May 2, 2025 | Volume 15 - Issue 2
Alexandra Frank, Amanda C. DeDiego, Isabel C. Farrell, Kirby Jones, Amanda C. Tracy
State policies and school district regulation largely shape the roles and responsibilities of school counselors in the United States. The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) provides guidance on recommendations for school counseling practice; however, state policies may not align with guiding principles. Using a rubric informed by the ASCA National Model, we conducted a problem-driven content analysis to explore state policy alignment with the Define, Manage, Deliver, and Assess components of the model. Our findings indicate state policy differences between K–8 and 9–12 grade levels and within each rubric component. School counselors and school counselor educators can use these findings to support strategic advocacy efforts aimed at increased clarity around school counselors’ roles and responsibilities.
Keywords: content analysis, advocacy, state policy, school counseling, ASCA National Model
What is a school counselor? The profession has a long history of attempting to answer this question, not always successfully. Role confusion in school counseling was highlighted by Murray (1995) who stated that the roles of school counselors often vary from the printed job description. Murray attributed unclear counseling duties to misunderstandings about school counselors’ roles by stakeholders, such as administrators, parents, and students. Murray also found that differences in legislative definitions of school counseling contributed to role confusion. As an early act of advocacy in school counseling, Murray suggested developing a uniform definition of school counseling, advocating for that definition, and engaging in effective communication strategies among stakeholders as solutions to role confusion. Since this early movement to define school counseling roles, professional groups (e.g., The American School Counselor Association [ASCA]), academic organizations (e.g., School Counselors for MTSS), and professional conferences (e.g., The Evidence-Based School Counseling Conference and ASCA conference) have joined in the efforts to describe school counselor identity and roles. Despite these efforts, school counselors across the United States struggle with the lack of clarity in their roles (Bardhoshi & Duncan, 2009; Chandler et al., 2018).
School counselors’ impacts on student outcomes are well-documented (O’Connor, 2018). When describing the role and influence of school counselors, researchers point to improved student outcomes, such as decreased student behavior issues (Reback, 2010), increased student achievement (Carrell & Hoekstra, 2014), and increased college-going behavior (Hurwitz & Howell, 2014). School counselors’ roles in supporting student social–emotional health became particularly important when navigating the effects of COVID-19 (McCoy-Speight, 2021). However, Murray’s (1995) concern about legislative differences in defining the role of a school counselor remains. Despite evidence describing positive impacts of school counselors on student outcomes, the school counselor role is often misunderstood and continues to vary from state to state (Carey & Dimmitt, 2012). Recently, state differences were most pronounced in Texas Senate Bill 763 (2023), which proposed to equip chaplains to serve as school counselors, and in Florida’s emphasis on parents as resiliency coaches (Florida Governor’s Press Office, 2023). Additionally, factors such as organizational constraints (Alexander et al., 2022), student–counselor ratios (Kearney et al., 2021), and engagement in non-counseling duties (Blake, 2020; Camelford & Ebrahim, 2017; Chandler et al., 2018) continue to hinder the impact that school counselors can make within their school settings. Intrigued by Murray’s observation regarding the long-standing issues with school counseling roles and duties differing from state to state and recent state initiatives to supplement the role of a school counselor with chaplains or parents (e.g., Texas and Florida), we sought to explore how state-level policies and statutes define school counselor roles and responsibilities and how they align with national recommendations.
Defining School Counseling
Noting the need for a uniform definition of school counseling, we turned to ASCA. Although ASCA is not the only professional organization supporting school counselors, it has the longest history (formed in 1952) and largest membership (approximately 43,000). Additionally, ASCA exists for the explicit purpose of supporting school counselors by “providing professional development, enhancing school counseling programs, and researching effective school counseling practices” (n.d.-a, About ASCA section). ASCA (2023) defines school counseling as a comprehensive, developmental, and preventative support aimed at improving student outcomes. ASCA (n.d.-b) advocates for a united school counseling vision and voice among stakeholders. Despite their efforts, researchers, educational leaders, and state policymakers continue to hold varied perspectives about the definitions, needs, and roles of school counselors. Although ASCA (2019; 2023) clearly delineates appropriate and inappropriate school counseling roles and responsibilities, school counselors often find themselves asked to engage in activities deemed inappropriate by ASCA (Bardhoshi & Duncan, 2009; Chandler et al., 2018).
School counselors can use collaboration and advocacy to promote a more appropriate use of their time (McConnell et al., 2020) and to mediate feelings of burnout (Holman et al., 2019). Researchers have discussed the importance of advocacy as integral to pre–school counselor training (Havlik et al., 2019), individual school counseling practice (Perry et al., 2020), and system-wide professional unity (Cigrand et al., 2015). However, such efforts are often limited to a single school or district and often do not include state-level advocacy.
The ASCA National Model
To support their mission of improving student outcomes, ASCA (2019) recommends a national model as a framework for school counselors. The ASCA National Model is aligned with school counseling priorities, such as data-informed decision-making, systemic interventions, and developmentally appropriate care considerations. Implementation is associated with both student-facing and school counselor–facing benefits. In an introduction to a special issue on comprehensive school counseling programs, Carey and Dimmitt (2012) described findings across six statewide studies highlighting the relationship between program implementation and positive student outcomes, including improved attendance and decreases in rates of student discipline. Pyne (2011) and more recently Fye and colleagues (2022) demonstrated correlations between program implementation and school counselor job satisfaction. Pyne found that school counselors with administrative support and staff collaboration related to program implementation experienced higher rates of job satisfaction. Fye et al. noted that as implementation of the ASCA National Model increased, role ambiguity decreased and job satisfaction increased.
The ASCA National Model consists of four components: Define, Manage, Deliver, and Assess. We outline the model in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Four Components of The ASCA National Model
| Define |
Standards to support school counselors
School counselors are supported in implementation and assessment of a comprehensive school counseling program by existing standards such as the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors, the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors, and the ASCA School Counselor Professional Standards & Competencies. |
| Manage |
Effective and efficient implementation of a comprehensive school counseling program
ASCA outlines planning tools to support a program focus, program planning, and appropriate school counseling activities. |
| Deliver |
The actual delivery of a comprehensive school counseling program
School counselors implement developmentally appropriate activities and services to support positive student outcomes. School counselors engage in direct (e.g., instruction, appraisal and advisement, counseling) and indirect (e.g., consultation, collaboration, referrals) student services. ASCA (2019) stipulates that school counselors should spend 80% of their time in direct or indirect student services. School counselors should spend 20% or less of their time on school support activities and/or program planning. |
| Assess |
Data-driven accountability measures to assess the efficacy of program delivery
School counselors are charged with evaluating their program’s efficacy and implementing improvements, based on student needs. School counselors should demonstrate that students are positively impacted because of the counseling program. |
We extend the Assess component to also include research-based examples on factors contributing to a school counselor’s efficacy. Such factors include student–school counselor ratios. For decades, ASCA has advocated for a student–school counselor ratio of 250:1 as well as broader support for school counselor roles (Kearney et al., 2021). Yet, data from the 2021–2022 school year put the average national student–school counselor ratio at 408:1 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2023). Researchers demonstrate that schools with ASCA-approved ratios experience increased student attendance, higher test scores, and improved graduation rates (e.g., Carey et al., 2012; Carrell & Carrell, 2006; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; Lapan et al., 2012).
Alternatively, Donohue and colleagues (2022) demonstrated that higher ratios relate to worse outcomes for students. Notably, minoritized students and their school communities often face the brunt of increased student–school counselor ratios (Donohue et al., 2022; Education Trust, 2018). Thus, the ASCA alignment is not only concerned with improved student outcomes but also with the equitable provision of mental health services. Given the role ASCA plays in advocating for and structuring the school counselor’s role and responsibilities, we chose to use the components of the ASCA National Model (2019) as a theoretical framework guiding our study. We have incorporated our theoretical framework throughout, including data collection, data analysis, results, discussion, and implications.
Method
The purpose of our study was to understand how state policies align with the ASCA National Model. We analyzed state policies defining and guiding the practice of school counseling. In any inquiry, the type and characteristics of the data available should dictate the research methods (Flick, 2015). Content analysis allows researchers to identify recurring themes, patterns, and trends (Krippendorff, 2019). By systematically coding and categorizing content, researchers can uncover insights that might not be immediately apparent through casual observation. Additionally, it enables researchers to analyze large volumes of data in a systematic and replicable manner, reducing the impact of personal bias and increasing the reliability of findings. Because of these factors, we found content analysis to be the best method for our inquiry. We chose a subtype of content analysis—problem-driven content analysis (Krippendorff, 2019). Problem-driven content analysis aims to answer a research question. The research question guiding our analysis was: How are state policies aligned or misaligned with the ASCA National Model?
Sample
Using the State Policy Database maintained by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE; 2023), we pulled current policies from all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (N = 51) that dictate the role of school counselors and school counseling services. As ASCA (n.d.-c) describes, terms used for school counseling services can vary, and although “school counselor” is favorable to “guidance counselor,” both terms may be found. However, in NASBE’s State Policy Database, the category was specifically listed as “counseling, psychological, and social services,” and the subcategory was listed as “school counseling—elementary” and “school counseling—secondary” (NASBE, 2023). We included policies that govern kindergarten through eighth grade (K–8) and ninth through 12th grade (9–12). Data included all policies related to school counseling delivery and certification, with State Policy Databases sorted into policies governing K–8 (n = 156, 47.42%) and 9–12 (n = 173, 52.58%) levels, for a total of 329 policies.
Design
From our research question to data reporting, we followed the problem-driven content analysis steps (see Figure 1). We collected language from the policies, including policy type and policy name, and then determined if school counseling was encouraged, recommended, or not specified as either. We built a spreadsheet to divide, define, and identify the state policies into sampling units. We divided them into originating state, policy type, requirements for having school counselors in schools, policy name, and summary of the policy. Additionally, we separated the data into K–8 and 9–12 education designations.
Figure 1
Problem-Driven Content Analysis Process (Krippendorff, 2019)
The analytical process began with filtering policies for inclusion outlined in our selection criteria. We built a spreadsheet to divide, define, and identify the legislative bills into sampling units. We focused on dividing them into originating state, bill number, year, subcategory, and summary of the bill. After completing the spreadsheet with all the data, Kirby Jones and Amanda C. Tracy tested our coding frame on a sample of text. Although content analysis does not require piloting, Schreier (2012) suggested piloting around 20% of the data to test the reliability of the coding frame. We used 20% of our data (n = 66) to conduct pilot coding.
We approached the data analysis deductively, with the components of the ASCA National Model (2019) acting as our initial codes. Prior to analysis, we created a coding rubric that we used to analyze each state’s school counseling policy (see Table 2). We used the four components of the ASCA National Model as the rubric criteria: Define, Manage, Deliver, and Assess. Within each criterion, we developed standards ranging from 1 point to 5 points. We chose point ranges based on the information within each criterion. For example, the Define criterion included three standards for 5 total points. We awarded 1 point if a state required (versus recommended) school counselors in school; we awarded 1 point if a state required school counselors to be licensed and/or certified based on a graduate degree; and we awarded 3 points if a state specifically described all three focus areas of school counseling—academic, college/career, and social/emotional.
Alexandra Frank, Amanda C. DeDiego, and Isabel C. Farrell were involved in creating the rubric and completing initial pilot coding to ensure the usability and utility of the rubric. All team members met throughout the process to ensure workability and fidelity. Following initial testing, each coding pair was trained to appropriately analyze state-level policy data using the rubric. Before finalizing rubric metrics for each state, all team members met again to review metrics and to determine final scores for each state. Importantly, individual state-level rubric scores do not indicate grades, but rather demonstrate evidence of alignment between state-level policy as it is written and the ASCA National Model (2019).
Table 2
Rubric to Evaluate State Policy for Adherence to the ASCA National Model
| Aspects of the ASCA National Model |
|
Define
5 points
|
Manage
1 point |
Deliver
1 point |
Assess
2 points |
|
Required
1 point
|
Education
1 point |
Focus
3 points |
Implementation
1 point |
Use of Time
1 point |
Accountability
1 point |
Ratio
1 point
|
| State has provisions requiring school counselors |
Requires school counselors to be licensed/certified |
Areas of focus include:
(1) academic,
(2) college/career,
(3) social/emotional |
Role includes appropriate school counseling activities |
80% of time spent in direct/indirect services supporting student achievement, attendance, and discipline |
Evaluation of school counselor role included |
Maximum
of 250:1
|
Research Team
Our research team consisted of two counselor educators, two counselor education doctoral students, and one master’s-level counseling student. We began meeting as a research team in summer 2023. Conceptualization, data collection, and analysis occurred throughout the fall, ending in December 2023. Frank, DeDiego, and Farrell continued with edits and writing in 2024. Varying counseling backgrounds (including clinical mental health and school counseling), education settings (e.g., urban, rural, research, teaching), and personal identities were represented. All members are united by a passion for mentorship and advocacy. Additionally, DeDiego and Farrell provided expertise in legislative advocacy and content analysis, and Frank and Tracy provided expertise in school counseling. All members are affiliated with counseling programs accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. Frank, DeDiego, and Farrell designed the coding frame and trained Jones and Tracy on the coding process. Frank, DeDiego, and Farrell also resolved any coding conflicts. For example, if a state regulation was unclear, Frank, DeDiego, and Farrell met and decided what code would apply. All members of the research team communicated via email, Google Docs, and/or Zoom meetings to build consensus through the data collection and data analysis processes.
Trustworthiness
To enhance trustworthiness in this study, we followed the checklist for content analysis developed by Elo et al. (2014), which includes three phases: preparation, organization, and reporting. The preparation phase involves determining the most appropriate data source to address the research question and the appropriate scope of the content and analysis. In this phase, we determined the focus of the project to be policy defining school counselor roles; thus, state-level legislation was the most appropriate data source. Use of the NASBE (2023) database offered a means of limiting scope and focus of the content. Using deductive coding (McKibben et al., 2022), we first developed the rubric coding framework based on the ASCA National Model (2019) and then conducted pilot coding to test the framework.
During the organization phase, the checklist addresses organizing coding and theming strategies. We first conducted pilot coding to establish how to apply the ASCA National Model (2019) to coding legislation. We evaluated the content using the rubric to determine how the legislation aligned with the ASCA National Model. Elo et al. (2014) suggested researchers also determine how much interpretation will be used to analyze the data. The coding framework using the ASCA National Model offers structure to this interpretation. Data were coded separately for trustworthiness by Jones and Tracy. Then we met to compare coding. If there was discrepancy, one of us reviewed the data in order to reach a two-thirds majority for all of the coding. By the end of the process, all coding met the threshold of two-thirds majority agreement.
In the Elo et al. (2014) checklist, the reporting phase addresses how to represent and share the results of the analysis. This includes ensuring that categories used to report findings capture the data well and that results are clear and understandable for targeted audiences. The use of a rubric framework offers a clear method to represent and share results of the analysis process.
Results
Our results highlighted trends in the scope and practice of school counseling across the United States. We organized results by rubric strands (Table 3) and by state, analyzing results for K–8 (Appendix A) and 9–12 (Appendix B). We further describe our results within each strand of the ASCA National Model (2019): Define, Manage, Deliver, and Assess.
Table 3
Summary of Rubric Outcomes by Category
|
K–8 |
9–12 |
|
Yesa |
Nob |
Yesa |
Nob |
| Required |
37 (72.55%) |
14 (27.45%) |
40 (78.73%) |
11 (21.57%) |
| Education |
40 (78.43%) |
11 (21.57%) |
50 (98.04%) |
1 (1.96%) |
| Focus
Academic
College/Career
Social/Emotional |
35 (68.63%)
37 (72.55%)
35 (68.63%) |
16 (31.37%)
14 (27.45%)
16 (31.37%) |
40 (78.43%)
41 (80.39%)
40 (78.43%) |
11 (21.57%)
10 (19.61%)
11 (21.57%) |
| Implementation |
34 (66.67%) |
17 (33.33%) |
36 (70.59%) |
15 (29.41%) |
| Use of Time |
17 (33.33%) |
34 (66.76%) |
10 (19.61%) |
41 (80.39%) |
| Accountability |
21 (41.18%) |
30 (58.82%) |
29 (56.86%) |
22 (43.14%) |
| Ratio |
2 (3.92%) |
49 (96.08%) |
3 (5.88%) |
48 (94.12%) |
aIndicates awarding of a point, as outcome was represented in the policy.
bIndicates no point was awarded, as outcome was not represented in the policy.
In the state policies, school counselors were designated as required, encouraged, or not specified. For the K–8 level, 72.55% (n = 37) of states required school counselors in schools, 19.61% (n = 10) encouraged the presence of school counselors, and 7.84% (n = 4) of states did not specify a requirement of school counselor presence. At the 9–12 level, 78.73% (n = 40) of states required school counselors in schools, 19.60% (n = 10) encouraged the presence of school counselors, and 1.96% (n = 1) of states did not specify a requirement of school counselor presence.
The category of not specified included policies that were uncodified or policies that did not address the requirement of school counselors at all. The majority of states required school counselors at the K–8 (n = 37, 72.55%) and 9–12 (n = 40, 78.73%) levels. At the K–8 level, one state had a policy that was uncodified (Michigan) and three did not address the requirements of school counselors (i.e., Hawaii, South Dakota, Wyoming). At the 9–12 level, one state had an uncodified policy (Hawaii) and one did not specify a requirement for school counselors (South Dakota). Forty states (80%) for K–8 and 50 states (98.04%) for 9–12 required school counselors to have a license or certification in school counseling. The only state that did not require certification or licensure was Florida. Thirty-five states (70%) for K–8 and 40 states (78.43%) for 9–12 described the role of a school counselor as supporting students’ academic success. Thirty-seven states (72.54%) for K–8 and 41 states (80.39%) for 9–12 described the role of a school counselor as supporting college and career readiness. Finally, 35 states (68.63%) for K–8 and 40 states (78.43%) for 9–12 described the role of a school counselor as supporting students’ social and emotional growth.
Within the Manage aspect of the ASCA National Model (2019), we determined if the state outlined appropriate school counseling activities in alignment with ASCA recommendations in policy or statute (e.g., small groups, counseling, classroom guidance, preventative programs). Thirty-four states (66.67%) for K–8 and 36 states (70.59%) for 9–12 outlined school counseling activities in their policy. For Deliver, only 17 states (33.33%) for K–8 and 10 states (20%) for 9–12 outlined whether or not the majority of school counselors’ time should be spent providing direct and indirect student services.
Moreover, for the Assess category, we evaluated whether the state policy required school counselors to do an evaluation of their role and/or counseling services. Twenty-one states (58.82%) for K–8 and 29 states (56.86%) for 9–12 outlined evaluation requirements. Finally, we evaluated whether the state complied with the ASCA student–school counselor ratio of 250:1. Two states for K–8 (3%; i.e., New Hampshire, Vermont) and three states for 9–12 (5.9%; i.e., Michigan, New Hampshire, Vermont) complied with the recommended ratios. A few states (i.e., Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana) recommended that state districts follow the ASCA 250:1 recommendation, but it was not a requirement; those state ratios exceeded 250:1.
Next, we examined overall trends of compliance by grade level and by state. For K–8, eight states (15.69%) had higher scores of ASCA National Model (2019) compliance (i.e., Arkansas, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin) compared to other states in our dataset with a score of 8 out of 9. For 9–12, six states (11.76%) scored 8 out of 9 (i.e., Arkansas, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin). Excluding Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming, because their state policies did not address the requirements of K–8 school counselors, the states with the lowest scores of ASCA National Model compliance, with 1 out of 9 for K–8 were Alabama, Maryland, Missouri, and North Dakota (n = 4, 7.8%). For 9–12 state policy, two states (3.9%)scored 1 out of 9 (i.e., Massachusetts, South Dakota).
Discussion
Given ASCA’s (n.d.-b) advocacy efforts to develop a unified definition of school counseling, there is a need to assess how those advocacy efforts translate to state policy. Although individual state and district policies shed light on existing discrepancies between school counselor roles and responsibilities, our analysis also provides evidence of alignment with the ASCA National Model (2019) in some areas. These results can inform strategic efforts for further alignment. School counselors can use advocacy to support their role and promote responsibilities more aligned with the ASCA National Model (McConnell et al., 2020). We outline our discussion by again utilizing the four components of the ASCA National Model as a conceptual framework.
Define
Our findings suggest that the Define component of the ASCA National Model (2019) is well-represented in state and district policies. Although our results highlight differences in policy governing practice in K–8 and 9–12 schools, for the most part, all state and district policies required or encouraged the presence of a school counselor. Additionally, the vast majority of states required that individuals practicing as school counselors hold the appropriate licensure and/or certification. Similarly, most state and district policies defined a school counselor’s role as contributing to students’ academic, college/career, and/or social/emotional development. Vigilance in advocacy efforts remains important, as language in policy can change with each legislative session. For example, Texas Senate Bill No. 763 (2023) introduced legislation allowing chaplains to serve in student support roles instead of school counselors. The Lone Star State School Counselor Association (2023) quickly took action with a published brief condemning the language in the bill. As a result of advocacy efforts, lawmakers changed the verbiage in the bill to hire chaplains in addition to school counselors, rather than in lieu of them.
Similarly, Florida’s First Lady, Casey DeSantis (Florida Governor’s Press Office, 2023), announced a shift in counseling services to emphasize resiliency and include resiliency coaches—a role in which “moms, dads, and community members will be able to take training covering counseling standards and resiliency education standards” and provide a “first layer of support to students” (para. 8). Although the Florida School Counselor Association emphasizes advocacy efforts, it has not yet published a response to the changes in Florida’s resilience instruction and support plans (Weatherill, 2023). The legislation in Texas and Florida and the response from state-level school counselor associations highlight, once again, the importance of advocacy for creating and maintaining a uniform definition of school counseling.
Manage
Although ASCA clearly defines appropriate and inappropriate school counseling activities, state policy is less specific on codifying the appropriate use of school counselors’ time and resources. Although most states encouraged appropriate school counseling activities, states did not specifically define appropriate school counseling activities or provide protection around school counselors’ time to implement appropriate school counseling activities. Such findings are consistent with the literature (Bardhoshi & Duncan, 2009; Chandler et al., 2018). Florida’s K–8 policy suggests that school counselors should implement a program that suits the school and department, whereas some states’ K–8 policy, such as New Jersey’s, recommends incorporating the ASCA National Model (2019). Several states include uncodified policy addressing the implementation of a school counseling program. However, as such recommendations are not codified into policy, they do not dictate the day-to-day activities of school counselors. Interestingly, new legislation introducing support roles for chaplains and family/community members only bolsters the need to protect school counselors’ time. Texas Senate Bill No. 763 references the need for support, services, and programming. Florida First Lady Casey DeSantis similarly emphasizes the need for support and mentorship. School counselors are trained professionals equipped to support student outcomes (ASCA, 2019). One wonders whether legislative efforts introducing chaplains and family members would be needed if school counselors’ time was protected in ways to better support students with appropriate school counseling duties. Thus, there remains an opportunity for increased advocacy surrounding the implementation of school counseling programs with specific attention on appropriate versus inappropriate school counseling activities.
Deliver
ASCA suggests that school counselors should spend 80% of their time in direct/indirect services to support student outcomes. Such efforts are pivotal, as research suggests that school counselors play a key role in supporting student outcomes (e.g., Carey & Dimmitt, 2012; O’Connor, 2018). Researchers indicate that school counselors within a comprehensive school counseling program play an integral role in supporting improved student attendance (Carey & Dimmitt, 2012), graduation rates (Hurwitz & Howell, 2014), and academic performance (Carrell & Hoekstra, 2014). However, few states support student outcomes by codifying a school counselor’s use of time into policy. Idaho’s 9–12 policy instructs school counselors to use most of their time on direct services. While not equivalent to ASCA’s 80%, such efforts represent a start to protecting school counselors’ time and ensuring that school counselors are able to make the impact they are well-trained to in their school settings. Similar to Manage, current legislative efforts only highlight the importance of school counselors spending a majority of their time supporting students through direct services.
Assess
ASCA continues to focus their advocacy efforts on student–school counselor ratios with good reason; our findings indicate that 2% of K–8 state and district policies and 3% of 9–12 policies specifically outlined a 250:1 ratio that aligns with ASCA recommendations. Yet, researchers demonstrate that reduced student–counselor ratios support improved student outcomes (Carey et al., 2012; Carrell & Carrell, 2006; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; Lapan et al., 2012). Further, minoritized students and their communities often face the negative consequences of increased student–counselor ratios (Donohue et al., 2022). As such, further advocacy around student–school counselor ratios is also needed from an equity perspective. Some states, such as Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, and Montana, recommended ASCA ratios, but as is the case with appropriate versus inappropriate school counseling activities, without policy “teeth” to enforce recommendations, school counselors are often continuing to practice in settings that far exceed ASCA ratios, as is consistent with recent findings (NCES, 2023).
Although many states did not codify policies aligned with the ASCA National Model (2019), several states (North Dakota, New Jersey, Delaware) made reference to the ASCA National Model and recommended alignment. Our analysis supports previous research indicating that advocacy works (Cigrand et al., 2015; Havlik et al., 2019; Holman et al., 2019; McConnell et al., 2020; Perry et al., 2020). Our findings also highlight the value of supporting professional identity through membership in both national organizations and state-level advocacy groups.
