take into account

the study’s limitations. First, it is not known how many secondary
counselors and principals actually received the survey; therefore, the
response rate cannot accurately be reported. Secondly, since the
participants were all located in one state, further analyses regarding
the activities of school counselors in other states are needed. Finally,
when a self-reported assessment is used for data collection, it is
impossible to measure the accuracy of participants’ responses. Some
participants may fear their identify will be disclosed and therefore
hesitate to be completely honest. Others may believe that the
researchers have an idea of “correct” responses to the items and may
select responses based on this belief.
Only through the collective efforts of school counselors will

there be hope to positively shape the future of the school counseling
profession. According to the literature (ASCA, 2005; Astramovich &
Coker, 2007), accountability is critical to the success of
comprehensive guidance programs. “High school counselors that
provided students better educational and career planning services as
part of comprehensive school guidance and counseling programs made
significantly more progress in meeting their Adequate Yearly Progress
requirements for No Child Left Behind” (Lapan, Gysbers, & Kayson,
2007, p. 5).
Table 1
Descriptive Characteristics of High School Principals (N=110),

Middle School Principals (N=120), High School Counselors (N=475),
and Middle School Counselors (N=300) on Actual and Preferred
Counselor Activities (N = 1005).
Position Years of Experience

1-5 5-10 10-20 20<
High School Principal 37.3% 21.8% 30.0% 10.9%
Middle School Principal 37.5% 33.3% 20.8% 8.3%
High School Counselor 27.8% 25.5% 34.7% 12.0%
Middle School Counselor 32.3% 27.3% 28.0% 12.3%
(Table 1 Continues)
(Table 1 Continued)
Setting
Urban Suburban Rural
High School Principal 12.7% 20.9% 66.4%
Middle School Principal 28.3% 40.0% 31.7%
High School Counselor 23.8% 46.5% 29.7%
Middle School Counselor 29.7% 51.0% 19.3%
Ethnicity
Hispanic Caucasian African American
High School Principal 10.0% 86.4% 2.7%
Middle School Principal 10.8% 74.2% 14.2%
High School Counselor 12.5% 76.1% 9.1%
Middle School Counselor 10.3% 74.3% 12.7%
Table 2
Mean Differences between Middle School/ High School Principals

(N=230) and Middle School/ High School Counselors (N=775) on
Counseling Activities (1005)
Mean SD Mean SD η2
Counseling- (i.e., Actual 3.04 0.70 2.93 0.64 .17
Small group Preferre 3.89 0.65 3.82 0.64 .17
counseling regarding d
family/ personal
issues)
(Table 2 Continues)
(Table 2 Continues)
Consultation- (i.e., Actual 2.99 0.77 3.06 0.68 .17
Talk with school Preferre 3.67 0.73 3.51 0.67 .20*
staff regarding d
student problems)
Curriculum- (i.e., Actual 2.48 0.98 2.20 0.89 .26*

Conduct classroom Preferre 3.67 0.83 3.31 0.81 .21
lessons regarding d
substance abuse)
Coordination- (i.e., Actual 2.77 0.74 2.70 0.69 .05

Plan school-wide Preferre 3.62 0.68 3.48 0.67 .10
response for crisis d
intervention and
interventions)
Other- (i.e., Actual 3.00 0.66 3.07 0.59 .18
Participate on Preferre 3.10 0.74 2.56 0.63 .23*
committees within d
the school not related
to counseling
Note: * Statistical significance at < .05 after Bonferroni adjustment.
Anchors for actual and prefer – 1 = never do this; 2 = rarely do this;
3 = occasionally do this; 4 = frequently do this, 5 = routine do this.
REFERENCES
Allan, J. A., Doi, K., & Reid, C. (1997). Need assessment: A survey of
principals’, primary and intermediate teachers’ perception of
the counselor’s role in B. C.’s elementary schools. Canadian
Counselor, 14, 27-31.
American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national
model: A framework for school counseling programs.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Amatea, E., & Clark, M. A. (2005). Changing schools, changing
counselors: A qualitative study of school administrator’s
perceptions of the school counselor role. Professional School
Counseling, 9, 16-27.
Astramovich, R. L., & Coker, J. K. (2007). Program evaluation: The
accountability bridge model for counselors. Professional
School Counseling, 85, 162-172.
Baker, S. B., & Gerler, E. R. (2004). School counseling for the
twenty-first century (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education Incorporated.
Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to provide
leadership in educational reform through collaboration.
Professional School Counseling, 3, 323-331.
Bemak, F., & Chung, R. (2005). Advocacy as a critical role for urban
school counselors: Working toward equity and social justice.
Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). The national standards for
school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American
School Counselor Association.
Chata, C. C., & Loesch, L. C. (2007). Future school principals’ view
of the roles of professional school counselors. Professional
Clark, M., & Stone, C. (2000). The developmental school counselor as

