TPC-Journal-V4-Issue5

The Professional Counselor \Volume 4, Issue 5 452 a preference for supervision in a face-to-face format, school counselors may become more comfortable with electronic formats as they utilize them more often or with further training. Counselor educators and supervision trainers will need to use creative methods when scheduling supervision training for professional school counselors. Weekend workshops, intensive summer courses and cooperative in-service programs might be used to provide supervision training. Collaborative efforts between university counselor training programs and state school counselor professional organizations could further orchestrate these opportunities. Counselor educators also might advocate to the Counsel for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs that supervision training be required in master’s-level school counselor training programs. School counselors desiring supervision may need assistance in advocating for these services. Research indicates that engaging school principals in counseling education can result in a deeper understanding and collaboration between the school counselor and the principal (Shoffner & Williamson, 2000). It is essential to help administrators understand the benefits of clinical supervision and make a case for the provision of opportunities for professional development and clinical supervision for rural school counselors, especially as these opportunities may positively impact burnout incidence. Recommendations for Future Research The results of this study provide potential directions for future research. Given the limited literature on clinical supervision for rural school counselors, it is important to fully examine any potential factors that may help conceptualize this phenomenon. Following up with a qualitative study would expand on the quantitative findings and provide a richer context for some of the results discussed. This might help identify additional factors of importance specific to rural school counselors. Replicating the results of the current study with a random sample of rural school counselors who are practicing nationwide might increase the representativeness of the sample. Utilizing a sampling of rural school counselors who are practicing in only one state presents inherent limitations, as the results discussed may be specific to geographic location and may not apply to rural school counselors in other states. Conclusion The majority of school counselors in both the 2003 and 2012 studies reported that they perceive clinical supervision as an important element in their continued personal and professional growth. However, these same groups reported that they are not receiving supervision at an individual, group or peer level. The need for the supervision is apparent, but the access to supervision is limited. This situation calls for collaborative and coordinated action from counselor educators and leaders in the field. Creation of supervision training opportunities for practicing school counselors is warranted. Methods such as the utilization of technology to allow access to supervision for school counselors, especially for those in remote rural areas, are also important elements in the creation of an effective and efficient statewide supervision plan. Buy-in from school administrators, school officials at the state level, school boards and counselor educators will be an important aspect of the origination of a statewide system. The need for supervision for rural school counselors is supported through these survey results. It will be imperative to create methods for continued evaluation of a statewide supervision plan to show how the ultimate consumers—the students—are benefitting from school counselors who are receiving supervision.