Implications
We explored implications for school counselor educators, school counselors, and school counseling advocates. School counselor educators must prepare future school counselors for their roles as advocates. Counselor educators also play an important role in equipping future school counselors with an understanding of the landscape of the profession (McMahon et al., 2009). As such, including state-level policy and district-level conversations in curriculum helps connect counseling students with the evolving policies guiding their work. The rubric created for this research offers a valuable tool to explore state and school district alignment with the ASCA National Model (2019) and demonstrate areas to focus advocacy efforts. Counseling programs often participate in advocacy efforts, such as Hill Day. School counselor educators can use state-level and district-level policy as a springboard to promote specific advocacy efforts with state and local legislation. On a local level, school counselor educators can use our rubric to frame practice conversations for future school counselors to prepare for future conversations with school principals. Finally, school counselor educators can continue engaging in policy-level research to support ongoing school counseling advocacy. School counselor educators can further illuminate the impacts of school counseling policy by describing perspectives of practicing school counselors. School counselor educators can also engage in quantitative research methods to study the relationships between school counselor satisfaction and state policy adherence to the ASCA National Model (2019).
School counselors can use our rubric to analyze alignment of school districts when examining job descriptions during their job searches. School counselors could also use the rubric as part of the evaluation component of a comprehensive school counseling program. From our analysis, it appears most imperative that advocacy efforts focus on school counselors’ use of time and student–counselor ratios. Using data, school counselors can continue to advocate for their role to become more closely aligned to ASCA’s recommendations. Kim et al. (2024) described the “urgent need” (p. 233) for school counselors to engage in outcome research. We hope that our framework provides a tool for school counselors to engage in evaluation and advocacy based on our findings. However, school counselors should not be alone in their advocacy efforts. School counseling advocates, including educational stakeholders, counselors, school counselor educators, and educational policymakers, should continue supporting school counselors by advocating on their behalf at the district, state, and national level.
Future research may focus on the disconnect between state policy and how the districts enact those policies. A content analysis comparing state policy to district rules, regulations, and practices is needed to understand how state policy and district practices align. Finally, although there is frequent legislative advocacy from ASCA, there is a lack of data on state legislators’ knowledge about the ASCA National Model (2019) and ASCA priorities. School counseling researchers can use qualitative methods to interview state legislators, especially after events such as Hill Day, to better detail what legislators understand about the roles and impacts of school counselors.
Limitations
The purpose of content analysis was to discover patterns in large amounts of data through a systematic coding process (Krippendorff, 2019). We are all professional counselors or counselors-in-training with a passion for advocacy. Thus, as with any qualitative work, there is potential for bias in the coding process. Interrater reliability was used to mitigate this risk. There are many factors that impact the practice of school counseling beyond state-level policy. District policies and school leadership vastly impact the ways that state policy is interpreted and enacted in schools. Thus, this content analysis represents only school counseling regulation as described in policy and may not fully represent the day-to-day experiences of school counselors.
Conclusion
Although confusion and role ambiguity muddy the school counseling profession, advocacy efforts and outcome research act as cleansers. By providing a rubric to assess alignment between state policy and the ASCA National Model, we hoped to clarify the current state of school counseling practice and provide a helpful tool for future school counselors, current practitioners, educational leaders, and policymakers.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.
References
Alexander, E. R., Savitz-Romer, M., Nicola, T. P., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Carroll, S. (2022). “We are the heartbeat of the school”: How school counselors supported student mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Professional School Counseling, 26(1b). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221105557
American School Counselor Association. (n.d.-a). About ASCA. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/About-ASCA
American School Counselor Association. (n.d.-b). Advocacy and legislation. https://bit.ly/ASCAadvocacylegislation
American School Counselor Association (n.d.-c). Guidance counselor vs. school counselor. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/c8d97962-905f-4a33-958b-744a770d71c6/Guidance-Counselor-vs-School-Counselor.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2019). ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).
American School Counselor Association. (2023). The role of the school counselor. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/ee8b2e1b-d021-4575-982c-c84402cb2cd2/Role-Statement.pdf
Bardhoshi, G., & Duncan, K. (2009). Rural school principals’ perception of the school counselor’s role. The Rural Educator, 30(3), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v30i3.445
Blake, M. K. (2020). Other duties as assigned: The ambiguous role of the high school counselor. Sociology of Education, 93(4), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040720932563
Camelford, K. G., & Ebrahim, C. H. (2017). Factors that affect implementation of a comprehensive school counseling program in secondary schools. Vistas Online, 1–10.
Carey, J., & Dimmitt, C. (2012). School counseling and student outcomes: Summary of six statewide studies. Professional School Counseling, 16(2), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001600204
Carey, J., Harrington, K., Martin, I. M., & Hoffman, D. (2012). A statewide evaluation of the outcomes of the implementation of ASCA National Model school counseling programs in rural and suburban Nebraska high schools. Professional School Counseling, 16(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001600203
Carrell, S. E., & Carrell, S. A. (2006). Do lower student to counselor ratios reduce school disciplinary problems? The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1463
Carrell, S. E., & Hoekstra, M. (2014). Are school counselors an effective education input? Economics Letters, 125(1), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.07.020
Chandler, J. W., Burnham, J. J., Riechel, M. E. K., Dahir, C. A., Stone, C. B., Oliver, D. F., Davis, A. P., & Bledsoe, K. G. (2018). Assessing the counseling and non-counseling roles of school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 16(7), n7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1182095.pdf
Cigrand, D. L., Havlik, S. G., Malott, K. M., & Jones, S. G. (2015). School counselors united in professional advocacy: A systems model. Journal of School Counseling, 13(8), n8. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1066331.pdf
Donohue, P., Parzych, J. L., Chiu, M. M., Goldberg, K., & Nguyen, K. (2022). The impacts of school counselor ratios on student outcomes: A multistate study. Professional School Counseling, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221137283
Education Trust. (2018). Funding gaps: An analysis of school funding equity across the U.S. and within each state.
https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGapReport_2018_FINAL.pdf
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Flick, U. (2015). Qualitative Inquiry—2.0 at 20? Developments, trends, and challenges for the politics of research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415583296
Florida Governor’s Press Office. (2023, March 22). First lady Casey DeSantis announces next steps in Florida’s first-in-the-nation approach to create a culture of resiliency and incentivize parental involvement in schools [Press release]. https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/first-lady-casey-desantis-announces-next-steps-floridas-first-nation-approach
Fye, H. J., Schumacker, R. E., Rainey, J. S., & Guillot Miller, L. (2022). ASCA National Model implementation predicting school counselors’ job satisfaction with role stress mediating variables. Journal of Employment Counseling, 59(3), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12181
Goodman-Scott, E., Sink, C. A., Cholewa, B. E., & Burgess, M. (2018). An ecological view of school counselor ratios and student academic outcomes: A national investigation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12221
Havlik, S. A., Malott, K., Yee, T., DeRosato, M., & Crawford, E. (2019). School counselor training in professional advocacy: The role of the counselor educator. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 6(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326716X.2018.1564710
Holman, L. F., Nelson, J., & Watts, R. (2019). Organizational variables contributing to school counselor burnout: An opportunity for leadership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic change. The Professional Counselor, 9(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.15241/lfh.9.2.126
Hurwitz, M., & Howell, J. (2014). Estimating causal impacts of school counselors with regression discontinuity designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00159.x
Kearney, C., Akos, P., Domina, T., & Young, Z. (2021). Student-to-school counselor ratios: A meta-analytic review of the evidence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99(4), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12394
Kim, H., Molina, C. E., Watkinson, J. S., Leigh-Osroosh, K. T., & Li, D. (2024). Theory-informed school counseling: Increasing efficacy through prevention-focused practice and outcome research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 102(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12507
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., Stanley, B., & Pierce, M. E. (2012). Missouri professional school counselors: Ratios matter, especially in high-poverty schools. Professional School Counseling, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001600207
Lone Star State School Counselor Association. (2023). SB 763 and Texas school counselors. https://www.lonestarstateschoolcounselor.org/news_issues
McConnell, K. R., Geesa, R. L., Mayes, R. D., & Elam, N. P. (2020). Improving school counselor efficacy through principal-counselor collaboration: A comprehensive literature review. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 32(2). https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=mwer
McCoy-Speight, A. (2021). The school counselor’s role in a post-COVID-19 era. In I. Fayed & J. Cummings (Eds.), Teaching in the post COVID-19 era (pp. 697–706). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74088-7_68
McKibben, W. B., Cade, R., Purgason, L. L., & Wahesh, E. (2022). How to conduct a deductive content analysis in counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 13(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2020.1846992
McMahon, H. G., Mason, E. C. M., & Paisley, P. O. (2009). School counselor educators as educational leaders promoting systemic change. Professional School Counseling, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0901300207
Murray, B. A. (1995). Validating the role of the school counselor. The School Counselor, 43(1), 5–9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23901422
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2023). State policy database. https://statepolicies.nasbe.org
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). National teacher and principal survey. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps
O’Connor, P. J. (2018). How school counselors make a world of difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 35–39.
https://kappanonline.org/oconnor-school-counselors-make-world-difference
Perry, J., Parikh, S., Vazquez, M., Saunders, R., Bolin, S., & Dameron, M. L. (2020). School counselor self-efficacy in advocating for self: How prepared are we? Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 13(4), 5. https://research.library.kutztown.edu/jcps/vol13/iss4/5
Pyne, J. R. (2011). Comprehensive school counseling programs, job satisfaction, and the ASCA National Model. Professional School Counseling, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1101500202
Reback, R. (2010). Schools’ mental health services and young children’s emotions, behavior, and learning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(4), 698–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20528
S.B. 763, 88th Cong. (2023). https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=SB763
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571
Weatherill, A. (2023). Florida Department of Education update. Florida Department of Education. https://www.myflfamilies.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/DOE%20Update-DCF%20committee%20meeting%206-28-23.pdf
Appendix A
Breakdown of State Rubric Scores for ASCA Alignment for K–8 Schools
|
Define
(5 points)
|
Manage
(1 point) |
Deliver
(1 point) |
Assess
(2 points) |
State Score
(9 points) |
|
Required
(1 point)
|
Education
(1 point) |
Focus
(3 points) |
Implementation
(1 point) |
Use of Time
(1 point) |
Accountability
(1 point) |
Ratio
(1 point) |
Total |
| AL |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| AK |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
| AZ |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| AR |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| CA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| CO |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| CT |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| DE |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| DC |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| FL |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
| GA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| HI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| ID |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| IL |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| IN |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| IA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| KA |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| KY |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| LA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| ME |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| MD |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| MA |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| MI |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| MN |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| MI |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| MO |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| MT |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| NE |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
| NV |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| NH |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
| NJ |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| NM |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| NY |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| NC |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| ND |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| OH |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
| OK |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| OR |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| PA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| RI |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| SC |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| SD |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| TN |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| TX |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| UT |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| VT |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
| VA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| WA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| WV |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| WI |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| WY |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Total |
37 |
40 |
107 |
34 |
17 |
21 |
2 |
– |
Note. Categories refer to the ASCA National Model (2019).
Appendix B
Breakdown of State Rubric Scores for ASCA Alignment for 9–12 Schools
|
Define
(5 points)
|
Manage
(1 point) |
Deliver
(1 point) |
Assess
(2 points) |
State Score
(9 points) |
|
Required
(1 point)
|
Education
(1 point) |
Focus
(3 points) |
Implementation
(1 point) |
Use of Time
(1 point) |
Accountability
(1 point) |
Ratio
(1 point) |
Total |
| AL |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| AK |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| AZ |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| AR |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| CA |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| CO |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| CT |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| DE |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| DC |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| FL |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| GA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| HI |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| ID |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| IL |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| IN |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| IA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| KA |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| KY |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| LA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| ME |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| MD |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| MA |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| MI |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
| MN |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| MI |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| MO |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| MT |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| NE |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| NV |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| NH |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
| NJ |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| NM |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| NY |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| NC |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| ND |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| OH |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
| OK |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| OR |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| PA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| RI |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| SC |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| SD |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| TN |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| TX |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
| UT |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| VT |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
| VA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| WA |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| WV |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| WI |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
| WY |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| Total |
40 |
50 |
121 |
36 |
10 |
29 |
3 |
– |
Note. Categories refer to the ASCA National Model (2019).
Alexandra Frank, PhD, NCC, is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Amanda C. DeDiego, PhD, NCC, ACS, BC-TMH, LPC, is an associate professor at the University of Wyoming. Isabel C. Farrell, PhD, NCC, LPC, is an associate professor at Wake Forest University. Kirby Jones, MA, LCMHCA, is a licensed counselor at Camel City Counseling. Amanda C. Tracy, MS, NCC, PPC, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wyoming. Correspondence may be addressed to Alexandra Frank, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, School of Professional Studies, 651 McCallie Ave, Room 105D, Chattanooga, TN 37403, Alexandra-Frank@utc.edu.
Oct 31, 2023 | Volume 13 - Issue 3
Nancy Chae, Adrienne Backer, Patrick R. Mullen
All counseling graduate students participate in fieldwork experiences and engage in supervision to promote their professional development. School counseling trainees complete these experiences in the unique context of elementary and secondary school settings. As such, school counselors-in-training (SCITs) may seek to approach supervision with specific strategies tailored for the roles, responsibilities, and dispositions required of competent future school counselors. This article suggests practical strategies for SCITs, including engaging in reflection; navigating feelings of vulnerability in supervision; developing appropriate professional dispositions for school counseling practice; and practicing self-advocacy, broaching, and self-care. Counselor educators can share these strategies to help students identify their needs for their field experiences and prepare for their professional careers as school counselors.
Keywords: supervision, professional development, school counseling, school counselors-in-training, strategies
School counselors-in-training (SCITs) are trainees enrolled in graduate-level counselor education programs and receive supervision as an integral component of their training (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). Although the supervision relationship is often characterized as hierarchical, trainees must actively participate in the supervision process to develop competency as counseling professionals (Stark, 2017). Despite this, trainees in counseling programs generally receive little guidance on understanding their roles in supervision or how to make the most of their supervision experience to contribute to their learning (Pearson, 2004; Stark, 2017). Although Pearson (2004) offered suggestions for mental health counseling students to optimize their supervision experiences, there is limited literature about how school counseling students can maximize their supervision experiences. The intention of this article is to share strategies for SCITs to take the initiative to approach supervisors with questions and ideas about their overall supervision experience, though these suggestions are not limited to SCITs and may also be useful for trainees across other counseling disciplines.
School counseling site supervision is distinguishable from supervision in other helping professions in that the roles and responsibilities of professional school counselors extend beyond the individual and group counseling services that their community counseling partners provide (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2019a, 2021; Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). For example, comprehensive school counseling programming encompasses direct counseling services with students and families in addition to broader systemic consultation, advocacy, and support for school communities (ASCA, 2019a). School counselors encounter unique challenges in schools regarding student and staff mental health, issues related to equity and access, and navigating the political landscapes of school systems (Bemak & Chung, 2008). Even with an understanding of these distinct themes in school counseling, there is a lack of significance placed on supervision in school counseling within research and in practice to adequately respond to contemporary school counseling issues (Bledsoe et al., 2019). Examining how SCITs can approach supervision and their roles as trainees can ensure their own learning and developmental needs are met, along with the needs of their school communities.
Contexts of School Counseling Supervision
Supervision for SCITs is provided by experienced professional school counselors and characterized by an intentional balance of hierarchy, evaluation, and support during their practicum and internship fieldwork experiences (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Borders & Brown, 2005). School counselor supervision serves three primary purposes: (a) promoting competency in effective and ethical school counseling practice; (b) facilitating SCITs’ personal and professional development; and (c) upholding accountability of services and programs for the greater profession and the schools, students, and families receiving services (ASCA, 2021; L. J. Bradley et al., 2010). School counseling site supervisors utilize their training and experiences to guide SCITs through their induction to the profession and development of initial skills and dispositions.
ASCA (2021) compels school counseling supervisors to address the complexities specific to educational settings as they support the professional development of SCITs, which sets school counseling supervision apart from supervision in other clinical counseling disciplines. School counselors facilitate instruction and classroom management, provide appraisal and advisement, and support the developmental and social–emotional needs of students through data-informed school counseling programs (ASCA, 2019a). Within school and community settings, they also navigate systems with an advocacy and social justice orientation and attend to cultural competence and anti-racist work. Although there are school counseling–specific supervision models that address some of the complexities inherent in the work of school counselors (e.g., Lambie & Sias, 2009; Luke & Bernard, 2006; S. Murphy & Kaffenberger, 2007; Wood & Rayle, 2006), there is currently a gap in the school counseling literature about effectively addressing the unique supervision needs of SCITs. Therefore, school counselor practitioners and counselor educators may refer to professional standards for supervision to inform how they supervise and support the developmental needs of SCITs, which may also help SCITs to understand what they might expect to encounter in graduate-level supervision.
Professional Standards for School Counseling Supervision
School counseling professional standards underscore the need for school counselor supervisors to seek supervision and training (ASCA, 2019b; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2015; Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). Professional associations and accrediting organizations (e.g., ASCA, CACREP) promote adherence to and integration of school counselor standards and competencies related to leadership, advocacy, collaboration, systemic change, and ethical practice (ASCA, 2022; CACREP, 2015; Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). As such, school counseling supervision facilitates ethical and professional skill development through school counselor standards and competencies, such as the ASCA School Counselor Professional Standards & Competencies (ASCA, 2019c) and the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors (ASCA, 2022).
School counseling supervisors can support SCITs’ professional growth and development by aligning supervision activities with specific standards and competencies (Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). For example, a supervisor seeking to model the school counselor mindset and behavior standards focused on collaborative partnerships (i.e., M 5, B-SS 6; ASCA, 2019c) might provide opportunities for SCITs to develop relationships with stakeholders (e.g., families, administrators, community) while supporting student achievement. Similarly, an example of aligning supervision activities with ethical standards might involve guiding an SCIT through the process of utilizing an ethical decision-making model to resolve a potential dilemma (see Section F; ASCA, 2022).
Supervision in School Counseling
Supervision in school counseling ensures that new professionals enter the field prepared to understand and support the needs of students by effectively applying ethical standards and best practices of the profession. As such, gatekeeping is a crucial component of supervision. As gatekeepers, counselor educators or supervisors exercise their professional authority to take action that prevents a trainee who does not enact the required professional dispositions and ethical practices from entering the profession of counseling (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). When a trainee is identified as unable to achieve counseling competencies or likely to harm others, ethical practice guides counselor educators to provide developmental or remedial services to work toward improvements before dismissal from a counseling program (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014; Foster & McAdams, 2009).
Although supervised fieldwork experiences during graduate education and training are needed for accreditation (CACREP, 2015) and state certification, professional school counselors employed in the field may not be required to participate in any form of post-master’s clinical supervision for initial school counseling certification or renewal of their certification, unlike professional clinical mental health counselors, who require post-master’s supervision to attain licensure (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2017; Mecadon-Mann & Tuttle, 2023). Administrative supervision provided by a school administrator is more common for school counselors than clinical supervision, which promotes the competence of counselors by focusing on the development and refinement of counseling skills (Herlihy et al., 2002). In other words, though school counselors routinely encounter complex situations that involve supporting students with acute needs and responding to crises, they likely do not receive the clinical supervision needed to enhance their judgment, skills, and ethical decision-making (Bledsoe et al., 2019; Brott et al., 2021; Herlihy et al., 2002; McKibben et al., 2022; Sutton & Page, 1994). Given the reality that school counselors may not access or receive opportunities for postgraduate clinical supervision, it is important that SCITs experience robust supervision during their graduate training programs with the support of qualified site and university supervisors. This sets the stage for SCITs to effectively engage with the challenges of their future school counseling careers.
Expectations of Site and University Supervisors
For SCITs who are new to the experience of supervision in their fieldwork, it is helpful to understand what they may expect from their respective site and university supervisors. Borders et al. (2014) recommended that supervisors initiate supervision, set goals with trainees, provide feedback, facilitate the supervisory relationship, and attend to diversity, as well as engage in advocacy, ethical consideration, documentation, and evaluation. Supervisors select supervision interventions that attend to the developmental needs of trainees, and they also serve as gatekeepers for the profession (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Borders et al., 2014). Furthermore, supervisors facilitate an effective relationship with their trainees, characterized by empowerment, encouragement, and safety (Dressel et al., 2007; Ladany et al., 2013; M. J. Murphy & Wright, 2005). Supervisors provide a balance of support and challenge in their feedback and interactions with trainees (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019) and attend to multicultural issues by broaching with their trainees about their intersecting identities and experiences of power, privilege, and marginalization (Dressel et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2019; M. J. Murphy & Wright, 2005). Supervisors also validate trainees’ experiences by acknowledging any emergent issues of vicarious trauma and encouraging self-care (K. Jordan, 2018).
Supervisors and trainees have mutual responsibilities to facilitate an effective supervision experience. Although supervisors may hold a more significant stake of power in the relationship, trainees’ willingness to take an active role also matters. School counseling trainees are not passive bystanders in the learning process; instead, they can be thoughtful learners yearning to take full advantage of the growth from their clinical experiences. To help illuminate the opportunities and expectations SCITs can seek during supervision, the subsequent strategies from school counseling supervision research serve as suggested approaches for SCITs to make the most of this fundamental and practical learning experience.
Strategies for School Counseling Trainees
School counseling trainees can take an active role to ensure that their supervision experiences are relevant to their personal and professional development. The following approaches do not constitute an all-encompassing list but provide a foundation and guidelines rooted in existing research to get the most out of the supervision experience, including engaging in reflection and vulnerability, practicing self-advocacy, broaching, and maintaining personal wellness.
Reflection in Supervision
Reflection is key to school counselor development, especially in supervision. Researchers have reported that continuous reflection helps novice counselors move toward higher levels of cognitive complexity and expertise (Borders & Brown, 2005; Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1992). A reflective trainee demonstrates openness to understanding; avoids being defensive; and engages in profound thought processes that lead to changes in their perceptions, practice, and complexity (Neufeldt et al., 1996). Through reflection, trainees consider troubling, confusing, or uncertain experiences or thoughts and then reframe them to problem-solve and guide future actions (Ward & House, 1998; Young et al., 2011). Further, by developing relationships with supervisors, trainees become open to receiving and integrating feedback to support their development (Borders & Brown, 2005). Reflection becomes an ongoing process and practice throughout trainees’ academic and field experiences and postgraduation.
Trainees can engage in self-reflective practices in various ways over the course of their graduate training. First, trainees can use a journal to record thoughts, feelings, and events throughout their school counseling field experiences. Research has shown that written or video journaling can help trainees to reflect on the highs and lows of counseling training and foster self-awareness (Parikh et al., 2012; Storlie et al., 2018; Woodbridge & O’Beirne, 2017). For example, trainees can connect their practical experiences with knowledge from academic learning to note discrepancies and consistencies (e.g., learning about the ASCA National Model and the extent to which a school chooses to implement the model; navigating the bureaucracy of school systems that often dictate roles and responsibilities of school counselors). Trainees can also challenge their thoughts by exploring difficult experiences using reflective journaling. They can journal about the different perspectives of those involved in the situation (e.g., students, parents/guardians, teachers, administrators), process ethical dilemmas, and gauge and manage any emotional experiences attached to grappling with challenges. Trainees desiring structured prompts can consider writing about specific developmental, emotional, and interpersonal experiences to process events related to counselor and client interactions (Storlie et al., 2018).
Second, trainees can consult with their supervisors to seek guidance and constructive feedback about challenging experiences (Borders & Brown, 2005). Hamlet (2022) recommended using the S.K.A.T.E.S. form to reflect on issues related to trainees’ Skills, Knowledge, Attitudes, Thoughts, Ethics, and Supervision needs. Using S.K.A.T.E.S., for example, a school counseling intern may reflect on how they incorporated motivational interviewing counseling skills to support a student struggling with their declining grades (North, 2017). They might seek supervision about a challenging crisis response at the school and process how they might have responded differently. Even after supervision sessions, trainees should engage in continued self-reflection and apply new learning to their clinical practice.
Third, trainees can utilize the Johari window as a tool to reflect upon the knowledge, awareness, and skills required for school counseling practice (Halpern, 2009). Trainees work with supervisors to consider questions or experiences to identify: (a) open areas (i.e., things known to everyone, such as critically discussing school- and district-wide policies that contribute to inequitable access to college preparatory courses); (b) hidden areas (i.e., things only known to the trainee to be shared in supervision, such as the trainee’s hesitations about leading a group counseling session with middle school students independently for the first time); (c) blind spots (i.e., things that the supervisor is aware of that the trainee may not be, such as personal biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and discriminatory attitudes that may affect the trainee’s conceptualizations and interactions with students and families); and (d) undiscovered potential (i.e., things that the supervisor and trainee can experience and learn together, such as engaging in professional learning together to align school counseling programming with a school-wide movement toward implementing restorative justice practices). This strategy also compels trainees to align their supervision goals with ethical codes (see A.4.b., F.8.c., and F.8.d in the ACA Code of Ethics) and standards for professional practice (ACA, 2014). Trainees can feel empowered to utilize the Johari window with supervisors and peers to guide conversations, generate questions, and develop insights to inform school counseling practice and explore ethical dilemmas.
Vulnerability in Supervision
Vulnerability is an essential yet challenging experience within the hierarchical nature of supervision. Being vulnerable involves feelings of uncertainty, reluctance, and exposure; hence, trainees require a sense of psychological safety and support to explore their needs and areas of weakness (Bradley et al., 2019; Giordano et al., 2018; J. V. Jordan, 2003). Although site supervisors hold the primary responsibility for facilitating supervision relationships characterized by safety and support (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019), trainees can feel empowered to advocate for supervision environments that encourage authenticity and vulnerability, which are conducive to growth and development.