educational leader. In J. Wittmer (Ed.), Managing your
school guidance program: K-12 developmental strategies,
(pp. 75-82). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media

Corporation.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-
159.
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.
Deitz, S. C. (1972). Principals’ attitudes toward counselor role and
function. NASSP Bulletin, 56, 72-75.
DeVoss, J., & Andrews, M. (2006). School counselors as educational
leaders. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dahir, C. A. (2000, November/December). Principals as partners in
school counseling. ASCA School Counselor, 38, 13.
Dahir, C. A. (2004). Supporting a nation of leaders: The role of school
counseling in educational reform. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 38, 344-353.
Ellis, F. E. (1972). The dichotomy between the actual and the
perceived role of the elementary guidance counselor in the
state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. RIEMAR1973).
Erford, B. T., House, R., & Martin, P. (2003). Transforming the school
counseling profession. In B.T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the
school counseling profession (pp. 1-20). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gysbers, N. C. (2005, November/December). Closing the
implementation gap. ASCA School Counselor, 43, 36-41.
Hardesty, P. H., & Dillard, J. M. (1994). The role of elementary school
counselors when compared with their middle and secondary
school counterparts. Elementary and Middle School
Guidance, 29, 83-90.
House, R., & Sears, S. (2002). Preparing school counselors to be
leaders and advocates: A critical need in the new millennium.
Theory into Practice, 41, 154-162.
Kaplan, L. S. (1995). Principals versus counselors: Resolving tensions

from different practice models. The School Counselor, 42,
261-267.
Kirchner, G. L., & Setchfield, M. S. (2005). School counselors’ and
school principals’ perceptions of the school counselor’s role.
Education, 126, 10-17.
Lapan, R., Gysbers, N., & Kayson, M. (2007). Missouri school
counselors benefit all students: How implementing
comprehensive guidance programs improves academic
achievement for all Missouri students. Missouri Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO.
Light, C. (2005). Guidance for supporting school counselors.
Principal Leadership, 6, 35-37.
Mallory, B. J., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). Balancing the load: How to
engage counselors in school improvement. Principal
Leadership, 7, 34-37.
Martin, P. J. (2002). Transforming school counseling: A national
perspective. Theory into Practice, 41, 148-153.
McDougall, W. O., Reitan, H. M. (1963). The elementary counselor as
perceived by elementary principals. Personnel & Guidance
Journal, 42, 348-354.
Monteiro-Leitner, J., Asner-Self, K. K., Midle, C., Leitner, D., &
Skelton, D. (2006). The role of the rural school counselor:
counselor, counselor-in-training, and principal perceptions.
Murray, B. A. (1995). Principals’ proponents of high school guidance
programs. NASSP Bulletin, 79, 64-68.
Myrick, R. D. (2003). Developmental guidance and counseling: A
practical approach (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational
Media Corporation.
Nelson, J. A., & Nichter, M. (2006). Administrators: The transformers
part II. Texas Study of Secondary Education,. 16, 9-11.
Niebuhr, K. E., Neibuhr, R. E., & Cleveland, W. T. (1999). Principal
and counselor collaboration. Education, 119, 674-678.
Perusse, 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(3), 152-161.
Peterson, J. S., & Littrell, J. M. (2000). A school counselor creates a
problem-solving culture. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 9, 311-320.
Ponec, D. L., & Brock, B. L. (2000). Relationships among elementary
school counselor and principals: A unique bond. Professional
Remley, T. P., & Albright, P. L. (1998). Expectations for middle school
counselors; Views of students, teachers, principals, and parents.
School Counselor, 35, 290-296.
Scarborough, J. (2002). The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale.
Retrieved June 10, 2006, from the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, National Center for Outcome
Research in School Counseling Web site:
http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling
Scarborough, J. (2005). The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale:
An instrument for gathering process data. Professional School
Schmidt, J. J., Waver, F. S., & Aldredge, A. L. (2001). Perceptions of
school counselor’s role and satisfaction by newly hired
counselors and principals in eastern North Carolina.
Greenville, NC: East Carolina University School of Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED457470).
Schonlau, M., Fricker, R., & Elliott, M. (2002). Conducting research
surveys via e-mail and the web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Schleyer, T. K. L., & Forrest, J. L. (2000). Methods for the design and
administration of Web-based surveys. Journal of the
American Medical Informatics Association, 7, 416-425.
Stickel, S. A. (1992, March). Role perceptions of the rural school