First, trainees can discuss with their supervisors and peers to define feelings of vulnerability and create group norms to promote supported vulnerability (Bradley et al., 2019). With a shared understanding, trainees, supervisors, and peers create an environment for continued growth and risk-taking. For example, during the first group supervision meeting, trainees can suggest norms that will individually and collectively sustain a safe classroom community for sharing and learning. A lack of clear norms about how to communicate feedback may result in experiences of shame and affect trainees’ confidence (J. V. Jordan, 2003; Ratts & Greenleaf, 2018). To mitigate this, trainees, supervisors, and peers can collaboratively discuss appropriate and preferred ways of giving and receiving feedback that is supportive, productive, and meaningful (Ladany et al., 2013). For example, trainees may prefer specific comments rather than general praise: “When the client expressed their frustration, you did well to remain calm and reflect content and feelings in that moment,” instead of “You did a great job.” This exchange among trainees, supervisors, and peers offers a constructive and engaging experience in which individuals can appropriately support and challenge one another.
Second, reviewing recordings offers a learning opportunity for trainees to reflect upon and critique their own skills and dispositions (Borders & Brown, 2005). When presenting recorded case presentations, trainees can practice vulnerability by selecting and presenting recordings that highlight challenging areas that may require constructive feedback (i.e., show their worst rather than their best). Trainees can identify portions of recordings that exemplify where they need the most help, such as a challenging experience during an individual counseling session with a student. Further, when presenting their recordings, trainees can also ask for suggestions to improve consultation work with caregivers when discussing college and career planning issues or innovative instructional strategies for teaching a classroom lesson in response to challenging situations. Vulnerability also occurs when trainees seek support from supervisors and peers about blind spots and areas of strength and growth regarding skill development and self-awareness issues in the recorded session or role-play. For instance, a trainee may express concern about the increasing academic counseling referrals of ninth-grade students who are struggling with the transition to high school and ask for guidance about how to more effectively respond systemically and individually.
Self-Advocacy in Supervision
Self-advocacy is another empowering practice for trainees to identify their needs and seek support. Researchers have defined self-advocacy as understanding one’s rights and responsibilities, communicating needs, and negotiating for support, which helps trainees proactively approach supervision (Astramovich & Harris, 2007; Pocock et al., 2002). Although supervision is characterized as hierarchical, it is also a relationship based on mutual participation, with inherent expectations for trainees (Stark, 2017). Within the evaluative nature of a supervision relationship, trainees may reasonably feel intimidated about practicing self-advocacy. However, trainees can feel empowered to self-advocate when building rapport with supervisors in an environment characterized by safety and support.
To prepare to self-advocate, trainees should continue engaging in self-reflection on their gaps in knowledge, awareness, and skills related to school counseling practice and then consider the types of resources and supports needed from their supervisor to bridge such gaps. In alignment with their learning goals, trainees can self-advocate by taking the initiative to request support for what they would like to achieve during the supervision experience (Storlie et al., 2019). For example, trainees may inquire about logistical concerns, such as seeking guidance about appropriate and creative ways to ensure that they earn sufficient direct and indirect hours, or evaluative concerns, like asking how to improve in specific school counseling skill areas after mid- and end-of-semester evaluations. Trainees can also seek support with conceptualization (e.g., applying a theoretical orientation when understanding the potential contributors to a student’s feeling of anxiety), skill development (e.g., experience with advocating for students receiving special education services in an Individualized Educational Plan [IEP] meeting), and countertransference issues (e.g., emotional reactions that may arise when supporting a grieving student coping with a loss; Pearson, 2004). Trainees should prepare specific questions that communicate their needs and explicitly request resources, opportunities, or next steps for continued improvement and development.
Trainees may also self-advocate through positive communication, which is a critical skill for helping professionals and in maintaining relationships (Biganeh & Young, 2021). Positive communication may involve actively listening to their supervisor’s insights, presenting statements that paraphrase their supervisor’s key points, and asking open-ended questions to elicit mutual exploration of topics of interest. For instance, after observing a crisis response to a student expressing suicidal ideation, the trainee can debrief about their experiences with their supervisor by summarizing key observations and protocol followed, while also asking what steps could be added or reconsidered if the trainee were leading the crisis response. Additionally, practicing communication skills in the context of supervision may enhance trainees’ competence and confidence when interacting with students and stakeholders, including caregivers, teachers, and administrators (Heaven et al., 2006). For example, trainees can request to observe and later role-play how they might facilitate a consultation meeting with a student and their parent to discuss the importance of consistent attendance and academic development.
Trainees can get the most out of their supervision experience by self-advocating and taking initiative to describe their unique learning styles and needs (Storlie et al., 2019). This provides an opportunity for trainees to proactively convey their goals and concerns about students and stakeholders at their sites (Baltrinic et al., 2021; Cook & Sackett, 2018). For example, if the trainee has become increasingly comfortable with co-leading a group counseling session, the trainee can communicate a desire to design and independently lead a group counseling session and then seek feedback about the curriculum plans or recordings of the session for continued improvement in group facilitation skills. Ultimately, engaging in self-advocacy skills during fieldwork helps trainees prepare for their careers as school counselors, in which self-advocacy is necessary when seeking professional development, resources for school counseling program development, and navigating school systems and politics to support their students and school counseling programs (Oehrtman & Dollarhide, 2021).
Broaching
Broaching is an ongoing behavior in which counselors invite conversations to explore race, ethnicity, and culture with clients, which can strengthen the counseling relationship and enhance cultural responsiveness and therapeutic benefits (Day-Vines et al., 2007, 2013). Likewise, in supervisory relationships, broaching helps supervisors and trainees to understand how cultural factors affect the supervisory relationship (Jones et al., 2019). Without broaching, both supervisors and trainees may miss meaningful contexts and realities, potentially rupturing the supervisory relationship (Jones et al., 2019). Broaching is also a key demonstration of commitment to culturally informed clinical supervision that promotes cultural humility and anti-racist counseling and supervision practice (Cartwright et al., 2021).
Although supervisors are charged with the responsibility of broaching based on the hierarchical nature of the supervisory relationship and its inherent power dynamics, they may not consistently incorporate broaching as part of their regular supervision behaviors (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; King & Jones, 2019). Trainees who feel empowered to discuss issues of identity and power in supervision are more likely to initiate broaching conversations with their supervisors (King & Jones, 2019). As such, trainees should feel encouraged to engage in discussions with their supervisors to openly address cultural identities that may impact the supervisory relationship and their work with students and stakeholders in schools. King and Jones (2019) suggested that trainees can broach topics that they feel comfortable discussing within the context of their supervision relationship. It is necessary to note that the process and outcome of broaching in supervision are not only contingent upon the diverse sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts of individuals, but also on where the trainee and supervisor lie within the continuum of broaching styles and their own racial identity development as well as the power and hierarchy dynamics of the supervisory relationship (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Day-Vines et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2019). Just as for any novice counselor and individuals in the early stages of the broaching styles continuum, there may be hesitation, anxiousness, misunderstanding, or intimidation about engaging in broaching skills, especially considering the power dynamic of supervision. Trainees can self-assess their broaching style by using the Broaching Attitudes and Behavior Survey (Day-Vines et al., 2007, 2013), which might provide them with insight about their own level of comfort with broaching in supervision.
Trainees can seek continuing education and support from supervisors and peers about developing and strengthening their understanding of cultural diversity, race, oppression, and privilege related to school counseling. If a trainee feels nervous about broaching with their supervisor, the trainee can express their desire to practice broaching and seek feedback from their supervisor after broaching has taken place (e.g., “I would like to try broaching about a student’s cultural identities, and I was wondering if you could share your thoughts with me.”). Trainees can also directly express curiosities, observations, or questions about how any cultural differences and similarities between the supervisor and trainee may impact and inform the supervisory relationship. For example, a trainee and supervisor can discuss prior supervisory relationships, such as in academic or employment experiences, and identify the shared or different intersectional cultural identities to understand how this new supervisory relationship can be a meaningful relationship and safe space for learning. This exercise demonstrates cultural humility in which trainees engage in respectful curiosity, a stance of openness, and cultural awareness that enhances the supervisory working alliance (Watkins et al., 2019).
Broaching can also help school counseling trainees move beyond the nice counselor syndrome—a phenomenon in which stakeholders may often view school counselors as harmonious and unengaged in conflict, which supersedes their position as social justice advocates and instead perpetuates the status quo and reinforces inequities (Bemak & Chung, 2008). Because broaching invites discussion about multicultural and social justice issues, trainees can initiate conversations about personal obstacles (e.g., apathy, anxiety, guilt, discomfort) and professional obstacles (e.g., professional paralysis, resistance, job security) during supervision (Bemak & Chung, 2008). For example, a trainee can seek guidance about how to present a proposal to administrators about an affinity group for LGBTQ+ students and allies in the school. They can discuss potential personal and professional obstacles, how to overcome such obstacles to promote the group, and how to advocate for inclusion of LGBTQ+ students. It is important for trainees to engage in advocacy during their fieldwork experiences because social justice is inherent to school counselor identity and comprehensive school counseling programs (Glosoff & Durham, 2010).
Personal Well-Being
Self-care and personal wellness are necessary not only for counseling practice but also for supervision experiences; these contribute to personal and professional development and ethical practice, promote positive outcomes with students/clients, and mitigate issues of burnout and turnover (Blount et al., 2016; Branco & Patton-Scott, 2020; Mullen et al., 2020). For trainees, it is typical yet challenging to balance an academic workload; the demands of fieldwork; and other personal, social, and emotional experiences. Trainees can utilize supervision to maintain accountability for self-assessing their wellness practices that support their continued effective and ethical counseling practice. Marley (2011) found that self-help strategies can reduce emotional distress and offer coping skills to manage difficulties, which can help trainees maintain their self-care and develop skills for continued wellness.
Blount et al. (2016) suggested developing a wellness identity in supervision. Trainees can develop a wellness identity by acknowledging the wellness practices they already engage in and continuing practices that help to maintain self-care. Moreover, Mullen et al. (2020) found that engaging in problem-solving pondering (e.g., planning or developing a strategy to complete a task or address a problem within fieldwork), as opposed to negative work-related rumination, supported well-being, higher job satisfaction, and work engagement for school counselors. For example, rather than ruminating about a disagreement with a teacher regarding recommending a student for the gifted program, the trainee can consider ways to turn future conversations into partnership opportunities with the teacher—while also consulting with the supervisor, administrator, and parent about considering additional data points to advocate for the student’s enrollment in the gifted program.
Another way for trainees to support their well-being is to acknowledge their strengths (Wiley et al., 2021) related to their clinical knowledge, awareness, and skills in live and recorded sessions with students. This can be challenging yet empowering for trainees who are quick to self-criticize. For instance, before jumping to areas for improvement, trainees are encouraged to first ask, “What did I do well here?” and also request recommendations for additional wellness strategies to strengthen their school counseling practice. Additional resources, such as readings or role-plays, may help trainees
re-center themselves after difficult or challenging scenarios. For example, after making their first report to child protective services about a suspected physical abuse case, the trainee can process with their supervisor and discuss potential self-care strategies and resources to manage the difficult emotions arising from the challenging experience.
Moreover, researchers suggested utilizing self-compassion as a means of self-care for counseling graduate students (Nelson et al., 2018). Trainees can intentionally practice being kind to oneself; normalizing and humanizing the experience of challenges; and being aware of one’s own feelings, thoughts, and reactions, which can enhance their well-being and reduce potential fatigue and burnout (Nelson et al., 2018; Pearson, 2004). For example, after hearing difficult feedback from their supervisor about improving a lesson plan, a trainee can try reframing weaknesses as areas for continued growth. Or, when reviewing a mid- or end-of-semester evaluation with their supervisor, a trainee can practice being present and open to feedback while also monitoring and taking the initiative to share feelings, insights, and questions. After a supervision session or evaluative experience, a trainee can also engage in journaling or compassionate letter writing (Nelson et al., 2018) to be mindfully aware of their emotions and normalize the challenging growth experiences of a developing counselor.
Overall, trainees deserve meaningful, supportive, and responsive supervision, yet they commonly (mis)perceive themselves as in positions of less power in supervision and their fieldwork sites. Trainees should feel empowered to consult with others at their sites and universities to address issues of concern and seek clarification from supervisors about the expectations of supervision; this supports an effective, collaborative supervision experience. Together with supervisors, trainees can review the strategies throughout supervision sessions. With guidance and support, trainees can attempt such strategies within the safety of the supervisory relationship.
Implications for Site Supervisors and Counselor Educators
There are several implications for site supervisors and counselor educators when considering strategies to empower trainees to maximize their supervision experience. Although trainees can take the initiative to implement such strategies independently, some suggestions may require additional collaborative support and guidance from site supervisors and counselor educators. For example, site supervisors and counselor educators could consider introducing the strategies posed in this article during supervision sessions or as assigned reading for discussion. Altogether, engaging in and facilitating these strategies contributes to the development of important dispositional characteristics required of professional school counselors.
Site supervisors and counselor educators have the responsibility to facilitate a supervision environment in which trainees feel empowered to utilize the suggested strategies. This requires them to intentionally balance safety and support with challenge and high expectations (Stoltenberg, 1981). When trainees lack a sense of safety, they may be less likely to self-disclose dilemmas or concerns and more likely to feel shame, which jeopardizes the overall supervision experience and relationship (J. V. Jordan, 2003; Murphy & Wright, 2005). When trainees experience inclusivity in their training programs and move past the discomfort of vulnerability, they can experience growth, strengthen the supervisory relationship, and address their learning goals (Bradley et al., 2019; Giordano et al., 2018). For example, although trainees can take the initiative to suggest norms for supervision, we encourage supervisors to invite or prompt discussions related to trainees’ learning needs and expectations for the supervisory relationship.
Reflection and vulnerability also require rapport and trust for trainees to self-advocate. Further, when trainees can communicate with their supervisors about their needs, supervisors can respond by appropriately facilitating their request for support (Stoltenberg, 1981). During supervision, supervisors also model, teach, and monitor wellness strategies to support trainees’ ethical and professional school counseling practice (Blount et al., 2016). For instance, site supervisors and counselor educators may need to introduce the Johari window framework as a structured reflective exercise, if trainees are not already aware of this tool (Halpern, 2009).
Finally, broaching within supervision may offer a proactive means of exploring dynamics, power, and cultural differences that can bolster the quality and longevity of the supervision experience. However, the onus is typically on supervisors to initiate broaching conversations after they have facilitated a supervision relationship characterized by trust, acceptance, and inclusion (Jones et al., 2019). Supervisors model how to broach topics of race and culture within the dynamics of the supervisory relationship so that trainees can feel empowered to incorporate broaching as an ongoing professional disposition during and beyond supervision. For example, trainees and supervisors are encouraged to explore, model, and role-play recommendations from Bemak and Chung (2008) to move beyond nice counselor syndrome in school counseling practice.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this article provided a variety of practical strategies for SCITs to navigate supervision, it is not intended to be comprehensive and is not without limitations. The suggested strategies have been informed by research to support the supervision process and overall trainee development but may not necessarily be empirically supported. In addition, the strategies may not apply across all supervision contexts, relationships, and circumstances; thus, we encourage trainees to use their best judgment to consider which strategies may be most feasible and useful within their given contexts. Although this article attempted to provide examples specific to the unique work environment and responsibilities that SCITs will encounter, several suggestions provided herein may also apply to counseling trainees working outside of school counseling contexts. Knowing that supervision is an evaluative and hierarchical process, there may be dynamics of power and privilege present that may intimidate or hinder trainees from autonomously attempting and engaging in such strategies. Thus, the power dynamics of supervision may present a barrier for some trainees to self-advocate.
Future research is needed about the characteristics and contributions of trainees that can enhance the supervisory relationship and competence of the supervisor. Researchers could consider a qualitative study to explore SCITs’ experiences of autonomously implemented strategies during supervision as well as a quantitative intervention study to assess the effectiveness of specific strategies to enhance trainee and supervisor development, self-efficacy, and competence. Researchers could also consider strategies specific to site- and university-based supervision that offer evidence for trainees’ growth and competence and later longitudinal impacts of such strategies on personal and professional development.
Conclusion
Considering that supervision is a time-limited experience, these suggested strategies for approaching supervision can inform SCITs (and trainees from other counseling disciplines) about ways to advocate for a quality supervision experience. When trainees are prepared for supervision, they may feel less anxious and more empowered to approach and shape supervision to meet their developmental needs. When trainees are mindful of and actively engaged in reflection, vulnerability, self-advocacy, broaching, and wellness, they can feel empowered to seek support and resources to bridge gaps in their learning and development during the supervision experience. Site supervisors and counselor educators can also share these strategies with trainees and encourage trainees to implement them in fieldwork and university contexts.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2019a). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).
American School Counselor Association. (2019b). ASCA standards for school counselor preparation programs. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/573d7c2c-1622-4d25-a5ac-ac74d2e614ca/ASCA-Standards-for-School-Counselor-Preparation-Programs.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2019c). ASCA school counselor professional standards & competencies. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/a8d59c2c-51de-4ec3-a565-a3235f3b93c3/SC-Competencies.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2021). The school counselor and school counselor supervision. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-School-Counselor-Supervis
American School Counselor Association. (2022). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf
Astramovich, R. L., & Harris, K. R. (2007). Promoting self-advocacy among minority students in school counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00474.x
Baltrinic, E. R., Cook, R. M., & Fye, H. J. (2021). A Q methodology study of supervisee roles within a counseling practicum course. The Professional Counselor, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15241/erb.11.1.1
Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C.-Y. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies for school counselors: A multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond the Nice Counselor Syndrome. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00522.x
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson.
Biganeh, M., & Young, S. L. (2021). Followers’ perceptions of positive communication practices in leadership: What matters and surprisingly what does not. International Journal of Business Communication, 0(0).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420987277
Bledsoe, K. G., Logan-McKibben, S., McKibben, W. B., & Cook, R. M. (2019). A content analysis of school counseling supervision. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X19838454
Blount, A. J., Taylor, D. D., Lambie, G. W., & Anwell, A. N. (2016). Clinical supervisors’ perceptions of wellness: A phenomenological view on supervisee wellness. The Professional Counselor, 6(4), 360–374.
https://doi.org/10.15241/ab.6.4.360
Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision (1st ed.). Routledge.
Borders, L. D., Glosoff, H. L., Welfare, L. E., Hays, D. G., DeKruyf, L., Fernando, D. M., & Page, B. (2014). Best practices in clinical supervision: Evolution of a counseling specialty. The Clinical Supervisor, 33(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2014.905225
Bradley, L. J., Ladany, N., Hendricks, B., Whiting, P. P., & Rhode, K. M. (2010). Overview of counseling supervision. In N. Ladany & L. J. Bradley (Eds.), Counselor supervision (4th ed.). Routledge.
Bradley, N., Stargell, N., Craigen, L., Whisenhunt, J., Campbell, E., & Kress, V. (2019). Creative approaches for promoting vulnerability in supervision: A relational-cultural approach. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 14(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2018.1562395
Branco, S. F., & Patton-Scott, V. (2020). Practice what we teach: Promoting wellness in a clinical mental health counseling master’s program. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 15(3), 405–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2019.1696260
Brott, P. E., DeKruyf, L., Hyun, J. H., LaFever, C. R., Patterson-Mills, S., Cook Sandifer, M. I., & Stone, V. (2021). The critical need for peer clinical supervision among school counselors. Journal of School-Based Counseling Policy and Evaluation, 3(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.25774/nr5m-mq71
Cartwright, A. D., Carey, C. D., Chen, H., Hammonds, D., Reyes, A. G., & White, M. E. (2021). Multi-tiered intensive supervision: A culturally-informed method of clinical supervision. Teaching and Supervision in Counseling, 3(2), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.7290/tsc030208
Cook, R. M., & Sackett, C. R. (2018). Exploration of prelicensed counselors’ experiences prioritizing information for clinical supervision. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12226
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards. http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2016-Standards-with-citations.pdf
Day-Vines, N. L., Bryan, J., & Griffin, D. (2013). The Broaching Attitudes and Behavior Survey (BABS): An exploratory assessment of its dimensionality. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(4), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00037.x
Day-Vines, N. L., Wood, S. M., Grothaus, T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake, K., & Douglass, M. J. (2007). Broaching the subjects of race, ethnicity, and culture during the counseling process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00608.x
Dollarhide, C. T., & Saginak, K. A. (2017). Comprehensive school counseling programs: K-12 delivery systems in action (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Dressel, J. L., Consoli, A. J., Kim, B. S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (2007). Successful and unsuccessful multicultural supervisory behaviors: A Delphi poll. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2007.tb00049.x
Foster, V. A., & McAdams, C. R., III. (2009). A framework for creating a climate of transparency for professional performance assessment: Fostering student investment in gatekeeping. Counselor Education & Supervision, 48(4), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00080.x
Giordano, A. L., Bevly, C. M., Tucker, S., & Prosek, E. A. (2018). Psychological safety and appreciation of differences in counselor training programs: Examining religion, spirituality, and political beliefs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12202
Glosoff, H. L., & Durham, J. C. (2010). Using supervision to prepare social justice counseling advocates. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50(2), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00113.x
Halpern, H. (2009). Supervision and the Johari window: A framework for asking questions. Education for Primary Care, 20(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2009.11493757
Hamlet, H. S. (2022). School counseling practicum and internship: 30+ essential lessons (2nd ed.). Cognella Academic Publishing.
Heaven, C., Clegg, J., & Maguire, P. (2006). Transfer of communication skills training from workshop to workplace: The impact of clinical supervision. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(3), 313–325.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.08.008
Herlihy, B. J., Gray, N., & McCollum, V. (2002). Legal and ethical issues in school counselor supervision. Professional School Counseling, 6(1), 55–60.
Jones, C. T., Welfare, L. E., Melchior, S., & Cash, R. M. (2019). Broaching as a strategy for intercultural understanding in clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2018.1560384
Jordan, J. V. (2003). Valuing vulnerability: New definitions of courage. Women in Therapy, 31(2–4), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703140802146399
Jordan, K. (2018). Trauma-informed counseling supervision: Something every counselor should know about. Asia Pacific Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 9(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507686.2018.1450274
King, K. M., & Jones, K. (2019). An autoethnography of broaching in supervision: Joining supervisee and supervisor perspectives on addressing identity, power, and difference. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2018.1525597
Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. E. (2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012442648
Lambie, G. W., & Sias, S. M. (2009). An integrative psychological developmental model of supervision for professional school counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 349–356.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00116.x
Luke, M., & Bernard, J. M. (2006). The School Counseling Supervision Model: An extension of the Discrimination Model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00004.x
Marley, E. (2011). Self-help strategies to reduce emotional distress: What do people do and why? A qualitative study. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 11(4), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2010.533780
McKibben, W. B., George, A. L., Gonzalez, O., & Powell, P. W. (2022). Exploring how counselor education programs support site supervisors. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 15(2). https://digital
commons.sacredheart.edu/jcps/vol15/iss2/1
Mecadon-Mann, M., & Tuttle, M. (2023). School counselor professional identity in relation to post-master’s supervision. Professional School Counseling, 27(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221143932
Mullen, P. R., Backer, A., Chae, N., & Li, H. (2020). School counselors’ work-related rumination as a predictor of burnout, turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and work engagement. Professional School Counseling, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X20957253
Murphy, M. J., & Wright, D. W. (2005). Supervisees’ perspectives of power use in supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01569.x
Murphy, S., & Kaffenberger, C. (2007). ASCA National Model: The foundation for supervision of practicum and internship students. Professional School Counseling, 10(3), 289–296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0701000311
Nelson, J. R., Hall, B. S., Anderson, J. L., Birtles, C., & Hemming, L. (2018). Self-compassion as self-care: A simple and effective tool for counselor educators and counseling students. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 13(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2017.1328292
Neufeldt, S. A., Karno, M. P., & Nelson, M. L. (1996). A qualitative study of experts’ conceptualizations of supervisee reflectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.3
North, R. A. (2017). Motivational interviewing for school counselors. Independently Published.
Oehrtman, J. P., & Dollarhide, C. T. (2021). Advocacy without adversity: Developing an understanding of micropolitical theory to promote a comprehensive school counseling program. Professional School Counseling, 25(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211006623
Parikh, S. B., Janson, C., & Singleton, T. (2012). Video journaling as a method of reflective practice. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00003.x
Pearson, Q. M. (2004). Getting the most out of clinical supervision: Strategies for mental health. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.26.4.tttju8539ke8xuq6
Pocock, A., Lambros, S., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Algozzine, B., Wood, W., & Martin, J. E. (2002). Successful strategies for promoting self-advocacy among students with LD: The LEAD group. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120203700403
Quintana, T. S., & Gooden-Alexis, S. (2020). Making supervision work. American School Counselor Association.
Ratts, M. J., & Greenleaf, A. T. (2018). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: A leadership framework for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 21(1b), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18773582
Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1992). Themes in therapist and counselor development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(4), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.tb01646.x
Stark, M. D. (2017). Assessing counselor supervisee contribution. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1308224
Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.1.59
Storlie, C. A., Baltrinic, E., Fye, M. A., Wood, S. M., & Cox, J. (2019). Making room for leadership and advocacy in site supervision. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 6(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2326716X.2019.1575778
Storlie, C. A., Giegerich, V., Stoner-Harris, T., & Byrd, J. (2018). Conceptual metaphors in internship: Creative journeys in counselor development. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 13(3), 331–343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2018.1439790
Sutton, J. M., Jr., & Page, B. J. (1994). Post-degree clinical supervision of school counselors. The School Counselor, 42(1), 32–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23901709
Ward, C. C., & House, R. M. (1998). Counseling supervision: A reflective model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1998.tb00554.x
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Hook, J. N., Mosher, D. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2019). Humility in clinical supervision: Fundamental, foundational, and transformational. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 58–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2018.1487355
Wiley, E. D., Phillips, J. C., & Palladino Schultheiss, D. E. (2021). Supervisors’ perceptions of their integration of strength-based and multicultural approaches to supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 49(7), 1038–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000211024595
Wood, C., & Rayle, A. D. (2006). A model of school counseling supervision: The Goals, Functions, Roles, and Systems Model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45(4), 253–266.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00002.x
Woodbridge, L., & O’Beirne, B. R. (2017). Counseling students’ perceptions of journaling as a tool for developing reflective thinking. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 9(2), Article 12.
https://doi.org/10.7729/92.1198
Young, T. L., Lambie, G. W., Hutchinson, T., & Thurston-Dyer, J. (2011). The integration of reflectivity in developmental supervision: Implications for clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2011.532019
Nancy Chae, PhD, NCC, NCSC, ACS, LCPC, is an assistant professor at the University of San Diego. Adrienne Backer, PhD, is an assistant professor at Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. Patrick R. Mullen, PhD, NCC, NCSC, ACS, is an associate professor and department chair at Virginia Commonwealth University. Correspondence may be addressed to Nancy Chae, University of San Diego, Mother Rosalie Hill Hall, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110, nchae@sandiego.edu.
Nov 9, 2021 | Volume 11 - Issue 4
Dana L. Brookover
Access to school counseling services leads to access to college-readiness counseling initiatives, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education–focused counseling for students. School counselor caseload and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling were analyzed in relation to longitudinal STEM postsecondary outcomes of students in a nationally representative sample. Access to school counselors who spend 21% or more of their time on college-readiness counseling predicted persistence and attainment of a STEM postsecondary degree. The current results offer implications for school counselors, counselor educators, and future researchers, including the need for STEM self-efficacy interventions, unbiased curriculum, and professional development on STEM counseling for school counselors; and the call for a more nuanced understanding of this topic.
Keywords: STEM, school counseling, college-readiness counseling, longitudinal, self-efficacy
College and career readiness are key outcome targets of school systems across the United States (Malin et al., 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) initiatives are also a national priority (The White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and Technology Council, 2018). School counselors play an integral role in their students’ college readiness through providing college-readiness counseling (Gilfillan, 2017). This includes the important role school counselors perform in educating students on the possibilities in STEM at the college level (Cabell et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2012).
STEM Education
STEM education has been described by Tsupros and colleagues (2009) as an interdisciplinary approach to learning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that includes understanding and knowledge of science and math concepts, computers, and problem-solving skills. There have been long-standing calls for a more STEM-literate workforce, a more diverse STEM workforce, and more individuals interested in working in the STEM fields in general (Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2015).
STEM education attainment and persistence is an emerging topic in the career development and counseling profession, but there are differing opinions on what constitutes the “STEM crisis” (Xue & Larson, 2015). Some researchers have indicated that the demand for STEM workers in the United States will not be met because of a lack of qualified and interested individuals to step into these positions. Another viewpoint emphasizes that research has indicated there are both shortages and surpluses of STEM workers, depending on the particular job market segment (Xue & Larson, 2015). Still, the data is clear that there is a “STEM crisis” in terms of inequities in who is matriculating into and persisting in STEM majors (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2021).
Despite the great growth in traditionally underrepresented students persisting in STEM majors in college (NSF, 2021) and the potential for career development initiatives to increase retention in STEM for minority groups (Belser et al., 2018), there are still disparities in STEM college major attainment and persistence by gender, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and first-generation college student (FGCS) status (Chen, 2013). This is an equity issue, as the choice to enroll in a STEM postsecondary program may also lead to higher pay and the potential for positive job marketability given the projected growth in available positions (Cataldi et al., 2014; Vilorio, 2014). Hence, school counselors are called upon to address STEM education disparities in their work, as the American School Counselor Association (ASCA; 2019) emphasizes the role of the school counselor in working to ensure equitable postsecondary opportunities and outcomes for all students.
College-Readiness Counseling and STEM Education
High school counselors are in a unique position to provide career-readiness counseling, including college-readiness counseling for those students who aim to attend college after high school. College-readiness counseling involves developmentally appropriate counseling that engages students in (a) creating postsecondary goals and expectations, (b) building an awareness of interests and abilities, and (c) receiving information and support for their college access and success (Savitz-Romer, 2012). School counselors can focus on STEM education with students in each of these tasks.
Research has shown that students’ intent to pursue a STEM career already varies by populations as early as the ninth grade. Girls and students in minority racial groups, in a nationally representative sample, were less likely to expect to work in a STEM discipline at the age of 30 as compared to boys and White students (Mau & Li, 2018). Students’ SES also predicted STEM career aspirations, in that a student with higher SES was more likely to aspire to a STEM career (Mau & Li, 2018). There are multiple potential reasons for the opportunity gaps in STEM higher education, including lack of engagement in higher-level STEM coursework in high school, the time it takes to complete STEM programs, and a student’s lack of financial ability to do so, as well as attitudinal factors, such as motivation and confidence. These factors can lead to less matriculation into a STEM major and more attrition (Chen, 2013). There may also be a lack of support and encouragement and even direct discouragement from educators for underrepresented minorities and women to engage in STEM coursework, starting in adolescence (Grossman & Porche, 2014). This was echoed in a qualitative study in which high school counselors said that a barrier in their work supporting underrepresented students in STEM was a lack of anti-racist curricula in STEM classes and inconsistencies in anti-racist practice by teachers (Cabell et al., 2021). The importance of college-readiness counseling focused on STEM education is known.
Existing STEM Education–Focused College-Readiness Counseling Research
Emerging research is developing on the school counselor’s role on students’ STEM self-efficacy and students’ pursuit of postsecondary STEM education (Cabell et al., 2021; Falco, 2017; Falco & Summers, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2012). Falco (2017) provided a conceptual framework with the goal of helping school counselors better support STEM career development for all students and especially those from underrepresented groups. Falco suggested school counselors can encourage students to take advanced-level math and science courses, provide classroom instruction on the benefits of engaging in STEM, ensure balanced gender and racial/ethnic ratios in STEM classes, and organize a peer mentoring program or conduct small group counseling on relevant skills.
Cabell and colleagues (2021) interviewed high school counselors about their work with underrepresented students and STEM education. The participants were actively engaging in college-readiness counseling focused on STEM education with students, but there were barriers to their ability to support underrepresented students’ STEM interests, including lack of time, in part from administrative tasks, and large caseloads (Cabell et al., 2021). This is related to previous research suggesting that the percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling differs by school characteristics. For example, private school counselors typically spend more time on it than public school counselors, and school counselors with more students on free-and-reduced lunch tend to spend less time (Clinedinst & Koranteng, 2017). Smaller caseloads have also been associated with school counselors spending more than half their time on college-readiness counseling (Engberg & Gilbert, 2014). Further, smaller caseloads show improved college outcomes, including higher rates of 4-year college enrollment (Engberg & Gilbert, 2014; Hurwitz & Howell, 2014).
Schmidt and colleagues (2012) also provided suggestions for school counselors to “expand their repertoire” through STEM-focused career development. Key impact areas include academic and career counseling, and leadership and advocacy. The researchers acknowledged how school climate and the large administrative demands (i.e., duties inappropriate for counselors) placed on school counselors may restrict their ability to engage in career-related and STEM course discussions with students. However, there is no data to shed light on the long-term impacts of this barrier and how their suggested key impact areas influence student outcomes.
Research has found that self-efficacy is an important pathway to students’ STEM major persistence (Lent et al., 2016; Rittmayer & Beier, 2009). Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to influence and control the events of their life to obtain desired performances (Bandura, 1994). As an example, when students believe they can achieve desired results in science through their abilities and actions, this is considered high science self-efficacy. Researchers have detailed the results of a career group intervention that incorporated the sources of self-efficacy and addressed perceived career barriers with the goals of improving the career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy for adolescent girls (Falco & Summers, 2019). Components of the intervention included a group counseling structure, career psychoeducation, journaling, constructing a timeline of successful previous performances, progressive muscle relaxation, vicarious learning, and verbal persuasion by the leader. Results showed significantly different improvements in career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy. The results of this intervention are promising, especially as it is one of the few empirical studies on self-efficacy counseling interventions and STEM career outcomes with adolescents. The sample was all female with half of the sample identifying as Latina (Falco & Summers, 2019).
It follows that there needs to be access to school counseling services for engagement in college counseling that can effectively bolster students’ STEM aspirations. Given the potential for high school STEM interventions to make a great impact in student’s STEM self-efficacy and education outcomes, the inability of school counselors to provide college counseling, and specifically STEM-focused college counseling, is troubling (Falco & Summers, 2019). To move forward in advocating for school counseling access to promote student outcomes in the STEM pipeline, a theory-driven, longitudinal approach to investigating the impact of school counseling access on this outcome was initiated in the current study. Given the importance of considering student characteristics, environmental inputs, and self-efficacy in STEM matriculation, attainment, and persistence, social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 1994) served as a logical base for the theoretical framework for this investigation.
Social Cognitive Career Theory
Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) was developed from Albert Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to create a unifying theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance (Lent et al., 1994). SCCT accounts for the cyclical nature of making a career choice through accounting for people receiving information from contextual influences that fuel feedback loops (Lent, 2004). These external influences can be contextual supports or barriers (Lent et al., 2000). It is also important to note that one’s perception of barriers moderates the relationship between interests and career choices (Brown & Lent, 1996). Hence, underrepresented and underserved students’ perceptions of barriers in obtaining a STEM degree can impact career choice and development. Moreover, other background environmental influences, person inputs, and behaviors interact in this feedback loop as well. One influence of utmost importance in the theory is self-efficacy. Thus, SCCT can account for external factors, otherwise known as proximal environmental influences (e.g., school counseling access), and individual characteristics (e.g., demographics and self-efficacy) within long-term career development formation.
Purpose of the Study
The current study was built upon previous SCCT school counseling and STEM attainment and persistence studies. The goal was to investigate the long-term impacts of school counseling access, in relation to student characteristics, on STEM outcomes. The research question guiding the study was: Do school counselor caseload and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling predict STEM major attainment and persistence?
Method
Using a multivariate, quantitative, longitudinal research design to answer the research question was well-suited to the purpose of the study. Longitudinal research designs allow for gathering and analyzing data on development over time (Lavrakas, 2008). As the research question was focused on prediction in a sample of students and the outcome was measured quantitatively, this research design was employed. I followed the process of secondary analysis of existing data (Cheng & Phillips, 2014), utilizing the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2020a). The HSLS:09 dataset followed a sample of high school students throughout their secondary education career into postsecondary years (NCES, 2020b).
Participants and Sampling
The HSLS:09 is a longitudinal study of over 23,000 ninth graders from 944 schools (Ingels & Dalton, 2013; NCES, 2020b). Stratified random sampling ensured a nationally representative sample. Approximately 900 high school counselors were surveyed for the study to provide information on their school counseling departments, including school counselor caseload and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling. School counselors in the study were not randomly selected; rather, they were either the lead counselor or the counselor deemed most knowledgeable about the ninth graders at the time of the baseline data collection (Ingels & Dalton, 2013). The baseline data was collected in 2009, then the study had a first follow-up survey with student participants in 2012; there was a brief 2013 update survey and a second follow-up in 2016 (Duprey et al., 2018).
Data Selection
Cheng and Phillips’s (2014) steps for secondary analysis of existing data under the research question–driven approach guided the data collection procedures for the current study. Thus, I determined which variables in the existing dataset to use to answer the research question. This was done through using SCCT to guide the model creation. Then, I became acquainted with the coding patterns of variables. This led to the transformation of distributions of select variables to meet assumptions of the model to be used in analysis when necessary, as detailed below.
Constructs and Variables
The HSLS:09 variables (NCES, 2020a) included in the current study both cover the research question and fit within the theoretical framework (i.e., SCCT; Lent et al., 1994). First, there are demographic variables, also known as person inputs and background environmental influences, within SCCT. Data on variables to represent self-efficacy constructs were also selected. Two variables measured school counselor caseload and school counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling. Finally, the outcome variable was STEM major attainment and persistence.
First-Generation College Student Status
The FGCS status variable was constructed as a variable detailing the highest level of education achieved by either parent/guardian in the sample member’s home in the HSLS:09 dataset. This was created from two composite variables within the dataset: highest education level of Parent 1 and highest education level of Parent 2. In its original categorical form, there are seven categories for parent highest level of education, but for the current study, it was recoded into a dichotomous/dummy variable; either the student had a parent in the home who has a bachelor’s degree or a more advanced degree, or the student did not have a parent in the home who has a bachelor’s or a more advanced degree.
Race/Ethnicity
Race/ethnicity information was provided through dichotomous race/ethnicity composites based on data from the student questionnaire, if available. If not available from the student questionnaire, they were based on, in order of preference: data from the school-provided sampling roster or data from the parent questionnaire. The designations included in the HSLS:09 and the current study are: (a) American Indian or Alaskan Native; (b) Asian; (c) Black (African American); (d) Hispanic, no race specified; (e) Hispanic, race specified; (f) more than one race; (g) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; and (h) White. For the current study, the two Hispanic categories were combined.
Sex
This variable was categorical and referred to the sex of the sample member (male or female) and was provided by the student if possible, and if not, the parent or school roster. The labels male and female have held and continue to hold “powerful associations” (Lips, 2020, p. 3), and not all people identify into a gender binary of female and male (Lips, 2020). There is a gender variable assessed in the HSLS:09 study; however, it is only available in the restricted use dataset, so the sex variable was utilized in the current study.
Socioeconomic Status
SES was a composite variable consisting of five components obtained from the parent/guardian questionnaire and aligned with previous NCES longitudinal study methods for calculating SES: (a) the highest education among parents/guardians in the two-parent family of a responding student, or the education of the sole parent/guardian; (b) the education level of the other parent/guardian in the two-parent family; (c) the highest occupational prestige score among parents/guardians in the two-parent family of a responding student, or the prestige score of the sole parent/guardian; (d) the occupation prestige score of the other parent/guardian in the two-parent family; and (e) family income. This was a standardized value set to 0; hence, values ranged from −1.82 to 2.57.
Self-Efficacy Variables
This data was collected at the baseline. SCCT asserts that learning experiences and prior accomplishments are an integral part of forming self-efficacy; hence STEM grade point average (GPA) was included under self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1994). GPA information was collected at the 2013 update.
Math Self-Efficacy. Math self-efficacy is a continuous variable, with higher values representing higher math self-efficacy. The information was assessed through a scale consisting of four items (e.g., “can do excellent job on math tests”). The variable was created through principal components factor analysis and was standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. Only respondents who provided a full set of responses were assigned a scale value. The coefficient of reliability (demonstrated by alpha) for the scale is .65 (NCES, 2020c).
Science Self-Efficacy. Science self-efficacy is also a continuous variable, with higher values representing higher science self-efficacy, and was also created through principal components factor analysis and standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. There were four items on the scale (e.g., “can master skills in science course”). Only respondents who provided a full set of responses were assigned a scale value. The coefficient of reliability (indicated by alpha) for the scale is .65 (NCES, 2020c).
STEM GPA
STEM GPA, an interval variable, was computed during the 2013 update through high school transcript composites. STEM GPA values range from 0.25 to 4, in increments of 0.25.
School Counselor Caseload
Information for this continuous variable was assessed through one item on the school counselor questionnaire: “On average, what is the caseload for a counselor in this school? Students per counselor.” Students per counselor ranged from 2 to 999 (NCES, 2020c). The variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable, with 0 indicating a school counselor caseload of 250 or less, and 1 indicating a school counselor caseload of 251 or more. The ASCA-recommended caseload number for school counselors is 250:1.
School Counselor Percentage of Time Spent on College-Readiness Counseling
This was assessed through one item on the school counselor questionnaire that read, “Last school year (2008–2009), what percentage of work hours did your school’s counseling staff spend assisting students with college readiness, selection, and applications?” Responses were reported according to the following categories: 5% or less, 6%–10%, 11%–20%, 21%–50%, and more than 50%. This was recoded to a dichotomous variable—20% or less time spent on college-readiness counseling or 21% or more time spent on college-readiness counseling—reflecting a cut-off of the national average of time spent on college-readiness counseling by school counselors at 21% (Clinedinst & Koranteng, 2017).
Outcome Variable: STEM Major Attainment and Persistence
This was a dichotomous variable (either Not STEM or STEM) and was collected in the second follow-up study in 2016 (i.e., approximately 3 years post–high school graduation). It referred to how the respondent declared or decided upon their degree and whether that undergraduate degree or certificate is in a STEM field of study.
Data Analysis
Continuing to follow Cheng and Phillips’s (2014) steps for secondary analysis of existing data, the first step in data analysis was to run preliminary analyses of descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Then, I assessed missing data patterns. When deemed necessary, the HSLS:09 developers did utilize imputation of values (Ingels & Dalton, 2013). Imputation allows the use of all study respondent records in an analysis, affording more power for statistical tests. Additionally, if the imputation procedure is effective, then the analysis results can be less biased than if there were missing data unaccounted for (Ingels & Dalton, 2013). Value imputation occurred in place of missing responses for select variables identified from the student and parent questionnaires through single-value imputation (Duprey et al., 2018; Ingels & Dalton, 2013). Further, the NCES provides analytic weighted variables and replication weights associated with those main sampling weights. The analytic weights make estimates from the sample data representative of the target population (i.e., ninth grade students in 2009–2010). These analytic weights account not only for differential selection probabilities, but also for differential patterns of response and nonresponse—in other words, nonresponse bias (Duprey et al., 2018). In addition to the analytic weight variables accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse bias, replication weight variables address standard error concerns. Standard error calculation ensures appropriate standard errors based on the differences between the estimates of the full sample and a series of replicates (Duprey et al., 2018). These replication weights are done with the balanced repeated replication method and help account for the possibility of artificially low standard errors due to clustering in sampling (Duprey et al., 2018).
Prior to running the sequential logistic regression, assumptions testing was completed. Logistic regression analyses allow the use of criterion measures on a binary outcome (Meyers et al., 2017). The result of a logistic regression is the impact of each variable on the probability of the observed event of interest (Sperandei, 2014). Sequential logistic regression allows the researcher to specify the entry order of predictor variables into the model (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Model 1, the baseline model, represented person inputs and background environmental influences in SCCT. It included the following variables: FGCS status, race/ethnicity, sex, and SES. Model 2 represented self-efficacy, after controlling for person inputs and background environmental influences. Self-efficacy variables included math self-efficacy, science self-efficacy, and STEM GPA. Model 3 examined school counseling access, after controlling for the variables in the previous two models. School counseling access variables were school counselor caseload and school counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling. Table 1 displays the model steps and variables.
Table 1
Logistic Regression Model Steps
Results
The aim of the current study was to examine the predictors of STEM major attainment and persistence, including school counselor caseload ratio and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling. First, preliminary analysis included running descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix.
Preliminary Analysis
Frequencies and percentages on the variables’ unweighted, valid data (i.e., data before weights were applied and not including missing data) are reported in this section. First, descriptive statistics on person inputs and background environmental influences (i.e., student demographics) were collected. A total of 56.4% (n = 9,468) of the valid sample were FGCS, and 43.6% (n = 7,314) were non-FGCS. A total of 50.9% (n = 11,973) of the sample were identified as female, and the remaining 49% (n = 11,524) as male. The continuous SES variable ranged from −1.93 to 2.88, with a mean score of 0.05 (SD = 0.78). For information on participants’ race/ethnicity, see Table 2.
Table 2
Participant Race and Ethnicity Variable Percentages and Frequencies
Math self-efficacy scores ranged from −2.92 to 1.62 (M = 0.0421, SD = 0.96). Science self-efficacy scores ranged from −2.91 to 1.83 (M = .0372, SD = 0.99). In terms of STEM GPA, the range was 0.25 through 4.00, reported in intervals of 0.25 (M = 2.43, SD = 0.93).
The school counselor caseload in the current study had a mean score of 347.65 students (SD = 130), ranging from 2–999. The median was 350. The school counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling scores ranged from 1–5 (M = 3.37, SD = 0.95). A total of 2.3% (n = 484) chose 5% or less, and 16.2% (n = 3,389) of the sample chose 6%–10%. A total of 33.8% (n = 7,094) indicated 11%–20%, followed by 37.5% (n = 7,867) choosing 21%–50%. Finally, 10.2% (n = 2,132) of the sample chose the more than 50% option.
For the STEM major persistence and attainment variable, 23% (n = 2,658) of the valid sample were enrolled as a STEM major or had attained a STEM degree as of February 2016, and 77% (n = 8,902) were neither enrolled as a STEM major nor had attained a STEM degree as of February 2016.
Bivariate Correlations
A bivariate correlational analysis of interval and ratio variables in the study allowed for preliminary examination of collinearity and provided information on relationships between the variables of interest. The bivariate correlation matrix indicated no concerns regarding multicollinearity. The correlations contain indications of relationships to school counseling access. For example, school counseling caseload and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling were inversely related (r = −.181, p < .01). School counselor caseload was negatively significantly correlated to SES, STEM GPA, and math self-efficacy. School counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling was positively significantly correlated with SES, STEM GPA, math self-efficacy, and science self-efficacy. See Table 3 for the full results of the bivariate correlations.
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations
Primary Analysis
Next, the results of the sequential logistic regression are presented (see Table 4). The outcome variable is a dichotomous variable of STEM major persistence and attainment and indicated if a student either is or is not enrolled as a declared STEM major in a postsecondary institution or has or has not attained a degree in a STEM field from a postsecondary institution.
Statistical assumptions of the model were assessed. Tolerance (0.26) and VIF values (mean VIF = 1.34) indicated no concerns regarding multicollinearity. The Box-Tidwell test indicated the assumption of a linear relationship between continuous predictors and the logit transform of the outcome variable was met, with nonsignificant p values. Utilizing the balanced repeated replication variance estimation method, 16,007 observations were included in the regression model, with a population size of 1,540,118 and 192 replications.
Table 4
Logistic Regression Model Predicting STEM Major Attainment and Persistence
Note. Model 1 = person inputs and background environmental influences (first-generation college student [FGCS], race/ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status [SES]), without any controls; Model 2 = person inputs and background environmental influences, and self-efficacy variables (math self-efficacy, science self-efficacy, and STEM grade point average [GPA]); Model 3 = person inputs and background environmental influences, self-efficacy variables, and proximal environmental influences (school counselor caseload and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling). Reference categories: FGCS = non-FGCS; Sex = male; Race/ethnicity = White; STEM GPA = 3.0–4.0; Percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling = less than 21%.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Model 1 was significant, F(9, 189) = 12.49, p < .001. McFadden’s R Square was 0.0506, indicating that the model explains 5.06% of the variance outcomes. This model indicated that SES significantly predicted STEM major attainment and persistence (β = 0.22, p < .001). In addition, female students were less likely than males to report STEM major attainment and persistence (β = −0.94, p < .001). Asian students were significantly more likely than White students to report STEM major attainment and persistence (β = 0.91, p < .001).
Model 2 was significant, F(12, 185) = 19.03, p < 0.001, McFadden’s R Square = 0.0966. STEM GPA significantly predicted STEM major attainment and persistence, with students with GPAs ranging from 0.25–2.75 being significantly less likely to report STEM attainment and persistence compared to students with GPAs of 3.00–4.00 (β = −0.64, p < .001). Both math self-efficacy (β = 0.27, p < .001) and science self-efficacy (β = 0.26, p < .001) were significant predictors of STEM major attainment and persistence, with increases in these variables resulting in higher odds of the outcome. Female sex and Asian race identity remained significant, while SES was no longer significant.
Model 3 was significant, F(14, 178) = 15.90, p < .001, McFadden’s R Square = 0.1005. For Model 3, the Archer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was not significant, and the adjusted Wald test was significant, indicating good model fit. In this model, school counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling predicted student STEM major attainment and persistence, with 21% or more time spent on college-readiness counseling being more likely to result in the outcome, compared to 20% or less time spent on college-readiness counseling (β = .26, p < .05). School counselor’s caseload was not significant. Female sex, Asian race identity, STEM GPA, math self-efficacy, and science self-efficacy all remained significant predictors in the final model. The model correctly classified 77.34% of the cases, with higher specificity (95.94%) than sensitivity (19.40%).
Discussion
A sequential logistic regression analysis provided the means for exploration of the research question: Do school counselor caseload and percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling predict STEM major attainment and persistence? Sequential logistic regression allowed for sociocultural context to be considered in the prediction of STEM career–related performance. This is important because the structure of opportunity (e.g., SES, education access, social support), socialization of gender roles, and other societal and family norms influence abilities, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals within SCCT (Lent & Brown, 1996). The first model included person inputs and background environmental influences (Lent et al., 1994), including FGCS status, race/ethnicity, sex, and SES. Students of Asian race/ethnicity had higher odds of persisting in a STEM major or attaining a degree, compared to the White student reference group, which echoes previous research (Chen, 2013; Mau, 2016). SES also predicted the outcome, with students of higher SES having higher odds of STEM persistence and attainment, which is aligned with previous research on students’ SES status and STEM outcomes (Chen, 2013). Finally, female students had lower odds of persisting in a STEM major or attaining a STEM degree than male students in the model; this gender disparity in STEM academic and career-related outcomes has also been noted in the literature (Mau, 2016).