counselor: A factor analysis. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association
(ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service ED344136).
Sink C. (2005). Contemporary school counseling theory, research,

and practice. Boston: Lahaska Press.
Stone, C,. & Dahir, C. (2005). The transformed school counselors.
Boston: Lahaska Press.
Studer, J. R., Oberman, A. H., Womack, R. H. (2006). Producing
evidence to show counseling effectiveness in the schools.
Tatar, M. (1995). The potential impact of counselors on school
prestige. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 23, 267-
275.
Trusty, J. & Brown, D. (2005). School counselors’ comprehensive
school counseling programs and academic achievement: Are
school counselors promising more than they can deliver?
Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. (2006). Conducting online surveys.
Quality and Quantity, 40, 435-456.
Zalaquett, C. P. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of elementary school
counselors’ role and functions. Professional School

4 - Nichter - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - DR. KRITSONIS

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

4 - Nichter - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - DR. KRITSONIS

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

ACTUAL AND PREFERRED COUNSELING

P rincipals and school counselors must negotiate how to best use

such as clerical work (American School Counselor Association

The literature on principals’ perceptions on how best to utilize

One of the first studies (McDougall & Reitan, 1963) conducted

The findings from an international study surveying the

Recent literature has suggested that professional school

The new vision for professional school counselors according to

1. plans, organizes, and delivers the school counseling program

In addition to the performance standards for school counselors,

for writing a comprehensive guidance program. Unfortunately, as

The Non-Counseling Counselor

When principals and counselors themselves do not understand

1. registering and scheduling of all new students

9. supervising study halls

The Transformed Professional School Counselor

The transformation of the school counseling profession guides

1. individual student academic planning

3. collaborating with teachers

Activities of High School Counselors

Unlike elementary school counselors who must single-

Purpose of the Study

In light of recommendations from ASCA and from experts in the field,

A total of 1005 educators responded to this survey including

high school principals as well as middle and high school counselors

The SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) was used to collect data. The

The following anchors were used to collect data on degree of

Evidence of reliability was provided using Cronbach’s alpha

Evidence of construct validity for the SCARS (Scarborough, 2005)

Permission to use the SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) is on the

The instrument “…was designed to measure how school

Collecting this data can also provide an opportunity for counselors,

Since there is not a list of email addresses of professional

Internet surveys are being used increasingly in academic

An overall examination on mean scores for principals and

An analysis to find statistical differences and effect sizes

The analyses to find group differences between counselors and

Second, there were statistically significant differences found

No statistically significant differences between principals and

Statistically significant differences were found between

No statistically significant differences were found for prefer on

In summary of the analyses, there were several findings. First,

This study examined the differences between middle school

The results of our study are consistent with a 1972 study

what school counselors actually do. There is considerable research

According to Studer, Oberman, and Womack (2006) school

Exploratory analyses of our study revealed that school

coordination. The only difference between the two groups in actual

The Other activities category is an area in which principals and

Our study’s findings indicate that principals prefer that school

implementing school-wide programs on issues such as substance abuse

Perhaps principals are not aware of the time demands on

Implications and Future Research

Our findings indicate that professional school counselors in

advocacy skills, and experiences that will prepare future professional

Many participants in our study have been working as school

Interpretation of the present findings should take into account

Only through the collective efforts of school counselors will

Descriptive Characteristics of High School Principals (N=110),

Position Years of Experience