The second model extended the investigation of predictors of STEM major attainment and persistence to include self-efficacy variables (i.e., math self-efficacy, science self-efficacy) and STEM high school GPA, in addition to still accounting for the person inputs and background environmental influences. Within this second model, Asian-identifying students and female students held the same patterns of significance as in the first model, which was that Asian-identifying students had higher odds of attaining or persisting, while female students had lower odds. When accounting for the self-efficacy variables, Hispanic-identifying students then showed significantly higher odds of persisting in a STEM major and attaining a STEM degree. Previous research does not report higher odds of Hispanic student STEM major persistence and attainment (Mau, 2016; NSF, 2021). However, this result in the model suggests that when Hispanic students have equitable math self-efficacy, science self-efficacy, and STEM GPAs, their opportunity for STEM success is increased, which has been reflected in an SCCT academic persistence model with Latinx engineering student participants (Lee et al., 2015). STEM self-efficacy is an important subject for school counselors to address with students (Falco, 2017), given its influential role in STEM outcomes (Mau & Li, 2018; Shaw & Barbuti, 2010).
The second model demonstrated that as math self-efficacy and science self-efficacy scores increased, the odds of a student persisting in a STEM major or attaining a STEM degree increased significantly. Further, students with higher STEM GPAs in high school were more likely to persist in STEM majors or attain a STEM degree. This is aligned with SCCT, which suggests previous learning experiences and prior accomplishments have a positive effect on career-related outcomes (Lent & Brown, 1996). Previous research (Chen, 2013) has also suggested that lack of preparation in advanced STEM courses in high school leads to more STEM major attrition.
The final model included all previous variables and added the two school counseling access variables: school counselor caseload and school counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling. Variables that remained significant in the model, in the same directionality of odds of the outcome, were: Asian race/ethnicity, Hispanic race/ethnicity, sex, math self-efficacy, science self-efficacy, and high school STEM GPA. The final model showed women were less likely to persist in STEM majors or attain a STEM degree even when accounting for the access to school counseling variables. This gender disparity is unfortunately reflective of the extant literature on STEM outcomes (Chen, 2013). It also perhaps speaks to the barriers school counselors face when working with historically underrepresented students surrounding STEM (Cabell et al., 2021), such as a lack of encouragement from educators for girls to pursue STEM endeavors (Grossman & Porche, 2014).
In the current study, school counselor caseload was not significant in the model. This finding is not aligned with previous research that found the addition of each school counselor to a school’s staff was associated with a 10% increase in 4-year college-going rates (Hurwitz & Howell, 2014), which suggests the influence of caseload on student postsecondary outcomes, as typically more school counselors on staff results in lower caseloads. However, it is important to note that school counselor caseload did have a significant relationship with the percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling in the current study, with more students on a caseload resulting in less time spent on college-readiness counseling, according to the bivariate correlation analysis.
School counselor percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling was significant in the final model, and the results indicated that students who have a school counselor who spends at least the national average of time on college-readiness counseling (i.e., 21%) have higher odds of persisting in STEM majors or attaining a STEM degree. Students who have a school counselor who spends 21% or more of their time on college-readiness counseling have 29% higher odds of STEM major persistence and attainment 3 years post–high school graduation. This finding is novel in the literature. School counseling and STEM counseling is a relatively new area of research in the school counseling literature (Falco, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2012). The current study’s finding on the impact of school counselors’ college-readiness counseling on STEM outcomes extends existing research that has noted the importance of school counselors’ role in STEM counseling (Falco, 2017; Falco & Summers, 2019; Shillingford et al., 2017).
Implications
School counselors can use the results of this study to inform their STEM education–focused college-readiness counseling work. A promising result of the study was that school counselors’ percentage of time spent on college-readiness counseling was predictive of STEM major attainment and persistence. Although there were still inequities in which students were achieving this outcome, including female students. This is helpful information to lead school counselors to target intervention efforts with girls. For instance, girls may benefit from more STEM-focused occupational information and verbal persuasion (i.e., encouragement) from school counselors. These results indicate that school counselors should increase their knowledge and awareness of the barriers their female students are facing related to STEM and seek to correct those barriers. Barriers can include school climate, which school counselors can address through both the messages they themselves and all school staff are sending to their female students about STEM. In terms of consultation, it has been suggested school counselors should play an important role in working with STEM teachers to develop curricula that are unbiased and culturally sensitive to the needs of female and minority students, and the results of the study show the long-lasting effects of how a ninth-grade student perceives their self-efficacy in math and science, supporting this suggestion (Mau, 2016).
Additionally, high school STEM GPA was predictive of persisting and attaining a STEM degree. School counselors encourage high achievement from all students, and this result does not suggest that school counselors should focus their STEM career exploration on just those students who have higher STEM GPAs, assuming those with lower STEM GPAs will not want to enroll as STEM majors in college or cannot be successful once there. All students, regardless of STEM GPA, should receive STEM counseling opportunities. School counselors should also strive to create an environment that is inclusive for all students to be successful in STEM. Further, school counselors can connect their students to the resources to support their success in STEM coursework.
Math and science self-efficacy were important predictive factors of persistence and attainment in a STEM degree, and these areas of self-efficacy can be targeted through interventions with students; previous literature has provided suggestions on how school counselors can do so (Falco, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2012; Shillingford et al., 2017). Developing STEM self-efficacy is important, because when this was held constant, there were no students of different races/ethnicities who were at lower odds of persisting and attaining a STEM degree, nor did SES have an influence on outcomes. School counselors must remain vigilant of the structural inequalities underrepresented students face and remove these barriers (Wolniak et al., 2016).
The results of this study also emphasize the importance of counselor educators intentionally discussing STEM career development in the career counseling and other school counseling curriculum. Research has shown school counselors do not feel knowledgeable about careers in the STEM fields and desire more STEM content information to inform their work (Cabell et al., 2021; Hall et al., 2011). STEM counseling within the school counselor repertoire is a relatively new topic (Schmidt et al., 2012), and counselor educators must be aware of this counseling area and incorporate it into their curriculum. Additionally, the results of this study support the need for collaborations between university counseling programs and neighboring school districts to increase counseling access and improve underrepresented students’ STEM outcomes. Finally, both counselor educators and school counselors can use the results of this study, and the many others that have proven the effectiveness of school counseling, to advocate for lower counselor-to-student ratios and more funding for school counselors.
Limitations and Future Research
There are limitations to utilizing secondary analysis of existing data. Specifically, researchers are not privy to selection of the variables and the researchers’ bias can influence which variables are selected to study an outcome; there are many more variables in this dataset which could be included for an exploration of the research question (Cheng & Phillips, 2014). However, the use of the NCES-led HSLS:09 dataset allowed for an extensive number of variables for a massive longitudinal study (NCES, 2020a). A potential area for future exploration in this model could also be school counselors’ self-efficacy in college counseling and STEM counseling and how that impacts students’ outcomes. Further, causal inferences should not be assumed in logistic regression models; probability in correctly predicting an outcome does not mean that these variables cause the outcomes (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Future research studies could utilize multilevel modelling methods to account for school-level variables, such as staff-to-student ratio, percentage of students on free-and-reduced lunch, and geographic area. This would further investigate systemic influences on access to school counseling and student outcomes and could have the potential to increase the percentage of variance accounted for by the models. Additionally, there has recently been follow-up data added to the HSLS:09 dataset, which includes postsecondary transcripts; this study could be replicated with this data.
Research on school counselors and STEM is growing and should be continued. For instance, researchers have explored school counselors’ experiences regarding STEM and STEM counseling (Cabell et al., 2021; Shillingford et al., 2017). Quantitative research surrounding this topic is needed as well to measure differences in STEM counseling allocation and student STEM outcomes as a result of school counselors’ preparation and efficacy in this area. Finally, an understanding of how counselor education programs are and are not preparing their students to engage in college-readiness counseling and STEM counseling is warranted.
Conclusion
This study provides encouraging results regarding the impact of school counselors’ college-readiness counseling on students’ STEM major attainment and persistence. Results detailed how science and math self-efficacy had strong predictive power on STEM outcomes, which informs school counseling practice. Through increased training in college-readiness counseling and STEM counseling in school counseling training programs, and continued attention to a holistic model of college readiness, school counselors can continue to play an integral role in all students’ college and STEM readiness through providing college-readiness counseling (Gilfillan, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2012).
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
Data collected and content shared in this article
were part of a dissertation study, which was
awarded the 2021 Dissertation Excellence Award
by the National Board for Certified Counselors.
References
American School Counselor Association. (2019). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
Belser, C. T., Shillingford, M. A., Daire, A. P., Prescod, D. J., & Dagley, M. A. (2018). Factors influencing undergraduate student retention in STEM majors: Career development, math ability, and demographics. The Professional Counselor, 8(3), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.15241/ctb.8.3.262
Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1996). A social cognitive framework for career choice counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 44(4), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00451.x
Cabell, A. L., Brookover, D., Livingston, A., & Cartwright, I. (2021). “It’s never too late”: High school counselors’ support of underrepresented students’ interest in STEM. The Professional Counselor, 11(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.15241/alc.11.2.143
Cataldi, E. F., Siegel, P., Shepherd, B., & Cooney, J. (2014). Baccalaureate and beyond: A first look at the employment experiences and lives of college graduates, 4 Years On (B&B:08/12) (NCES 2014-141). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014141.pdf
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Cheng, H. G., & Phillips, M. R. (2014). Secondary analysis of existing data: Opportunities and implementation. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(6), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.214171
Clinedinst, M., & Koranteng, A.-M. (2017). 2017 state of college admission. National Association for College
Admission Counseling. https://bit.ly/3BNizx8
Duprey, M. A., Pratt, D. J., Jewell, D. M., Cominole, M. B., Fritch, L. B., Ritchie, E. A., Rogers, J. E., Wescott, J. D., & Wilson, D. H. (2018). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2018-140). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018140.pdf
Engberg, M. E., & Gilbert, A. J. (2014). The counseling opportunity structure: Examining correlates of four-year college-going rates. Research in Higher Education, 55(3), 219–244.
Falco, L. D. (2017). The school counselor and STEM career development. Journal of Career Development, 44(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316656445
Falco, L. D., & Summers, J. J. (2019). Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: Evaluation of an intervention. Journal of Career Development, 46(1), 62–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317721651
Gilfillan, B. H. (2017). School counselors and college readiness counseling. Professional School Counseling, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18784297
Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2014). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to STEM success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913481364
Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffmann, P., & Bosse, M. (2011). Are we missing opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? Journal of Technology Education, 23(1), 32–46. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ96
5337.pdf
Hurwitz, M., & Howell, J. (2014). Estimating causal impacts of school counselors with regression discontinuity designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00159.x
Ingels, S. J., & Dalton, B. (2013). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) first follow-up: A first look at fall 2009 ninth graders in 2012 (NCES 2014-360). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014360.pdf
Lavrakas, P. J. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods (Vols. I–II). SAGE.
Lee, H.-S., Flores, L. Y., Navarro, R. L., & Kanagui-Muñoz, M. (2015). A longitudinal test of social cognitive career theory’s academic persistence model among Latino/a and White men and women engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.003
Lent, R. W. (2005). A social cognitive view of career development and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 101–127). Wiley.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overview. The Career Development Quarterly, 44(4), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00448.x
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36
Lent, R. W., Miller, M. J., Smith, P. E., Watford, B. A., Lim, R. H., & Hui, K. (2016). Social cognitive predictors of academic persistence and performance in engineering: Applicability across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.012
Lips, H. M. (2020). Sex and gender: An introduction (7th ed.). Waveland Press.
Malin, J. R., Bragg, D. D., & Hackmann, D. G. (2017). College and career readiness and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 809–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17714845
Mau, W.-C. J. (2016). Characteristics of US students that pursued a STEM major and factors that predicted their persistence in degree completion. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1495–1500.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040630 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103170.pdf
Mau, W.-C. J., & Li, J. (2018). Factors influencing STEM career aspirations of underrepresented high school students. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12146
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and implementation
(3rd ed.). SAGE.
Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Cavalcanti, M., & Blyman, K. (2015). STEM education: Understanding the changing landscape. In A. Sahin (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching: STEM Students on the Stage (SOS) (pp. 3–14). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-019-2
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020a). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) [Data set]. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09/hsls09_data.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020b). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09). https://nce
s.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09/index.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020c). College enrollment rates. Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cpb.asp
National Science Foundation. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Special Report NSF 19-304. https://www.ns
f.gov/statistics/wmpd
Rittmayer, A. D., & Beier, M. E. (2009). Self-efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.), Applying research to practice (ARP) Resources. http://aweonline.org/selfefficacy_002.html
Savitz-Romer, M. (2012). The gap between influence and efficacy: College readiness training, urban school counselors, and the promotion of equity. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51(2), 98–111, 158.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00007.x
Schmidt, C. D., Hardinge, G. B., & Rokutani, L. J. (2012). Expanding the school counselor repertoire through STEM-focused career development. The Career Development Quarterly, 60(1), 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2012.00003.x
Shaw, E. J., & Barbuti, S. (2010). Patterns of persistence in intended college major with a focus on STEM majors. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.2.19
Shillingford, M. A., Oh, S., & Finnell, L. R. (2017). Promoting STEM career development among students and parents of color: Are school counselors leading the charge? Professional School Counseling, 21(1b), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18773599
Sperandei, S. (2014). Understanding logistic regression analysis. Biochemia Medica, 24(1), 12–18.
https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2014.003
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components [Summary report]. Intermediate Unit 1: Center for STEM Education and Leonard Gelfand Center for Service Learning and Outreach, Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. https://www.ets.org/s/education
_topics/ESEA_Blueprint.pdf
Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Spring, 58, 3–12.
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf
The White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Office of Science and Technology Policy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/05/f62/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf
Wolniak, G. C., Wells, R. S., Engberg, M. E., & Manly, C. A. (2016). College enhancement strategies and socioeconomic inequality. Research in Higher Education, 57(3), 310–334.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9389-4
Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2015.14
Dana L. Brookover, PhD, NCC, is a licensed school counselor and an assistant professor at the University of Scranton. Correspondence may be addressed to Dana L. Brookover, McGurrin Hall Room 435, McGurrin Hall, The University of Scranton, Scranton, PA 18510, brookoverdl@gmail.com.
Apr 1, 2021 | Volume 11 - Issue 2
Autumn L. Cabell, Dana Brookover, Amber Livingston, Ila Cartwright
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature surrounding school counselors and their support of underrepresented high school students who are interested in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The influence of context on school counseling was also explored, in particular practicing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through this phenomenological study, nine high school counselors were individually interviewed, and four themes emerged. These themes were: (a) professional knowledge surrounding issues of diversity in STEM, (b) training related to the needs of underrepresented students in STEM, (c) active engagement in supporting underrepresented students’ STEM career interests, and (d) barriers related to supporting underrepresented students’ STEM interests. This article includes implications for (a) how school counselors can support underrepresented students’ STEM interests, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) how counselor educators can contribute to STEM-related research and training; and (c) how school administrators can support school counselors’ STEM initiatives.
Keywords: STEM, school counseling, underrepresented students, high school, COVID-19
The science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields in the United States comprise a large and growing sector of the economy (National Science and Technology Council [NSTC], 2018). Currently, there are more than 9 million people employed in STEM careers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2020). This is approximately 6% of the United States workforce (BLS, 2020). According to the BLS (2020), computer science, engineering, and physical science occupations; managerial and postsecondary teaching occupations related to those areas; and sales occupations requiring scientific knowledge at the postsecondary level are considered STEM occupations. STEM occupations require the knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions (U.S. Department of Education [U.S. ED], n.d.). In order to meet the demands of the evolving workforce and society, the United States needs students who are fluent in STEM fields and are pursuing careers in STEM (U.S. ED, n.d.).
The demand for professionals and employees with STEM skill sets is a national priority (NSTC, 2018). Estimates indicate that there will be a shortage of over 1 million STEM workers (Xue & Larson, 2015), and the need for workers will grow by 8% before 2030 (BLS, 2020). In contrast, non-STEM occupations are only projected to grow by 3% before 2030 (BLS, 2020). Because of the need for professionals with STEM skill sets, choosing to pursue a career in the STEM sector leads to the potential for positive job marketability. In addition, students who major in STEM programs during college may earn a higher salary upon graduation than other students (Cataldi et al., 2014; Vilorio, 2014). However, not all students have equitable opportunities to pursue careers in STEM.
The Need for Diversity in STEM
Diversity in STEM continues to be a concern in the United States (National Science Foundation, 2019). Beginning in high school, fewer women and minorities expect to have a career in STEM at age 30 (Mau & Li, 2018). Then, in college, significantly more men than women declare STEM majors and significantly more Asian and White students declare STEM majors (Mau, 2016). Although women now make up over half of the overall workforce, they are underrepresented in certain STEM sectors, such as computer jobs and engineering (Funk & Parker, 2018). Relatedly, in 2015–2016, more bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females (58%) than males (42%), yet females only made up 36% of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019). Additionally, the gender wage gap is wider in the STEM fields than in non-STEM jobs (Funk & Parker, 2018).
Further, Black, Latinx, and Native American workers are underrepresented in STEM occupations when compared to White and Asian workers (Funk & Parker, 2018; Mau, 2016). Though racial minorities are gradually becoming more represented in STEM fields, there is still more work to be done. For example, in 2015–2016, White students were awarded approximately 90% of the bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields (NCES, 2019). The percentages of Latinx (15%), Black (12%), and Native American (14%) students who received degrees in STEM was disproportionately lower than that of White students.
These gender and racial disparities in STEM begin even before students enter college. High school is a critical timepoint to address gender and racial disparities in STEM. High school provides students with an opportunity to engage in higher-level STEM coursework and gain self-efficacy in their STEM skills and abilities. Chen (2013) suggested that when students do not have the opportunity to engage with higher-level coursework in STEM, they are less likely to complete college degrees in STEM. Further, Grossman and Porche (2014) explained that during the high school years, encouragement to pursue STEM coursework is critical to developing students’ STEM self-efficacy. Mau and Li (2018) found that ninth grade students with higher math and science self-efficacy were more likely to have STEM career expectations and aspirations.
However, girls and underrepresented minorities in K–12 are more likely to experience stereotype threat (i.e., anxiety about their performance or ability based on negative stereotypes) and less likely to be enrolled in advanced STEM coursework during high school (Curry & Shillingford, 2015; Hamilton et al., 2015). This results in gaps in advanced STEM skills and a lack of further interest in STEM careers. Thus, professional school counselors must address the inequities in opportunity for their students through targeted STEM career interventions. Often, high school is a student’s last opportunity to develop their interest in STEM careers (Falco & Summers, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2012; Shillingford et al., 2017).
School Counselors and STEM
Under their role as defined by the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) National Model (2012), professional school counselors play an integral part in utilizing career counseling to support and encourage students to pursue STEM education and careers (Schmidt et al., 2012). Falco (2017) provided a conceptual model for school counselors to guide their STEM academic and career support with their students, including: (a) encouraging students to take advanced math and science courses, (b) providing classroom instruction on the benefits of pursuing STEM education, and (c) improving self-efficacy through providing mentoring and small group counseling opportunities. Other suggested roles for professional school counselors in STEM counseling involve ensuring equitable gender and racial ethnic ratios in STEM classes, integrating STEM knowledge into goal setting, and involving parents and guardians in academic and career planning (Schmidt et al., 2012). Although the topic of STEM counseling within the school counseling profession is still emerging, school counselors and researchers have highlighted the importance of working with girls and underrepresented racial minorities regarding STEM pursuits (Falco & Summers, 2019; Shillingford et al., 2017).
School Counselors and STEM for Girls and Underrepresented Racial Minorities
In order to provide equitable and anti-racist school counseling services, professional school counselors must be knowledgeable and aware of the factors perpetuating the opportunity gaps in STEM for girls and underrepresented minorities. Potential reasons for the opportunity gaps in STEM higher education include: (a) young people not being engaged in higher-level STEM coursework in high school, (b) inability to meet the financial or time commitment required by STEM programs, and (c) motivation and confidence concerns (Chen, 2013). Additionally, starting in adolescence, underrepresented students in the STEM fields also face a lack of support and encouragement and, oftentimes, direct discouragement from educators regarding enrollment in rigorous STEM coursework (Grossman & Porche, 2014).
Unfortunately, underrepresented students are less likely to expect their school counselors to share postsecondary information with them, and school counselors often miss opportunities to improve underrepresented students’ STEM outcomes (Dockery & McKelvey, 2013; Shillingford et al., 2017). Yet, emerging evidence shows that school counselors can impact STEM aspirations in students. For instance, one school counseling intervention that showed promising results in promoting STEM self-efficacy was a career group intervention with adolescent girls, half of whom identified as Latina (Falco & Summers, 2019). The school counseling intervention focused on targeting STEM self-efficacy and career decision self-efficacy. The results indicated that participants in the treatment group improved significantly on both outcomes and even increased those gains 3 months post-intervention when compared to the control group (Falco & Summers, 2019).
In another study, researchers aimed to investigate the influence that school counselors’ leadership had on STEM engagement, their collaboration between parents and students of color, and barriers that inhibited them from giving students more tools and resources to contribute to their success (Shillingford et al., 2017). The school counselors in the study aligned with a leadership style that integrated collaborative and motivational techniques and suggested other school counselors can utilize their leadership style to communicate more effectively with parents and support racially underrepresented students’ STEM aspirations (Shillingford et al., 2017). However, there are barriers surrounding these efforts, including inadequacy of education around STEM for school counselors; challenges with supporting parents, especially parents from marginalized racial identities; and having insufficient resources to benefit students (Shillingford et al., 2017). These studies show that school counselors can target STEM self-efficacy and emphasize school counselors’ roles in promoting STEM career aspirations with racially underrepresented students. However, the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic should be taken into consideration when surveying the current climate of STEM counseling with students.
COVID-19 and School Counselors
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the inequities within our education system (Aguilar, 2020). For example, there is a digital equity gap, which includes a lack of access to adequate technology or internet, which must be taken into consideration and addressed in the virtual and hybrid learning settings many school divisions have adopted (Aguilar, 2020). During the pandemic, students often come to their virtual learning environments disengaged and having experienced various traumas (Savitz-Romer et al., 2020). These considerations call for flexibility, empathy, and perseverance from educators, including school counselors.
School counselors are trained in promoting students’ social-emotional, academic, and postsecondary development and hence are key to supporting students’ readjustment, learning, and continued college and career readiness progress during this time (Savitz-Romer et al., 2020). The work of the school counselor has not halted, especially with the challenges inherent in transitioning to a new way of school counseling. These challenges during the pandemic have led to less time spent in their usual counseling about social-emotional issues, career development, or postsecondary plans; notably, 50% of school counselors reported they spent less time than usual on career planning, and 25% reported less time spent on college planning (Savitz-Romer et al., 2020). Still, school counselors are pushing forward and adapting their practices to continue their work, including STEM counseling (ASCA, 2021).
Purpose of the Current Study
As reviewed, professional school counselors play a vital role in the development and motivation of students interested in STEM. Shillingford and colleagues (2017) called attention to the necessity of educating school counselors on how to support students of color interested in the STEM fields, as well as the influence of having a collaborative relationship between parents, students, and school counselors to assist with students’ STEM career development and exploration. Although Shillingford et al. emphasized the leadership role school counselors take in impacting the pipeline of students of color in STEM, their work (a) does not address the intersectionality of the race and gender disparities in STEM and (b) does not specifically address the critical, and perhaps last, opportunity for counseling intervention that can take place at the high school level.
Given the need for gender and racial diversity in STEM and the limited literature that emphasizes the role of school counselors in STEM counseling and education, the purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to increase understanding of the lived experiences of high school counselors who support girls’ and underrepresented minority students’ interests in STEM. As students begin to prepare for their next step in life, high school is the last chance school counselors have to intervene and influence students who have shown interest in STEM-related careers and minimize potential barriers that may come their way. Thus, the following research questions guided this inquiry: 1) What are the experiences of high school counselors who support girls’ and underrepresented minority students’ STEM interests and career aspirations? and 2) What contexts (including the COVID-19 pandemic) influence high school counselors’ support of girls’ and underrepresented minority students’ STEM interests and career aspirations?
Method
A transcendental phenomenological approach was used to develop understanding of the experiences of high school counselors who support underrepresented students’ STEM career interests and the contexts that influence their support. Transcendental phenomenology is a suitable design when the aim is to discover the essence, or the nature, of a phenomenon, experience, or concept (Moustakas, 1994). Our research team included four members. Our first author, Cabell, is a Black, cisgender female counselor educator. As the primary researcher, her role was to recruit and interview participants and to assist with coding. The research team also included two Black, cisgender female counselor education and supervision doctoral students, Livingston and Cartwright, and one White, cisgender female counselor education doctoral candidate, Brookover. Cabell, Brookover, and Cartwright hold master’s degrees in school counseling. Cabell and Brookover previously worked as high school counselors and Cartwright worked as an elementary school counselor at the time of the study. In addition, Cabell has professional experience providing career counseling to undergraduate engineering students. Livingston earned a master’s degree in college counseling and has professional experience working with diverse populations of college students.
Sample
The recommended sample size for phenomenological qualitative research is 5–25; thus, participants were recruited with this range in mind (Creswell & Poth, 2017), using purposeful sampling. Criteria for inclusion were school counselors or school counselor interns who worked in a high school within the past 2 years. A total of nine school counselors participated in this study.
Participants were seven school counselors who worked in a high school at the time of the study, one school counselor who worked in a high school within the past 2 years, and one college counselor who worked in a high school at the time of the study. Participants were racially diverse with six identifying as Black, two identifying as White, and one identifying as Mexican American/Chicano. Regarding gender, seven identified as cisgender women and two identified as cisgender men. Participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 46. In addition, the sample included participants who worked in various states, including two each in California and Virginia; one each in Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington, D.C.; and one who worked in both Kansas and Missouri. Three participants stated that they worked at a Catholic private high school. As part of their role, all participants stated that they provided career counseling services to students on a weekly basis. Most participants (n = 5) explained that the high school where they worked was diverse with regard to students’ race and gender. Lastly, participants had 4–18 years of experience working as high school counselors. See Table 1 for participant pseudonyms and demographics.
Table 1
Participant Pseudonyms and Demographics
| Pseudonym |
Gender |
Age |
Race |
State |
Years of Experience |
Role and Work Experience |
| Jane |
Female |
38 |
Black |
MD |
7 |
Counselor at a Catholic high school |
| Kate |
Female |
40 |
Black |
CA |
5 |
College counselor at a Catholic high school |
| Christy |
Female |
26 |
Black |
D.C. |
4 |
Counselor at a Catholic high school |
| Lauren |
Female |
37 |
White |
KS/MO |
7 |
Counselor who just switched from
high school to elementary school |
| Dawn |
Female |
30 |
Black |
VA |
4 |
Counselor at a public high school |
| Kelly |
Female |
37 |
Black |
MI |
13 |
Counselor at a public high school |
| Jo |
Male |
46 |
Mexican American/Chicano |
CA |
18 |
Counselor at a public high school |
| Tina |
Female |
35 |
Black |
IN |
4 |
Counselor at a public high school |
| Mark |
Male |
38 |
White |
VA |
6 |
Counselor at a public high school |
Data Collection
First, the study was approved by the university’s IRB. After approval, our first author, Cabell, sent recruitment flyers and emails to high school counselors using social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn) and state and national school counseling listservs (e.g., ASCA SCENE). Volunteers who met the eligibility criteria were encouraged to email Cabell in order to schedule a virtual interview through Zoom. Volunteers confirmed via email that they were a school counselor or school counseling intern at a high school within the past 2 years. Then, volunteers were sent the informed consent form and information on how to schedule their interview. Once scheduled, participants were emailed a Zoom link and directions on how to start their interview. Each interview lasted approximately 30–45 minutes and was audio-recorded.
At the beginning of each semi-structured interview, participants were asked demographic questions. Cabell developed interview questions based on the literature regarding (a) school counselors’ involvement in STEM education, (b) the underrepresentation of girls and racial minorities (e.g., Black, Latinx, and Native American) in STEM, and (c) the impact of COVID-19 on school counseling and K–12 education. The interview included 11 questions (see Appendix for the full list). Example interview questions included: What is your understanding of the issues of diversity in STEM? What has been your experience in promoting STEM careers to underrepresented students? What barriers do you face in promoting STEM careers to underrepresented students? and How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted your role in supporting underrepresented students’ STEM career aspirations and interests? Following each interview, the audio recordings were transcribed using a website (Rev.com) and checked for accuracy by both Cabell and the participants. Cabell reviewed the transcripts for accuracy and made any changes due to typographical errors. She then emailed the transcripts to participants to review and make any changes. Two participants identified typographical errors in their transcript and emailed Cabell with edits.
Data Analysis
Data from the interview transcripts were analyzed. First, the raw data from the transcripts were examined to note significant quotes (i.e., horizontalization). Each transcript was reviewed individually by Cabell and Cartwright for exemplary quotes related to the research questions. Then, clusters of meaning were developed from these quotes and compiled into themes. These themes were used to develop descriptions of the participants’ experiences and explain how contextual factors influenced their support of underrepresented students’ STEM career interests and aspirations.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is critical to establishing the validity of qualitative research; thus, several measures were implemented (Maxwell, 2005). First, in order to set aside personal biases, experiences, and feelings regarding the purpose of the research, all members of our research team engaged in bracketing our own experiences (i.e., epoché) before beginning this research (Creswell & Poth, 2017; Moustakas, 1994). Bracketing was completed in the form of concept maps and journaling. We individually bracketed our potential biases and then discussed our process with the team. Potential biases that were discussed included: (a) the impact of our first author’s experience providing career counseling to engineering undergraduate students, (b) our race and gender, and (c) our prior school counseling experience with underrepresented minorities.
In addition, throughout each semi-structured interview, Cabell completed check-ins to ensure understanding of the participant’s experience and perspective. Also, after each interview was transcribed, participants were sent their transcripts for member checking. Any inaccuracies in the transcript were changed based on the participant’s responses. Only transcripts that were reviewed by the participant were analyzed. Next, Cabell and Cartwright independently coded each transcript. Then, we established group consensus for all themes and exemplary quotes. Lastly, after the codebook was developed with themes and participant quotes, we sent the codebook to two counseling graduate students, who served as external auditors after being trained by Cabell on qualitative research and auditing. They reviewed the codebook to identify any discrepancies and ensure the significant quotes, themes, and codes aligned.
Results
We sought to (a) highlight the experiences of high school counselors who support the STEM interests of girls and underrepresented minority students and (b) identify the contexts that impact their ability to support these students, particularly taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, participants reflected on supporting girls; Black, Latinx, and Native American students; and those students at the intersections of both identities (e.g., Black girls, Latinx girls). We identified four themes in the analysis of the high school counselors’ experiences: 1) professional knowledge of issues of diversity in STEM; 2) training related to the needs of underrepresented students in STEM; 3) active engagement or taking an active role in supporting underrepresented students’ STEM career interests; and 4) barriers related to supporting underrepresented students’ STEM interests, including COVID-19, school, administration, students’ self-efficacy, and language.
Theme 1: Professional Knowledge
The first theme of professional knowledge of issues of diversity in STEM encompassed participants’ knowledge of the issues of gender and racial disparities in STEM fields nationally (i.e., representation in STEM occupations) and issues of diversity in STEM at their school (i.e., STEM courses). All participants were aware of the lack of racial and gender diversity in STEM nationally. Jane explained:
People of color, especially Black students, people who identify as female or women are vastly underrepresented in many of the STEM fields. . . . I know that there are many initiatives in K–12 [and] higher education to bring in or recruit or encourage students of color in particular and female students of color to explore STEM.
Similarly, Kate discussed that the STEM fields overall are “moving in a more diverse direction” yet are still dominated by men. She noticed that the majority of the students at her high school who are interested in STEM “are not Black or Brown students, they’re usually everything else.” According to Christy, “there’s a huge gap with our minorities. They don’t have the access to the education of the different jobs in STEM, and how to even reach those positions. . . . It ends up being a cyclical effect.”
Further, Dawn reflected on the lack of representation in STEM fields and the initiatives that she knows aim to diversify the images of STEM professionals. For example, Dawn discussed a social media campaign and stated:
There’s been a cool campaign, like what a scientist looks like. And it’s all of these cool Black women in lab coats. . . . So I’m pretty sure it’s just fighting against stereotypes of who should be in STEM, and what kind of person.
Kelly also spoke to the lack of diversity in STEM, not only as a national issue but also in her high school. Kelly mentioned the STEM opportunity gap: “If students are in STEM programs and they are of color, they don’t really see a lot of support, and they definitely don’t see teachers and staff that look like them.” Likewise, Jo explained that girls in particular “sometimes doubt their ability even though they’re within our top 5% of our school.” Tina acknowledged that there is a need for more girls in STEM and girls of color in STEM nationally, so she explained, “I’ve definitely been pushing my girls, especially my girls of color, my Latinx and my Black girls to definitely go out” and “I often tell them ‘paint engineering with your red lipstick,’ because I think that’s what we need to see is more women out there.”
Theme 2: Training
The second theme of training related to the needs of underrepresented students in STEM was identified through participants’ reflections on formal and informal training opportunities they completed to effectively meet their students’ needs. Some of the participants received informal training with regard to STEM counseling and education. For example, Jane explained that when she first became a school counselor, she “became friends with a few school counselors who were also women of color. And they were . . . fierce advocates for girls of color in the computer science field specifically.” The informal professional development that this group of school counseling peers provided her then led to more formal training on “some of the various tools that are out there, programs that are available, ways in which you can target girls of color and just some of the roadblocks that we as school counselors might run into.” Though Jane received both formal and informal training, she explained, “I’m still learning . . . ways in which we can do better in terms of exposing students, building it into our program, collecting data around it.” Similar to Jane, Mark also had the opportunity to attend both formal and informal training. Mark stated, “I’ve attended the occasional webinar here and there that focuses specifically on that particular demographic.” He also added that he had conversations with “some of the professors and the advisors [at neighboring colleges] within those STEM programs that really helped develop a broader understanding.”
In contrast, many participants (n = 7) could not discuss informal or formal training opportunities with regard to STEM and supporting underrepresented students. Kate explained that she received “nothing in the formal sense” with regard to STEM counseling or education training. Similarly, Christy stated, “I would say formally none, nothing professional regarding development, or seminars, workshops, or anything like that.” However, she did have some informal training because supporting underrepresented students’ STEM interests has been “a conversation that we have had with our counseling department of how to bring different types of professionals into the school and bringing them into the career days.” Dawn expressed that “STEM is such a big field. I still need help learning and understanding everything that STEM offers.” Sharing a similar sentiment in needing to know more, Tina explained, “I wish I knew more. . . . It’s just, I want to know more. I want to be able to support them. My goodness.”
Theme 3: Active Engagement
The third theme of active engagement in supporting underrepresented students’ STEM career interests emphasized the roles the high school counselors took to support students with STEM career interests. Many participants recognized their role as high school counselors in providing students with exposure to STEM career fields and supporting students’ prior knowledge of STEM. Embedded into the interviews with participants was the role of the school counselor and STEM. Christy stated, “It’s really our role to bridge that gap and make the connections that may not have been made previously, or the students might not have had access to before.” Mark shared his role in optimizing students’ strengths:
“Every student is going to present his or her own set of talents and abilities. . . . it’s my job to make sure that I can help them recognize what those talents and abilities are and help them cultivate a passion.”
Participants also took pride in building relationships with students early in their high school experience to assist them in discovering STEM careers. Kelly stated, “We definitely talk about it when students come to our offices. When we meet with our eighth graders coming into high school, we definitely let them know, here are your options.”
A method of bridging the gap for underrepresented students is by providing access to academic and postsecondary STEM opportunities. Christy spoke to her experience of supporting underrepresented students by providing that access:
We introduced that summer bridge class for the students. So, this will be the first year that we will potentially see the benefit of that. And hopefully seeing stronger grades in those students, especially students coming from public schools, minority students who are just now having access to the private school resources.
Similarly, Jane found value in encouraging her underrepresented students with passions in STEM to take advantage of all opportunities. Jane spoke of an encounter with a previous student. She recalled, “Last year I had a Black female student who said that she had started coding classes in middle school. . . . She really liked it, so I was like, ‘Great. We’re going to do all of them.’” In increasing access for students, the participants were intentional to ensure underrepresented students have opportunities. Kate stated, “I keep a lookout for virtual fly-in opportunities, especially when I know I have a student that’s interested in STEM and they are of a minority group, I always nominate them for those fly-ins.”
Jane summarized her role in supporting underrepresented students’ interests in STEM by saying:
“The school counselor has a huge role in not only exposing students to the possibilities of STEM careers but really targeting and explicitly encouraging Black students, Latino students to participate in and learn more about the STEM field.”
Further, regarding taking an active role in encouraging underrepresented students to pursue STEM, one participant, Kate, reflected on how her own racial identity motivates her to encourage students of color:
Me being a woman of color, I can’t help but feel like I’m rooting for everybody Black. . . . That’s not to say that I don’t encourage my non-students of color to also pursue STEM. . . . I feel like I have to really look out for my students of color, in my counseling department, I’m the only Black counselor. So, I do feel more pressure to really look out for them because I know, prior to me getting there, they weren’t inviting Historical Black Colleges and Universities [HBCUs] to come out. There was no HBCU session at our college fairs and so forth. No one was sending out information about the multicultural fly-ins. . . . Now I’m doing it and I forward it to my coworkers.
Lauren discussed how she actively identifies underrepresented students for STEM-related opportunities. Communication is key, she said: “Good communication with my teachers, so of course, math and science teachers, if they’re in tune with their students, that’s really helpful, identify the students and let me know.” In addition to communication with teachers, Lauren found value in using college and career cluster surveys with students. Lauren said the most impact her role has with students with regard to STEM is during career assessments “when they’re identifying that their talents or their personality matches up with any of the STEM fields.” She noted, “I think that’s brought in the most numbers of kids.” Other participants also used more formal career development tools. Christy stated, “We use Naviance at our school for college planning,” and Jo stated, “Our school uses Xello. It does a lot of interest surveys and gets students to see where they’re at, their personality, their interests and then matches it to careers.”
Theme 4: Barriers
Barriers related to supporting underrepresented students’ STEM interests emerged as the fourth theme, with participants reflecting on hindrances to their ability to support underrepresented students’ STEM careers and opportunities. These barriers included: COVID-19, school, administration, students’ self-efficacy, and language.
COVID-19
COVID-19 is a barrier that was presented in most of the participants’ interviews (n = 8). It was primarily identified as a context impacting students negatively and also one that resulted in changes to school counselors’ roles and day-to-day practice. When reflecting on the beginning of the pandemic, Lauren expressed, “All I did from March through May was call, email, and bother parents and seniors about graduation and making sure they were alive. That completely impacted my role for minority students pursuing STEM. . . . We were down to basic needs.” Christy also reflected on COVID-19 and said, “It’s really been bad. I would say that minorities in general, that’s probably the hardest group to get to virtually” with regard to communicating with students as a result of virtual schooling. Jo echoed Christy’s sentiments and stated, “I think the biggest challenge has been the distance, like not being able to meet them one-on-one.” Jo further explained, “Some of our students do not have all the technology they need, so they can’t jump on a Zoom, or maybe they do and the Wi-Fi is really bad.”
School
Participants also highlighted requirements at the school level that hinder students from accessing STEM careers and opportunities. Jo stated, “A student could do everything they need to graduate high school but not necessarily be ready for the university.” Jo was referring to the lack of college readiness and opportunity his school provides. Moreover, Kelly stated, “So they’re interested in that…the medical or the engineering. But when they find out, ‘I can get more credit in an AP,’ it kind of turns them off a little bit.” AP courses can help students with a weighted GPA, bring students closer to meeting graduation requirements, and give them college credits. In Kelly’s experience, her students are interested in STEM fields; however, it is hard to combat the course credit hours linked to an AP course versus a STEM course. Furthermore, in relation to school barriers, Kate mentioned the importance of anti-racist school practices:
I would probably even go as far as to say, knowing that all of our STEM teachers and faculty are anti-racist and I don’t know that all of them are. And the reason why I think that that’s important is because it’s possible that they receive opportunities for students, and are they aggressively sending or communicating those opportunities out to students of color?
Administration
In addition to COVID-19 and school barriers, participants also highlighted the lack of time and some administrative issues as barriers to supporting underrepresented students who are interested in STEM. For example, Jane discussed that high school is late in a student’s educational experience to only just begin discussing STEM:
I think the primary barrier is getting them so late. I mean, high school is late. It’s not too late, of course. It’s never too late. Students can always find their interest and their passion. But it’s not like the super early stages.
Jane further emphasized that by the time students of color are in high school, they may already lack the necessary exposure to STEM coursework:
I don’t know if any of my Black students are coming into ninth grade with that previous exposure. . . . I know that some of them are not. And so, I think that is a huge barrier. Not having them already exposed to a lot of what the STEM fields can offer.
Another challenge that participants highlighted was not having enough time to meet with students individually because of their caseload or administrative tasks. For example, Christy mentioned, “Another barrier is just time. Even with my caseload this year, I have 350 students.” Similarly, Lauren discussed “the lack of time, and the bulk of so many other responsibilities being given to counselors by administrators” as an impediment.
She further explained that the wide list of administrative duties at the high school level not only impeded her ability to meet students’ needs but also prompted her to leave high school and work at the elementary school level. Likewise, Kelly also explained how administrative tasks hinder her ability to have “meaningful conversations in a smaller school setting” because instead of meeting with students individually, she highlighted that she has “19 other things to do . . . because of the makeup of my job.”
Students’ Self-Efficacy
Participants also identified barriers regarding underrepresented students’ beliefs about STEM and their STEM abilities. Mark explained that one of the biggest issues he faces in supporting students from diverse backgrounds who are interested in STEM “is that they struggle with some of the challenging courses.” Similarly, Jane expressed that students may have struggled in STEM coursework during elementary and middle school, resulting in negative self-efficacy beliefs like “I’m not a math person or I’m not good at math.” In a similar vein, Jo explained that some of his underrepresented students do have the academic foundation; however, they “sometimes don’t feel as confident” about their STEM abilities. He stated, “I think a lot of my students, when they’re looking at these careers, sometimes they don’t see themselves in those careers and so that steers them away. . . . They just don’t feel it’s a possibility.”
Language
Lastly, some participants recognized the prevalence of barriers specific to the Latinx community. Tina mentioned the role of a counselor when helping students make the connections to various career options:
Working with Latinx and some undocumented or DACA students, the students of color, and even first-generation students . . . our role is very influential. In certain situations, especially for my kiddos whose parents don’t speak English, we are the adult, we are the person that’s helping them make those important decisions.
Some families Jo worked with did not always understand the materials about a STEM opportunity because of language barriers. He emphasized the importance of having materials in languages all families can understand:
We can sometimes talk about opportunities, but if it’s not getting into the hands of the families and if they’re not understanding what the opportunity is, they may not be as willing to allow their kid to attend maybe a 6-week program or a college program.
Discussion
STEM fields are growing in demand and are in need of talented and diverse individuals from varying gender identities and racial backgrounds (BLS, 2020; NCES, 2019). High school is the last opportunity in the K–12 system to promote and increase the pipeline of underrepresented students pursuing STEM careers. This study sought to support and extend the literature on the role of school counselors in supporting underrepresented students’ STEM career interests while also exploring the impact of context, including the COVID-19 pandemic, on STEM counseling. The findings emphasize the importance of high school counselors in promoting, encouraging, and supporting girls, racial minorities, and students at the intersections of both identities who are interested in STEM careers.
The results of this study aligned with the findings of Shillingford and colleagues (2017) that knowledge and training related to STEM professions was lacking for school counselors. Similarly, in the present study, some participants were able to identify concrete formal and informal training that they received in regard to STEM careers and diversity issues, but many of the participants in this study stated that they either received no training or were in need of more information and training related to STEM careers and diversity concerns. Further, time was similarly identified as a barrier. In both studies, school counselors explained that there is not enough time in the day to dedicate to discussing STEM career pathways with students individually.
Our findings have added a more nuanced understanding of time as a barrier for students and school counselors given its emphasis on high school. School counselors (n = 3) discussed how lack of prior STEM academic experiences can have negative consequences for high school students’ interest in STEM. For example, if a student is missing the foundational academic understanding of STEM before they get to high school, then they can fall further behind in the academic work even though they may express an interest in STEM careers. In addition, although high school is not too late to intervene and support students’ STEM interests, it is late in the academic journey to both (a) supplement academic understanding and (b) combat the internalized beliefs that students may have because of their prior educational experiences with STEM.
Similar to the work of Falco and Summers (2019), the importance of self-efficacy was explained by the participants in this study. For example, both Jo and Jane explained how Black and Latinx girls may lack confidence in themselves and not see themselves as being capable of pursuing and excelling in STEM careers. In interviews, they both observed how students either struggling in STEM coursework previously or not seeing themselves represented in STEM careers experienced diminished self-confidence regarding STEM. Although none of the participants explicitly discussed the term self-efficacy, they explained that Black and Brown students and girls may have low STEM-related self-efficacy and school counselors can play a role in increasing students’ exposure to STEM. The role high school counselors play in exposing students to diversity in STEM and diverse STEM careers is integral to challenging students’ distorted STEM self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, Christy discussed her role in supporting students with STEM bridge courses—school counselors’ participation in these programs can help students develop STEM skills and self-efficacy.
Furthermore, in alignment with ASCA’s (2021) emphasis on school counselors’ role in supporting the social-emotional learning and career development of students, the findings in this study also revealed the importance of career development assessments in high school counselors’ ability to support students. Career assessment tools and platforms such as Naviance, Xello, CollegeBoard, etc., provided participants in this study with the tools to 1) identify students who may be interested in STEM careers and 2) help students connect their interests and abilities to STEM careers. Though school counselors might be pressed for time, utilizing career assessments can help structure individual meetings with students and open the door to follow-up conversations and programming surrounding careers in STEM.
In addition, the findings also revealed the importance of making community connections and utilizing social media to further support underrepresented students as they pursue STEM careers. Participants mentioned the importance of connecting students with HBCUs or other colleges in the area in order to help underrepresented students explore postsecondary options in STEM. Moreover, to increase students’ access to representation, as Dawn mentioned, high school counselors can expose students to social media campaigns that emphasize the representation of Black women in STEM, Latinx women in STEM, Native American men in STEM, and more. Increasing students’ access to more diverse images and professionals in STEM can help students to think about what being in STEM can look like after high school and, therefore, begin to see themselves in those STEM positions.
With the current emphasis on anti-racist educational processes in mind, the findings revealed the importance of communication. Participants explained that specifically, communication with math and science teachers is critical to identifying and supporting underrepresented students who are exhibiting strong potential in STEM. Additionally, Kate pointed out the importance of knowing that everyone in the school, including teachers and school counselors, are engaging in anti-racist practices in order to communicate with underrepresented students surrounding opportunities that increase access to STEM. Schmidt and colleagues (2012) also emphasized the importance of school counselors encouraging teachers to remove systemic barriers to students’ educational success. Moreover, Jo and Tina highlighted the importance of having materials for students and parents in various languages in order to communicate STEM possibilities. In engaging in anti-racist practices, it is important for school counselors to collaborate with school administrators to reduce barriers in communication, particularly surrounding the languages used to share STEM opportunities targeted to underrepresented students.
Overall, the findings of this study revealed that COVID-19 has resulted in additional barriers to supporting underrepresented high school students’ STEM career interests. In alignment with the emerging literature surrounding COVID-19 and its impact on the educational system, participants explained the technology gap is even wider for their Black and Brown students (Aguilar, 2020). Students’ inadequate access to technology has made it difficult for school counselors even to check in with students, much less discuss students’ STEM career aspirations. As Lauren mentioned, many school counselors have been addressing students’ basic needs during the pandemic. Although many STEM companies are still hiring during the pandemic and STEM careers are still projected to grow even after the pandemic, school counselors’ conversations with underrepresented students regarding STEM may be stalled at this time.
Implications
The present study has implications for school counseling practice, counselor education, and school administration. As expressed in the participants’ interviews, high school counselors care deeply about supporting underrepresented students’ STEM interests, despite the barriers. At the same time, high school counselors may be limited in their own training and their knowledge of STEM opportunities. Furthermore, COVID-19 has resulted in additional barriers for school counselors who may already be confronted with limited time and resources.
School Counseling
Students may benefit from school counselors sharing more STEM postsecondary options. For example, when discussing postsecondary options related to STEM, none of the participants discussed students participating in apprenticeships. Most participants reflected on connecting students to universities, including HBCUs. However, apprenticeships are paid industry-driven experiences in which students can receive specialized training with a company (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Many apprenticeship programs are related to STEM. For example, there are apprenticeships for information technology specialists, medical laboratory specialists, and pharmacy technicians. In addition, a main benefit of completing an apprenticeship program in a STEM industry after high school is that after the completion of their apprenticeship, over 90% of employers retain their apprentices for full-time employment.
Moreover, although COVID-19 has shifted many schools to virtual formats, there are still opportunities for school counselors to help underrepresented students. For example, many STEM companies, such as Boeing, AT&T, Abbott, and more, are offering students virtual internship experiences. Websites such as Vault.com have offered virtual internship job search tools during the pandemic. In addition, online tools such as LinkedIn Learning can provide students ages 16 and above with access to training opportunities related to coding, math, and science concepts. School counselors increasing their knowledge about practical virtual STEM resources can help increase underrepresented students’ access to STEM careers during the pandemic. Through connecting with local university and community college career services departments, school counselors can learn more about STEM resources to share with students. In addition, there are several STEM-focused social media groups that school counselors can join in order to learn more about STEM. School counselors with an interest in STEM can develop more state or regional interest networks within their school counseling organizations in order to share resources and information with each other.
Counselor Education
This study also has several implications for counselor educators who will train the next generation of school counselors. Several participants highlighted that they had limited or no training on STEM career opportunities. In order to help increase school counselors’ knowledge regarding the need for STEM professionals and the ways that they can support underrepresented students, counselor educators can incorporate this learning into career counseling coursework. For instance, as an assignment, counselor educators can help school counseling graduate students utilize career counseling theory to develop a program aimed at promoting STEM to underrepresented high school students. Utilizing career counseling coursework to encourage students to find creative solutions to career-related issues can help make this course more meaningful and practically significant for future school counselors.
In addition, counselor educators can engage in research endeavors to build the literature connecting school counseling and STEM education. In doing so, counselor educators can host webinars, present at conferences, and disseminate information in both school counseling newsletters and professional journals in order to help increase school counselors’ knowledge on the needs of underrepresented students who may be interested in STEM. Additionally, counselor educators can collaborate with ASCA to conduct professional development opportunities for school counselors that explain relevant literature on STEM and how school counselors help develop students’ STEM career aspirations.
School Administration
Similarly, school administrators can support and encourage school counselors to attend professional development opportunities regarding STEM. This support can entail sharing STEM-related professional development opportunities with school counselors and giving school counselors the time to attend these professional development opportunities. Additionally, school administrators could benefit from listening to school counselors’ recommendations for how schools can better support underrepresented students and ensure equitable access to STEM coursework. Further, school administrators can review policies to incorporate anti-racist practices that promote STEM to diverse populations of students. These practices can include: (a) reviewing the racial and gender makeup of STEM courses to ensure equitable representation of students in STEM courses; (b) building connections with community organizations and stakeholders that provide resources to underrepresented students who are interested in STEM; and (c) ensuring that school counselors have access to documents regarding STEM opportunities to share with students and their parents in multiple languages, including both English and Spanish. Moreover, school administrators can work to ensure that the duties assigned to school counselors align with the ASCA National Model (2012) and allow school counselors to focus on STEM-related career development interventions for students.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations to this study that warrant discussion. First, many of the participants in this study were counselors of color. Thus, there may be an element of self-selection bias wherein participants (school counselors of color) were more inclined to value the purpose of the study and be more connected to the experiences of underrepresented students. Hence, future research can emphasize the importance of all school counselors, regardless of race, addressing the needs of underrepresented students in STEM. Similarly, all the counselors in this study were several years removed from their graduate school experience. School counselors who have graduated recently may have more training and awareness of the disparities in STEM; thus, future studies can explore beginning counselors’ knowledge of STEM issues and support of underrepresented students.
In addition, all interviews were conducted virtually, which can increase the likelihood of response inhibition, wherein participants were uncomfortable with confidentiality and privacy when speaking across the internet (Janghorban et al., 2014). Future studies that are not limited by a pandemic or geography may benefit from doing in-person interviews in participants’ schools or an environment where the participants feel more comfortable. Although validity practices such as journaling, external auditing, and check-ins were utilized by our lead researcher, her closeness to the topic as both a professional and a Black woman may have impacted the objectivity of the study. The sample size was in accordance with phenomenological research; however, an increased sample size that is even more representative of school counselors from high schools across the nation could help increase this study’s generalizability.
Future research studies can explore the educational experiences of underrepresented professionals (e.g., Black women) in STEM in order to better understand what makes students pursue and stay in STEM fields as well as the role of the school counselor in their future success in STEM. In addition, future studies can explore how school counselors can collaborate with career advisors at local colleges in order to increase diversity in the STEM pipeline. In a similar vein, future studies can explore the experiences of underrepresented high school students who received STEM-related support from their school counselors and transitioned to college to pursue a major in STEM. Also, very few of the participants in this study explicitly spoke to their experience supporting Native American and Indigenous students. Given the lack of Indigenous and Native American professionals in STEM, future studies can specifically focus on their needs with regard to STEM education.
Conclusion
In sum, school counselors play a vital role in supporting the academic and career success of all students. For students who may find themselves underrepresented in STEM, high school counselors can make the difference by exposing them to possibilities and opportunities in STEM. High school might be some students’ last opportunity to (a) explore and discover varying career paths, (b) complete the preparation needed for a smooth transition to college, and/or (c) access resources to support diversity in STEM. In spite of barriers and limitations, school counselors ensure that students, regardless of gender or race, do not fall through the cracks and are encouraged to pursue any profession they desire, including a career in STEM.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
This study was made possible by a grant from
the Virginia Counseling Association Foundation.
The authors reported no conflict of interest
for the development of this manuscript.
References
Aguilar, S. J. (2020). Guidelines and tools for promoting digital equity. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0084
American School Counselor Association. (2012). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.).
American School Counselor Association. (2021). School counseling and school reentry during COVID-19. https://schoolcounselor.org/Publications-Research/Publications/Free-ASCA-Resources/COVID-19-Resources
Cataldi, E. F., Siegel, P., Shepherd, B., & Cooney, J. (2014). Baccalaureate and beyond: A first look at the employment experiences and lives of college graduates, 4 Years On (B&B:08/12) (NCES 2014-141). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014141.pdf
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Curry, J. R., & Shillingford, M. A. (2015). African American students’ career college readiness: The journey unraveled. Lexington Books.
Dockery, D. J., & McKelvey, S. (2013). Underrepresented college students’ experiences with school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 11(3), n3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1012298.pdf
Falco, L. D. (2017). The school counselor and STEM career development. Journal of Career Development, 44(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316656445
Falco, L. D., & Summers, J. J. (2019). Improving career decision self-efficacy and STEM self-efficacy in high school girls: Evaluation of an intervention. Journal of Career Development, 46(1), 62–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317721651
Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Diversity in the STEM workforce varies widely across jobs. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs
Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2014). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to STEM success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698–727. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085913481364
Hamilton, A. F., Malin, J., & Hackmann, D. (2015). Racial/ethnic and gender equity patterns in Illinois high school career and technical education coursework. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 30(1), 29–52.
https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v30i1.712
Janghorban, R., Latifnejad Roudsari, R., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1), 24152. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152
Mau, W.-C. J. (2016). Characteristics of US students that pursued a STEM major and factors that predicted their persistence in degree completion. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1495–1500.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040630
Mau, W.-C. J., & Li, J. (2018). Factors influencing STEM career aspirations of underrepresented high school students. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12146
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_reg.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09). https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09/hsls09_data.asp
National Science Foundation. (2019). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Special Report NSF 19–304. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Office of Science and Technology Policy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/05/f62/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf
Savitz-Romer, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Nicola, T. P., Carroll, S., & Hecht, L. (2020). Expanding support beyond the virtual classroom: Lessons and recommendations from school counselors during the COVID-19 crisis. Harvard Graduate School of Education & Boston College Lynch School of Education and Human Development. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/documents/School-Counseling-Covid-19-Report.pdf
Schmidt, C. D., Hardinge, G. B., & Rokutani, L. (2012). Expanding the school counselor repertoire through STEM-focused career development. The Career Development Quarterly, 60(1), 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2012.00003.x
Shillingford, M. A., Oh, S., & Finnell, L. R. (2017). Promoting STEM career development among students and parents of color. Professional School Counseling, 21(1b), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18773599
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Employment projections: Employment in STEM occupations. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/stem-employment.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Science, technology, engineering, and math, including computer science.
https://www.ed.gov/stem
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Discover apprenticeship: Earn while you learn today. https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Career_Seeker_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf
Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm
Appendix
Interview Questions
What is your understanding of the issues of diversity in STEM?
What training did you receive regarding the needs of underrepresented students who are interested in STEM?
What do you believe is the role of a school counselor in supporting underrepresented students’ interest in STEM careers?
What is your role in supporting STEM academic and career opportunities for underrepresented students?
What has been your experience in promoting STEM careers to underrepresented students?
How do you identify underrepresented students who may have potential or interest in STEM careers?
What barriers do you face in promoting STEM careers to underrepresented students?
What school and community factors influence your ability to support underrepresented students’ STEM career aspirations and interests?
How do you prepare underrepresented students for postsecondary opportunities in STEM?
What do you wish was different about how you support underrepresented students’ STEM career interests and aspirations?
How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted your role in supporting underrepresented students’ STEM career aspirations and interests?
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the Virginia Counseling Association Foundation; and Lexi Caliendo and Kirsten Nozime for their feedback, which improved the quality of this study. Autumn L. Cabell, PhD, NCC, LPC, CCC, CCTP, is an assistant professor at DePaul University. Dana Brookover, PhD, NCC, is an assistant professor at the University of Scranton. Amber Livingston, MEd, is a doctoral student at Virginia Commonwealth University. Ila Cartwright, MEd, is a doctoral student at Virginia Commonwealth University. Correspondence may be addressed to Autumn L. Cabell, DePaul University, 2247 N Halsted St., Rm. 246, Chicago, IL 60614, acabell@depaul.edu.
Apr 1, 2021 | Volume 11 - Issue 2
Shaywanna Harris, Christopher T. Belser, Naomi J. Wheeler, Andrea Dennison
Despite the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision ending school segregation in 1954, African American children and other children of color still experience severe and adverse challenges while receiving an education. Specifically, Black and Latino male students are at higher risk of being placed in special education classes, receiving lower grades, and being suspended or expelled from school. Although adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and the negative outcomes associated with experiencing them, are not specific to one racial or ethnic group, the impact of childhood adversity exacerbates the challenges experienced by male students of color at a biological, psychological, and sociological level. This article reviews the literature on how ACEs impact the biopsychosocial development and educational outcomes of young males of color (YMOC). A strengths-based perspective, underscoring resilience among YMOC, will be highlighted in presenting strategies to promote culturally responsive intervention with YMOC, focused professional development, and advocacy in the school counseling profession.
Keywords: adverse childhood experiences, development, school counseling, young males of color, strengths-based
Racial and ethnic disproportionality in academic success, exclusionary school discipline practices, and dropout rates contribute to the disproportionate representation of racial minority and disadvantaged youth in the prison system, also known as the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon (Belser et al., 2016). Higher expulsion and out-of-school suspension rates occur for Black and Latino students. In addition, African American students are almost four times as likely as European American students to experience a disciplinary referral (Bottiani et al., 2017; Skiba et al., 2011). Black and Latinx men are overrepresented within the U.S. prison system, with theoretical explanations for the school-to-prison pipeline including the influence of family poverty and socioeconomic status (SES) or racial disparities in school and social policy (Scott et al., 2017). Yet, resilience among young males of color (YMOC), a term that includes those from diverse backgrounds, provides a healing counternarrative for the well-documented deficit lenses often applied to YMOC (Harper, 2015). Therefore, we propose a contextualized understanding of biopsychosocial development that accounts for the influence of early exposure to adversity, as well as sources of resilience. In so doing, we highlight implications for school counselors who work with YMOC to foster equity in opportunity, achievement, persistence, and support.
School Experiences of YMOC
School climate refers to students’ sense of belonging and experience of the academic environment. Further, school climate influences student engagement and peer relationships, as well as academic and social development (Konold et al., 2017). Aspects of school climate, such as safety and school liking, contribute to positive outcomes, including greater enrollment in higher education among Black and Latino adolescents (Garcia-Reid et al., 2005; Minor & Benner, 2017). However, Black students typically report lower levels of perceived care and equity in school than their White counterparts (Bottiani et al., 2016). Further, discrimination experiences based on race degrade perceived school climate, and as a result, students also experience lower GPAs and more absences from school (Benner & Graham, 2011). In addition to the effects on attendance and grades, perceived discrimination also negatively relates to psychological well-being and physical health (Hicken et al., 2014; Hood et al., 2017). Thus, YMOC’s differential experiences of school climate and discrimination result in social, academic, and physical correlates with lifelong consequences.
Bryant et al. (2016) identified risk and protective factors experienced by YMOC that inform their recommendations for practice and policy. Risk factors included a lack of mentors and counselors to advocate for education and employment training, disproportionate exposure to community violence, and inadequate access to health care and career opportunities. Further, racially diverse and economically disadvantaged individuals reported a higher likelihood of exposure to violence, abuse, and other forms of adversity as children (Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, 2013). Thus, Bryant et al.’s (2016) recommendations underscored the necessity for health and education professionals to seek cultural competence and make proactive efforts to mitigate the effects of exposure to violence and trauma. School counselors play an important role in the promotion of diversity and positive school climate for all students, as well as student academic success and social/emotional development (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2019).
Academically successful students from low-income families identified the importance of school counselors’ efforts to build caring, non-judgmental relationships that emphasize student strengths, goals, and a holistic view of student success (Williams et al., 2015). Similarly, L. C. Smith et al. (2017) theorized the utility of restorative practices as a way for school counselors to build caring and connected relationships, especially for students of color facing social inequities. Yet, school counselors’ unshared expectations and unclear roles with students of color can hinder the development of a trusting relationship (Holland, 2015). Some school counselors primarily address academic and college planning, yet schools with higher percentages of students of color indicate that school counselors primarily focus on behavioral concerns. Conversely, students in those schools experience greater acceptance of efforts to address issues of diversity and equity across stakeholder groups (Dye, 2014; Nassar-McMillan et al., 2009; Shi & Goings, 2017). As states work to decrease the student-to-counselor ratio, opportunities exist for school counselors to engage in meaningful ways and advocate for their students and YMOC with a holistic view of the related strengths, needs, and contextual stressors students experience.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are events experienced early in life that initiate a lifelong trajectory associated with negative consequences for development and health. Longitudinal examination of the correlates of exposure to ACEs includes deficits in physical, mental, and emotional health; educational attainment; financial stability; and social functioning, with increased risk for justice system involvement (Copeland et al., 2018). A higher prevalence of ACEs is reported by individuals who identify as having a multiracial ethnic background (Merrick et al., 2018). Similarly, racially and economically diverse samples report more ACEs and may therefore be more susceptible to the risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes (Cronholm et al., 2015; Wheeler et al., 2018).
The original ACEs screening tool includes 10 forms of adversity that respondents may have encountered prior to age 18 (e.g., abuse, neglect, household dysfunction); however, as new knowledge has emerged about additional types of adversity also associated with poor health, such as the complex and chronic stress posed by racially hostile or unwelcoming environments, ACEs screening tool development has continued to evolve (e.g., the ACE-IQ; Cronholm et al., 2015). Additionally, the need for improved understanding of protective factors that may interact with or even counteract ACEs has been identified. For example, researchers developed measures like the Health-Resiliency-Stress Questionnaire (Wiet & Trauma-Resiliency Collaborative, 2019) and Benevolent Childhood Experiences (Narayan et al., 2018) and Positive Childhood Experiences (Bethell et al., 2019) scales to identify positive childhood experiences that may also influence health and resilience amidst adversity. Such measures include factors associated with the individual student, such as self-acceptance, as well as systemic factors, including the community (e.g., culture, community traditions, fair treatment, opportunities for fun, resources for skill development and assistance), school (e.g., caring adults, sense of belonging), peers and supportive others (e.g., role models and non-parent adults), and family (e.g., home routine, safety, family cohesion, emotional expression), all of which may contribute to risk and resilience.
It must also be noted that the interaction of risk and protective factors experienced by an individual is also an important consideration in research and practice. For example, Layne et al. (2014) proposed the Double Checks Heuristic, which involves considering protective factors, vulnerability factors, and negative outcomes when conceptualizing clients. The Double Checks Heuristic helps clinicians and researchers consider risk factors as well as strengths and protective factors to find the best ways in which to intervene and support clients (Landolt et al., 2017).
Biological Development
As is clear in the ACEs literature, childhood experiences have strong and significant relationships with biological development and physical health outcomes later in life (Copeland et al., 2018; Edwards, 2018). Specifically, childhood experiences are integral to brain development and gene expression (Anda et al., 2006). During this period, the brain is highly sensitive to the experiences a child has, adapts to these new experiences, and learns from them by adapting through growth and development. Chronic stressors, adverse experiences, and traumas disrupt equilibrium in the developing brain, especially during sensitive periods of development (Glaser, 2000). Consistent disruptions to the developing brain’s homeostasis create new, less flexible patterns of operation within the brain (Perry & Pollard, 1998).
Researchers have linked ACEs to impairment in brain development and neurological functions. Both structural and functional impairments occur in the brain as a result of traumatic experiences in childhood (Edwards, 2018). Specifically, sexual abuse, neglect, and other ACEs are believed to impede brain development because of insecure attachment and continued stress response in the body. Attachment in infants is linked to heartrate variability and the exposure to neurotransmitters like oxytocin and dopamine in the brain (Glaser, 2000). Chronic stress is also linked to the death of hippocampal cells that contribute to memory, learning, and emotion. Further, Roth et al. (2018) examined the impact of severe neglect on brain development in the amygdala—the location in the brain responsible for emotion regulation. The authors found a relationship between right hemisphere amygdala volume, anxiety, and neglect in adolescents aged 9–15. Boys who experienced severe neglect showed increased amygdala volume, which contributed to higher instances of anxiety and fear response within the brain (Roth et al., 2018).
Psychological Development
Childhood emotional and psychological development is paramount to success in children. Children who are not at economic risk and who exhibit higher levels of self-regulation are more likely to experience success in school (Denham et al., 2012). Parenting style also appears to be a major contributing factor to positive psychological development (Le et al., 2008).
Researchers have linked authoritative parenting styles to positive mental health and psychological development in children (Steinberg et al., 1989). However, much of the literature approaches parenting style from a perspective that pathologizes parenting in families of color, not considering contextual and cultural factors that impact parenting (Le et al., 2008). Specifically, parents from lower SES families may demonstrate more permissive or authoritarian parenting styles (Hoff et al., 2002). Yet, parents in low SES families in South Africa showed high knowledge of child development norms and milestones, which is linked to more confidence in parenting and to successful outcomes in children (Bornstein & Putnick, 2007; September et al., 2016). Therefore, researchers must consider contextual and cultural factors when examining YMOC’s psychological development.
Mental health outcomes for individuals with higher numbers of ACEs include greater instances of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Exposure to ACEs increases the odds of experiencing depressive symptoms by approximately three times (Von Cheong et al., 2017). Moreover, children who have experienced exposure to violence, poor parental mental/behavioral health, or racial/ethnic discrimination are at increased risk of depression and anxiety (Zare et al., 2018). Specifically, YMOC disproportionately experience community violence, which increases the likelihood of also experiencing depressive symptoms (Graham et al., 2017). Moreover, African American men have substantially reported PTSD symptoms, including hyperawareness, irritability, and avoidance, at an alarming rate (91%; Bowleg et al., 2014).
Social Development
As psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD, is prevalent among YMOC who have experienced adversity, ACEs lead to differences in social development as well. Social development is highly dependent upon attachment to caregivers (Gross et al., 2017). That is, children who experience secure attachment with caregivers are more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors. As children who experience neglect are more likely to have disorganized attachment styles, children with more ACEs may be less likely to fully develop prosocial and executive functioning skills (Matte-Gagné et al., 2018).
Relatedly, childhood adversity is correlated with lower levels of relationship support and higher levels of relationship strain in adulthood. This association was particularly pronounced among Black men, who reported the strongest influence of childhood adversity as a contributor to increased relationship strain and decreased relationship support over time (Umberson et al., 2016). Further, ACEs that include family violence contribute to higher risk of dating aggression and intimate partner violence in future relationships (Laporte et al., 2011; Whitfield et al., 2003).
Educational Outcomes
YMOC are at higher risk for the negative outcomes associated with ACEs at a biological, psychological, and social level. The impact of adverse experiences in YMOC specifically affects their abilities to engage in school. ACEs have been shown to adversely impact school success, learning and behavior, school engagement, and cognitive performance (Denham et al., 2012). Specifically, children who experience three or more ACEs have been shown to have adversely impacted language, literacy, and math skills, as well as increased attention problems (Jimenez et al., 2016).
YMOC are also disproportionately represented in the population of students being referred for out-of-school suspension or expulsion because of behavioral problems (Anyon et al., 2018). In a sample of predominantly ethnic minority children, children who experienced more ACEs were at higher risk of exhibiting behavioral problems (Burke et al., 2011). Moreover, children of color may experience behavioral problems that are exacerbated by peer rejection (Dodge et al., 2003). Education-specific outcomes of ACEs include academic, social, and emotional factors—direct areas of importance for school counselors. Thus, educational outcomes may play an important role in supporting success among YMOC.
Implications for School Counselors
School counselors are uniquely positioned to address this issue specifically because they work at the intersection of mental health and education. That is, school counselors are trained to provide preventive and responsive services in formats ranging from individual interventions to whole-school programming, making them well suited to address the issues of YMOC in various capacities (ASCA, 2019). The following sections highlight interventions and strategies that school counselors can utilize to both directly and indirectly help YMOC and increase equity. Whereas the literature review was structured to highlight prior research on biological, psychological, and social development and educational outcomes separately, these areas are inextricably linked. As such, the following sections will additionally highlight strategies and opportunities that school counselors can embrace and the biopsychosocial and educational implications of each area.
Fostering Nurturing Environments
Fostering nurturing environments can hold promise for the biopsychosocial development of all students, with particular benefits to YMOC. Graham et al. (2017) reviewed literature on existing initiatives and programs and recommended trauma-informed school practices, school-based clubs and sports teams, and mentoring programs involving adult men of color as strategies that schools can utilize to promote connectedness and positive experiences in schools. Additionally, Graham et al. noted the importance of linking students to out-of-school sports, community activities, and mentoring programs, which could be a great opportunity for school counselors to bridge gaps between school activities and community programming, thus improving social and psychological development. Importantly, Shi and Goings (2017) found that African American students from low socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to talk to their school counselor about personal problems if they felt a stronger sense of belonging within the school. Similarly, Carney et al. (2017) demonstrated that increased levels of school connectedness elevated the impact that improving social skills could have on relieving students’ emotional concerns. These studies suggest that school counselors should ensure that school counseling programming includes efforts targeted at YMOC, with the goals of interrupting or mediating the potential biopsychosocial effects of exposure to adversity and trauma, increasing help-seeking behaviors, and increasing social support networks.
Williams et al. (2015) interviewed a sample of academically successful low-income students, who reported that school counselors can foster resilience through tapping into students’ aspirational and social capital. The students further noted that school counselors can make an impact by showing they care and by challenging their personal biases about marginalized students. In schools dealing with the effects of gentrification, Bell and Van Velsor (2017) encouraged school counselors to engage the school community in conversations and interventions geared toward bridging the gaps between cultural groups. Similarly, Pica-Smith and Poynton (2014) suggested that school counselors can be instrumental in promoting interethnic friendships in students as a strategy to combat prejudice and racism.
Culturally Relevant Assessment and Screening
Because of the complex nature of issues that can stem from exposure to trauma and adversity, school counselors should also use related screenings and assessments with caution and intention. Eklund and Rossen (2016) provided guidance for schools that wish to screen for trauma, noting specifically that schools should only proceed with trauma screening when they are adequately prepared to address the student concerns revealed in the data. They further posited that screening students with trauma exposure can further stigmatize these students and can, in some cases, re-traumatize the students (Eklund & Rossen, 2016). Moreover, Anda et al. (2020), some of the original ACEs researchers, caution practitioners from misapplication of global ACEs research for individual screening and decision-making for services or intervention. One person’s experience with ACEs may differ from another’s, even if they have the same score on an ACEs assessment. Therefore, the unique experience of ACEs, resilience, and the context of the individual are important considerations. ACEs may not always equate to trauma for the individual. Accordingly, rather than using the ACEs questionnaire to determine the presence and magnitude of students’ exposure to specific adversities, schools may be better off screening for specific psychosocial stress and trauma concerns, such as internalizing and/or externalizing behaviors, the presence of specific trauma symptoms, and help-seeking or coping behaviors. Schools that are equipped with school nurses or additional medical professionals may be better equipped to factor in more biological and medical screenings to provide a more holistic screening and intervention process. Whether using a simple or complex approach, school counselors are in a position to take a leadership role in these efforts, drawing from their training with developing a multi-tiered system of supports, utilizing data, and universal screening.
Reinbergs and Fefer (2018) discussed the importance of universal screening in recognizing trauma in schools, but they did not include specific implications related to students of color. Because universal screening relies more on objective measures rather than observation alone, it may reduce the influence of bias and oversight when assessing students of color (Belser et al., 2016). Another key consideration when developing a universal screening plan is to try to involve information provided by students, which can help ensure that their voices are heard and catch students who would otherwise have fallen through the cracks if teachers were unaware of circumstances happening in the students’ homes and communities (Eklund & Rossen, 2016). For YMOC whose voices are often marginalized or minimized, this step can be important in gaining buy-in and increasing their sense of belonging (Ngo et al., 2008). When selecting a screening tool, school counselors and school leaders must ensure that the tool has been adequately researched with minority populations and in varied settings (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural). Eklund et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review of screening measures focused on trauma in children and adolescents, as well as implications for their use in schools. Proper screening for traumatic experiences, as well as support systems and sources of strength, is a valuable step in the process of developing interventions.
Interventions for School Counselors
Neuroscience and psychology research has linked chronic stress, often associated with trauma exposure and a higher number of ACEs, to negative impacts on self-regulation and emotional coping responses (Denham et al., 2012; Roth et al., 2018). Existing literature suggests programming that promotes adaptive coping and self-expression may show promise for YMOC, although many existing interventions have not been adequately researched with this population (Graham et al., 2017). The Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools program, a systematic approach involving students, teachers, and parents, was developed to help with a variety of types of trauma and has shown efficacy with African American students and other students of color (Jaycox et al., 2010; Ngo et al., 2008). Play therapy may provide a solution for younger students, as individual and group child-centered play therapy interventions yielded decreases in worrying, reductions in intrusive negative thoughts, and decreases in problematic behaviors that had been leading to classroom exclusion (Patterson et al., 2018).
Interventions that focus on fostering new and safe interethnic social bonds and repairing fractured bonds can promote interpersonal and intrapersonal growth, perspective taking, and self-concept (Baskin et al., 2015; Pica-Smith & Poynton, 2014). School counselors can model for students how to openly discuss issues of race, which can lead to greater bidirectional understanding of issues faced by students of color. Open, healthy communication about issues involving race/ethnicity can decrease the potential for students of color to suffer from perceived racism or discrimination in school; this can lead to fewer school absences, improved GPA, and improved psychological and physical well-being (Hicken et al., 2014; Hood et al., 2017). Pica-Smith and Poynton (2014) argued that modeling such conversations, as well as providing opportunities for intergroup dialogue in formal and informal school counseling interventions, can lead to increased personal and other-focused awareness, knowledge of privilege and racism, and empathy and perspective taking. Forgiveness interventions may have promise for African American students who have experienced emotional injury (Baskin et al., 2015). The model described by Baskin et al. (2015) involves getting in touch with feelings of anger and resentment, exploring how holding on to these feelings has been working in the past, examining how role models and others in the student’s life have navigated victimization, and finally “discovering the freedom of forgiveness” (p. 9). The focus of this intervention on reducing internal and external manifestations of anger has implications for benefitting students’ physical, emotional, and social health.
Interventions that focus on self-expression and storytelling provide YMOC with opportunities to verbalize thoughts, feelings, and experiences, as well as learn from the stories of others. Students of color can find socially relevant and empowering messages in hip-hop lyrics, and school counselors can utilize hip-hop and spoken-word interventions to promote positive outcomes for students of color (Levy et al., 2018; Washington, 2018). Integrating hip-hop and spoken-word interventions into counseling has the potential to bolster the counselor–client relationship (Elligan, 2004; Kobin & Tyson, 2006; Levy & Adjapong, 2020), reveal students’ existing coping and defense mechanisms (Levy, 2012), and identify ways to verbalize emotions that are socially and culturally relevant to students of color (Levy & Keum, 2014). Culturally affirming bibliotherapy is another trauma-related intervention that has shown efficacy with elementary-aged African American students (Stewart & Ames, 2014). Organizations like We Need Diverse Books have helped promote books written for children and teens that highlight the experiences, stressors, and traumas of YMOC. Incorporating these books into counseling interventions can provide a conduit for social and vicarious learning and developing a feeling of universality with characters who have experienced similar traumatic experiences, thereby opening doors for emotional release and expression, identifying adaptive and maladaptive coping mechanisms, and learning from the growth of others.
Building Knowledge of Unique Stressors and Traumas
School counselors should also expand their knowledge of unique stressors and traumas facing YMOC and the potential associated outcomes. Henfield (2011) found that Black male middle school students felt that their primarily White environments stereotyped them, exposed them to microaggressions, and viewed them with an “assumption of deviance” (p. 147). Jernigan and Daniel (2011) noted that schools operate as microcosms of the larger society, implying that this setting may be a key place to help young Black males develop a positive racial/ethnic identity and agency to recognize and navigate discriminatory experiences. This same research should serve as an impetus for school leaders, especially counselors, to recognize and intervene in cases of microaggressions, microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations, which can lead to a harmful school climate for people of color (Sue et al., 2019).
J. R. Smith and Patton (2016) interviewed young Black males who had been exposed to community violence and found that diagnostic criteria for PTSD emerged from their narratives. Such findings provide context on the magnitude of the impact that exposure to community traumas can have on YMOC. Diagnosis and treatment of PTSD would be outside the ethical scope of practice for school counselors, which increases the necessity for school counselors to aid students and families in accessing mental and behavioral health services, as well as other community resources, outside of the school. Whereas therapeutic treatment of trauma symptoms and PTSD may go beyond the role of school counselors, school counseling programs should include efforts to bolster nurturing school environments that augment students’ adaptive coping skills.
Changing Demographics in the School Counseling Profession
Whereas the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors (2016a) do not specifically address ACEs or trauma-informed care as an ethical imperative, several standards do apply for school counselors working with male students of color who have experienced childhood adversity or trauma. The code’s Preamble notes that school counselors are called to support the optimal development of underserved groups and provide equitable service delivery, a charge that is bolstered by ASCA’s position statements on cultural diversity (ASCA, 2015). Other ethical standards highlight the need for school counselors to stay abreast of best practices and research in providing services and programming for students. In 2016, ASCA adopted a position statement on trauma-informed practice delineating the roles of school counselors in providing trauma-sensitive initiatives and services in schools; these roles include delivering direct student services, ensuring that teachers and staff are trained and aware, and building relationships with community partners who can also help serve students who have experienced trauma and adversity (ASCA, 2016b).
Despite these calls for school counselors to provide equitable and culturally responsive interventions for students coping with traumatic experiences, the school counseling literature has not adequately addressed school counselors’ roles in working with the unique stressors and experiences faced by YMOC. Moreover, ASCA most recently reported their membership as being 85% female and 76% White (ASCA, 2021). With these demographic statistics in mind, it is vitally important for practicing school counselors to critically examine knowledge gaps and blind spots with regard to providing adequate services for male students of color. School counselors must maintain an up-to-date working knowledge of the impacts of chronic stress and trauma on the developing brain in order to advocate for students. Additionally, school counselors must incorporate trauma-sensitive interventions in their work with male students of color. The section that follows, as well as the Appendix, provides an overview of professional development, intervention, and assessment strategies for school counselors.
Developing Multicultural Competence in School Counselors
School counselors have an ethical imperative to examine their own multicultural competence and practice if they are to adequately conceptualize and meet the needs of YMOC. This process is critical and must be approached from multiple avenues of activity as outlined in the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (Ratts et al., 2016), including counselor self-awareness; understanding for the client’s worldview; approaches utilized to form counseling relationships; and more broadly, the delivery of counseling and advocacy interventions.To begin, counselor self-awareness may be developed informally through reading, self-reflection, or journaling for racial understanding and healing and can be part of supervision or consultation practices (Singh, 2019). School counselors can also use more formalized instruments to assess their multicultural competence and practice. Such instruments include the School Counseling Multicultural Self-Efficacy Scale (SCMES; Holcomb-McCoy et al., 2008), the Multicultural School Counseling Behavior Scale (MSCBS; Greene, 2018), and the Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills Survey-Counselor Edition (MAKSS-CE; Kim et al., 2003). By tying self-evaluative practices to one’s own multicultural professional development, school counselors can evaluate and reevaluate their growth. Such practices can be helpful as school counselors adopt new techniques or participate in structured training experiences.
Ratts and Greenleaf (2017) developed the Multicultural and Social Justice Leadership Form (MSJLF) as a tool to help school counselors evaluate specific issues that arise in a school, examine counselor- and client-level information pertaining to the issue, and develop both counseling and advocacy interventions. This model can serve as a way for school counselors to better understand and act on issues pertaining to YMOC in their schools. Moreover, the MSJLF may be particularly helpful in recognizing biases and blind spots in light of the demographic makeup of the school counseling profession discussed above.
Swan et al. (2015) evaluated outcomes of a multicultural skills–based curriculum for counselors working with children and adolescents. The participants saw increases in their ability to empathize, demonstrate genuineness, and impart unconditional positive regard to their young clients. Moreover, the clients’ perceptions of the counselors’ cultural competence increased. This study supports the need for school counselors, particularly White school counselors working with marginalized and minoritized populations, to participate in professional development opportunities centered on fostering multicultural competence.
Conclusion
ACEs and trauma are undeniably taking a toll on children and adolescents in the United States, and YMOC are particularly at risk. The negative impacts can be seen in academic, social, biological, and psychological development. School counselors are uniquely positioned in educational environments to recognize and intervene with trauma-related issues through assessment of both risk and resiliency, direct programming, mental health referrals, community engagement, and school culture building. As such, it is imperative for school counselors to advocate for adequate training for themselves and school staff in the areas of cultural competence and trauma-informed practices, as well as advocate for best practices in directly treating the impacts of trauma, including that caused by structural and systematic racism. Additionally, as a profession that is primarily White and female, school counselors and school counselor educators must take steps to diversify the profession in ways that match the demographics of students and society and must continue to explore the efficacy of culturally informed trauma interventions in schools.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.
References
Accomazzo, S., Israel, N., & Romney, S. (2015). Resources, exposure to trauma, and the behavioral health of youth receiving public system services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3180–3191. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10826-015-0121-y
American School Counselor Association. (2015). The school counselor and cultural diversity. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-Cultural-Diversity
American School Counselor Association. (2016a). Ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/f041cbd0-7004-47a5-ba01-3a5d657c6743/Ethical-Standards.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2016b). The school counselor and trauma-informed practice. https://schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-Trauma-Informed-Practice
American School Counselor Association. (2019). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).
American School Counselor Association. (2021). ASCA research report: State of the profession 2020. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/bb23299b678d-4bce-8863-cfcb55f7df87/2020-State-of-theProfession.pdf
Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C. H., Perry, B. D., Dube, S. R., & Giles, W. H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood: A convergence of evidence from neurobiology to epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4
Anda, R. F., Porter, L. E., & Brown, D. W. (2020). Inside the adverse childhood experience score: Strengths, limitations, and misapplications. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 59(2), 293–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.009
Anyon, Y., Lechuga, C., Ortega, D., Downing, B., Greer, E., & Simmons, J. (2018). An exploration of the relationships between student racial background and the school sub-contexts of office discipline referrals: A critical race theory analysis. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 21(3), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1328594
Baskin, T. W., Russell, J. L., Sorenson, C. L., & Ward, E. C. (2015). A model for school counselors supporting African American youth with forgiveness. Journal of School Counseling, 13(7). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062931
Bell, L. E., & Van Velsor, P. (2017). Counseling in the gentrified neighborhood: What school counselors should know. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-21.1.161
Belser, C. T., Shillingford, M. A., & Joe, J. R. (2016). The ASCA model and a multi-tiered system of supports: A framework to support students of color with problem behavior. The Professional Counselor, 6(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.15241/cb.6.3.251
Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2011). Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on educational outcomes. Child Development, 82(2), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01524.x
Bethell, C., Jones, J., Gombojav, N., Linkenbach, J., & Sege, R. (2019). Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample: Associations across adverse childhood experiences levels. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3007
Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2007). Chronological age, cognitions, and practices in European American mothers: A multivariate study of parenting. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 850–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.850
Bottiani, J. H., Bradshaw, C. P., & Mendelson, T. (2016). Inequality in Black and White high school students’ perceptions of school support: An examination of race in context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1176–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0411-0
Bottiani, J. H., Bradshaw, C. P., & Mendelson, T. (2017). A multilevel examination of racial disparities in high school discipline: Black and White adolescents’ perceived equity, school belonging, and adjustment problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(4), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000155
Bowleg, L., Fitz, C. C., Burkholder, G. J., Massie, J. S., Wahome, R., Teti, M., Malebranche, D. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2014). Racial discrimination and posttraumatic stress symptoms as pathways to sexual HIV risk behaviors among urban Black heterosexual men. AIDS Care, 26(8), 1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2014.906548
Bryant, R., Harris, L., & Bird, K. (2016). Investing in boys and young men of color. National Civic Review, 105(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21257
Burke, N. J., Hellman, J. L., Scott, B. G., Weems, C. F., & Carrion, V. G. (2011). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(6), 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.02.006
Carney, J. V., Kim, H., Hazler, R. J., & Guo, X. (2017). Protective factors for mental health concerns in urban middle school students: The moderating effect of school connectedness. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18780952
Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. (2013). Overview of adverse child and family experiences among US children. Data Resource Center for Child & Adolescent Health. https://www.childhealthdata.org/docs/drc/aces-data-brief_version-1-0.pdf?Status=Master
Copeland, W. E., Shanahan, L., Hinesley, J., Chan, R. F., Aberg, K. A., Fairbank, J. A., van den Oord, E. J. C. G., & Costello, E. J. (2018). Association of childhood trauma exposure with adult psychiatric disorders and functional outcomes. JAMA Network, 1(7). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.4493
Cronholm, P. F., Forke, C. M., Wade, R., Bair-Merritt, M. H., Davis, M., Harkins-Schwarz, M., Pachter, L. M., & Fein, J. A. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences: Expanding the concept of adversity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.001
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Way, E., Mincic, M., Zinsser, K., & Graling, K. (2012). Preschoolers’ emotion knowledge: Self-regulatory foundations, and predictions of early school success. Cognition and Emotion, 26(4), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.602049
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74(2), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402004
Dyce, C. M., Albold, C., & Long, D. (2013). Moving from college aspiration to attainment: Learning from one college access program. The High School Journal, 96(2), 152–165.
Dye, L. (2014). School counselors’ activities in predominantly African American urban schools: An exploratory study. Michigan Journal of Counseling, 41(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.22237/mijoc/1393632120
Edwards, D. (2018). Childhood sexual abuse and brain development: A discussion of associated structural changes and negative psychological outcomes. Child Abuse Review, 27(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2514
Eklund, K., & Rossen, E. (2016). Guidance for trauma screening in schools. ACES Connection. https://bit.ly/3xZsoaO
Eklund, K., Rossen, E., Koriakin, T., Chafouleas, S. M., & Resnick, C. (2018). A systematic review of trauma screening measures for children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000244
Elligan, D. (2004). Rap therapy: A practical guide for communicating with youth and young adults through rap music. Kensington Books.
Garcia-Reid, P., Reid, R. J., & Peterson, N. A. (2005). School engagement among Latino youth in an urban middle school context: Valuing the role of social support. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124505275534
Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain—A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00551
Graham, P. W., Yaros, A., Lowe, A., & McDaniel, M. S. (2017). Nurturing environments for boys and men of color with trauma exposure. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 20(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-017-0241-6
Greene, J. H. (2018). The Multicultural School Counseling Behavior Scale: Development, psychometrics, and use. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18816687
Gross, J. T., Stern, J. A., Brett, B. E., & Cassidy, J. (2017). The multifaceted nature of prosocial behavior in children: Links with attachment theory and research. Social Development, 26(4), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12242
Harper, S. R. (2015). Success in these schools? Visual counternarratives of young men of color and urban high schools they attend. Urban Education, 50(2), 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915569738
Henfield, M. S. (2011). Black male adolescents navigating microaggressions in a traditionally White middle school: A qualitative study. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 39(3), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2011.tb00147.x
Hicken, M. T., Lee, H., Morenoff, J., House, J. S., & Williams, D. R. (2014). Racial/ethnic disparities in hypertension prevalence: Reconsidering the role of chronic stress. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301395
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 231–252). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holcomb-McCoy, C., Harris, P., Hines, E. M., & Johnston, G. (2008). School counselors’ multicultural self-efficacy: A preliminary investigation. Professional School Counseling, 11(3), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0801100303
Holland, M. M. (2015). Trusting each other: Student-counselor relationships in diverse high schools. Sociology of Education, 88(3), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715591347
Hood, W., Bradley, G. L., & Ferguson, S. (2017). Mediated effects of perceived discrimination on adolescent academic achievement: A test of four models. Journal of Adolescence, 54, 82–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.11.011
Jaycox, L. H., Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., Walker, D. W., Langley, A. K., Gegenheimer, K. L., Scott, M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Children’s mental health care following Hurricane Katrina: A field trial of trauma-focused psychotherapies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23(2), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20518
Jernigan, M. M., & Daniel, J. H. (2011). Racial trauma in the lives of Black children and adolescents: Challenges and clinical implications. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 4(2), 123–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361521.2011.574678
Jimenez, M. E., Wade, R., Jr., Lin, Y., Morrow, L. M., & Reichman, N. E. (2016). Adverse experiences in early childhood and kindergarten outcomes. Pediatrics, 137(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-1839
Kim, B. S. K., Cartwright, B. Y., Asay, P. A., & D’Andrea, M. J. (2003). A revision of the Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills Survey-Counselor Edition. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(3), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2003.11909740
Kobin, C., & Tyson, E. (2006). Thematic analysis of hip-hop music: Can hip-hop in therapy facilitate empathic connections when working with clients in urban settings? The Arts in Psychotherapy, 33(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2006.05.001
Konold, T., Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Huang, F. (2017). Racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of school climate and its association with student engagement and peer aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1289–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0576-1
Landolt, M. A., Cloitre, M., & Schnyder, U. (2017). Evidence-based treatments for trauma related disorders in children and adolescents. Springer.
Laporte, L., Jiang, D., Pepler, D. J., & Chamberland, C. (2011). The relationship between adolescents’ experience of family violence and dating violence. Youth & Society, 43(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09336631
Layne, C. M., Steinberg, J. R., & Steinberg, A. M. (2014). Causal reasoning skills training for mental health practitioners: Promoting sound clinical judgment in evidence-based practice. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(4), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000037
Le, H.-N., Ceballo, R., Chao, R., Hill, N. E., Murry, V. M., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (2008). Excavating culture: Disentangling ethnic differences from contextual influences in parenting. Applied Developmental Science, 12(4), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690802387880
Levy, I. (2012). Hip hop and spoken word therapy with urban youth. Journal of Poetry Therapy, 25(4), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08893675.2012.736182
Levy, I. P., & Adjapong, E. S. (2020). Toward culturally competent school counseling environments: Hip-hop studio construction. The Professional Counselor, 10(2), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.15241/ipl.10.2.266
Levy, I. P., Cook, A. L., & Emdin, C. (2018). Remixing the school counselor’s tool kit: Hip-hop spoken word therapy and YPAR. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18800285
Levy, I., & Keum, B. T. (2014). Hip-hop emotional exploration in men. Journal of Poetry Therapy, 27(4), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08893675.2014.949528
Matte-Gagné, C., Bernier, A., Sirois, M.-S., Lalonde, G., & Hertz, S. (2018). Attachment security and developmental patterns of growth in executive functioning during early elementary school. Child Development, 89(3), e167–e182. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12807
Merrick, M. T., Ford, D. C., Ports, K. A., & Guinn, A. S. (2018). Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011-2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 23 states. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(11), 1038–1044. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2537
Minor, K. A., & Benner, A. D. (2017). School climate and college attendance for Black adolescents: Moving beyond college-going culture. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(1), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12361
Narayan, A. J., Rivera, L. M., Bernstein, R. E., Harris, W. W., & Lieberman, A. F. (2018). Positive childhood experiences predict less psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adversity: A pilot study of the Benevolent Childhood Experiences (BCEs) scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.022
Nassar-McMillan, S. C., Karvonen, M., Perez, T. R., & Abrams, L. P. (2009). Identity development and school climate: The role of the school counselor. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development, 48(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2009.tb00078.x
Ngo, V., Langley, A., Kataoka, S. H., Nadeem, E., Escudero, P., & Stein, B. D. (2008). Providing evidence-based practice to ethnically diverse youths: Examples from the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) program. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(8), 858–862. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181799f19
Patterson, L., Stutey, D. M., & Dorsey, B. (2018). Play therapy with African American children exposed to adverse childhood experiences. International Journal of Play Therapy, 27(4), 215–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pla0000080
Perry, B. D., & Pollard, R. (1998). Homeostasis, stress, trauma, and adaptation: A neurodevelopmental view of childhood trauma. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1056-4993(18)30258-X
Pica-Smith, C., & Poynton, T. A. (2014). Supporting interethnic and interracial friendships among youth to reduce prejudice and racism in schools: The role of the school counselor. Professional School Counseling, 18(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001800115
Ratts, M. J., & Greenleaf, A. T. (2017). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: A leadership framework for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18773582
Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-McMillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2016). Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12035
Reinbergs, E. J., & Fefer, S. A. (2018). Addressing trauma in schools: Multitiered service delivery options for practitioners. Psychology in the Schools, 55(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22105
Roth, M. C., Humphreys, K. L., King, L. S., & Gotlib, I. H. (2018). Self-reported neglect, amygdala volume, and symptoms of anxiety in adolescent boys. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 80–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.016
Scott, J., Moses, M. S., Finnigan, K. S., Trujillo, T., & Jackson, D. D. (2017). Law and order in school and society: How discipline and policing policies harm students of color, and what we can do about it. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/law-and-order
September, S. J., Rich, E. G., & Roman, N. V. (2016). The role of parenting styles and socio-economic status in parents’ knowledge of child development. Early Child Development and Care, 186(7), 1060–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1076399
Shi, Q., & Goings, R. (2017). What do African American ninth graders discuss during individual school counseling sessions? A national study. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18778803
Singh, A. A. (2019). The racial healing handbook: Practical activities to help you challenge privilege, confront systemic racism, and engage in collective healing. New Harbinger.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087730
Smith, J. R., & Patton, D. U. (2016). Posttraumatic stress symptoms in context: Examining trauma responses to violent exposures and homicide death among Black males in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(2), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000101
Smith, L. C., Garnett, B. R., Herbert, A., Grudev, N., Vogel, J., Keefner, W., Barnett, A., & Baker, T. (2017). The hand of professional school counseling meets the glove of restorative practices: A call to the profession. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18761899
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60(6), 1424–1436. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130932
Stewart, P. E., & Ames, G. P. (2014). Using culturally affirming, thematically appropriate bibliotherapy to cope with trauma. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 7(4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-014-0028-6
Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle, C. Z., & Mendez, N. (2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000296
Swan, K. L., Schottelkorb, A. A., & Lancaster, S. (2015). Relationship conditions and multicultural competence for counselors of children and adolescents. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12046
Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., Williams, K., Thomas, P. A., & Liu, H. (2016). Childhood adversity and men’s relationships in adulthood: Life course processes and racial disadvantage. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 71(5), 902–913. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv091
Von Cheong, E., Sinnott, C., Dahly, D., & Kearney, P. M. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and later-life depression: Perceived social support as a potential protective factor. BMJ Open, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013228
Washington, A. R. (2018). Integrating hip-hop culture and rap music into social justice counseling with Black males. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12181
Wheeler, N. J., Daire, A. P., Barden, S. M., & Carlson, R. G. (2018). Relationship distress as a mediator of adverse childhood experiences and health: Implications for clinical practice with economically vulnerable racial and ethnic minorities. Family Process, 58(4), 1003–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12392
Whitfield, C. L., Anda, R. F., Dube, S. R., & Felitti, V. J. (2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults: Assessment in a large health maintenance organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502238733
Wiet, S., & Trauma-Resiliency Collaborative. (2019). Health-Resiliency-Stress Questionnaire. https://trcutah.org/hrsq
Williams, J., Steen, S., Albert, T., Dely, B., Jacobs, B., Nagel, C., & Irick, A. (2015). Academically resilient, low-income students’ perspectives of how school counselors can meet their academic needs. Professional School Counseling, 19(1), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.155
Zare, M., Narayan, M., Lasway, A., Kitsantas, P., Wojtusiak, J., & Oetjen, C. A. (2018). Influence of adverse childhood experiences on anxiety and depression in children aged 6 to 11 years. Pediatric Nursing, 44(6), 267–274, 287.
Appendix
Resources and Ideas for School Counselors Developing Multicultural Awareness
| Self-examination and self-assessment |
| Self-reflection, journaling (Singh, 2019), seeking supervision, or consultation with peers
Formal assessment tools
School Counseling Multicultural Self-Efficacy Scale (SCMES; Holcomb-McCoy et al., 2008)
Multicultural School Counseling Behavior Scale (MSCBS; Greene, 2018)
Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills Survey-Counselor Edition (MAKSS-CE; Kim et al., 2003) |
| Building knowledge of traumatic stressors and their impact |
| Impact of primarily White environments on Black youth, such as stereotypes, microaggressions, and assumptions of deviance aimed at Black boys (Henfield, 2011)
Importance of helping young Black males to develop a positive racial identity and agency to recognize and navigate discriminatory experiences (Jernigan & Daniel, 2011)
Impact of exposure to community violence on reported PTSD symptoms (J. R. Smith & Patton, 2016)
Access to resources (e.g., community, school, and intrapersonal resources) leading to decreases in behavioral health needs (Accomazzo et al., 2015) |
| Fostering a nurturing school environment |
| Link students to out-of-school sports, community, and mentoring programs (Graham et al., 2017)
Increase sense of belonging within the school (Shi & Goings, 2017)
Increase levels of school connectedness (Carney et al., 2017)
Foster resilience through tapping into students’ aspirational and social capital (Williams et al., 2015)
Bridge gaps between cultural groups through interventions with all stakeholders (Bell & Van Velsor, 2017)
Promote interethnic friendships in students to combat prejudice and racism (Pica-Smith & Poynton, 2014) |
| Assessment and intervention tools for use with students |
| Universal screening of trauma and behavioral health in schools (Belser et al., 2016; Reinbergs & Fefer, 2018)
Programming that promotes adaptive coping and self-expression (Graham et al., 2017)
Forgiveness interventions (Baskin et al., 2015)
Socially relevant and empowering messages in hip-hop lyrics (Levy et al., 2018; Washington, 2018)
Culturally affirming bibliotherapy (Stewart & Ames, 2014)
Play therapy (Patterson et al., 2018) |
Shaywanna Harris, PhD, NCC, is an assistant professor at Texas State University. Christopher T. Belser, PhD, NCC, is an assistant professor at the University of New Orleans. Naomi J. Wheeler, PhD, NCC, LMHC, is an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. Andrea Dennison, PhD, is an assistant professor at Texas State University. Correspondence may be addressed to Shaywanna Harris, Texas State University, CLAS Dept., 601 University Dr., San Marcos, TX 78666, s_h454@txstate.edu.
