Implementing the Comprehensive Counseling Program

Implementing a comprehensive counseling program is proposed as the best practice for school counselors (American School Counselor Association, 2003; Gysbers,

1990; Rowley, Stroh & Sink, 2005). ASCA’s national model for comprehensive counseling programs has integrated the key elements of leading professionals’ contribution in the field of school counseling. It provides a framework for delivering guidance and counseling services to students in a way that maximizes student

achievement (American School Counselor Association). It is proposed that by using a developmentally appropriate and systemic approach to deliver services to all students, not just those who are high-achieving or at-risk, is the best way for counselors to implement

counseling programs (Hatch & Bowers, 2002).

Professional school counselors are in a position to be both counselors and educators (Henderson et al., 2007; Paisley et al., 2007). In elementary schools during current times, students will face many challenges which could influence their

achievement in all areas and counselors are trained professionals available to offer support within the school. It is argued that doing so with planning and intention builds a stronger counseling program and offers a better service to the school community.

Jones Sears and Haag Granello (2002) argue that the context in which a school counseling program is delivered impacts the effectiveness of the intervention; meaning that there are environmental factors affecting students’ success outside of the school building such as poverty, violence, and stressed family situations. These are factors which the school counselor is in a unique position within the school to address and which may serve as significant obstacles to student success (Walsh, Barrett & DePaul, 2007). Additionally, identified risk factors for school success which many students face are being observed as on the rise in the United States (Paisley et al., 2007). It is important when counselors are looking at implementing a comprehensive guidance program that the counselor does not forget about socio-developmental based interventions which could positively affect students encountering these environmental factors (Sink, 2002).

There are also factors from within the school building that contribute to the context in which the counseling program is provided such as lack of funds for programs, lack of faculty or building space or deteriorating buildings (Jones Sears & Haag Granello, 2002). When implementing a comprehensive counseling program the counselor must involve other school personnel in the process if the program is to become successful. The counseling program needs administrator as well as other stake holder support to

effectively handle challenges which present during implementation. This is especially true when one counselor has been assigned to more than one school, as often happens in Alaska, or when there is a lack of funding. If a proactive, developmentally based, comprehensive counseling program is to be effectively implemented stakeholders and counselors must work as a team (Myrick, 1987).

Taking the multiple challenges that could potentially impact the implementation of a comprehensive program into consideration, counselors must first perform a needs assessment and begin the involvement of stakeholders. It is not expected that counselors will implement change to introduce a comprehensive program all at once. In fact, that is not recommended, but rather a five-step change process. This process is intended to take place over a three to five year time span (Gysbers & Henderson, 2002). The first step is to plan the program. In this phase of implementation, the counselor would be developing time lines and making estimations about where the program is currently and where the program should be after implementation. There are planning and preparatory activities which must occur, as well as the time and task analyses and other activities which guide and assist in implementing effective programs (American School Counselor Association, 2003).

After the basic planning of the program has been completed, the foundation must be developed. In this phase of implementation, the counselor conducts needs assessments, gathers school data, and identifies school strengths and weaknesses among other tasks (American School Counselor Association, 2003). The counselor is building a strong base from which to launch the counseling program. The third phase is closely related to the second phase. In the second step of implementing a comprehensive counseling program, counselors are building a broad base for their program. In the third, the counselor is narrowing that focus to just one area of the program: the delivery system. In this phase, the counselor will identify which curricula s/he will use for meeting specific student

standards and prioritize the interventions. Counselors will also establish time allocations which should align with ASCA’s national model for time spent in each component area.

The fourth step of implementing a comprehensive counseling program is where the counselor actually implements the program. The first three steps have all consisted of planning and preparing to implement the program; in this step the program actually is implemented. It is during this phase of implementation in which counselors will want to develop strong support for the program and involvement from stake holders. Counselors will also want to develop both their calendar of anticipated interventions or activities and the counseling program budget (American School Counseling Association, 2003).

After the comprehensive counseling program has been planned and then

implemented, counselors then must turn their attention to the fifth step which is program accountability. In this step counselors monitor the program and collect data results. Counselors share those results with stakeholders and use them to cycle back to the planning stage and implement the most effective programs. It is also during this step that counselors are charged with continuing their professional development which will

strengthen programs (American School Counseling Association, 2003). All of these steps taken to implement successful comprehensive counseling programs also serve to reduce challenges and bolster strengths in the school counseling program. This five-step model is outlined for implementing the program at a particular site. There are no steps or guidance on how an elementary school counselor who is split between many site locations or visits a site only a few days a month are to implement comprehensive programs.

Sink and Yilik-Downer (2001) found in a national study focusing on how school counselors viewed their comprehensive guidance and counseling programs that newer counselors held more anxiety about implementing a comprehensive program. Those counselors who had less than five years experience felt that collaboration was an essential part of implementing a program. Sink and Yilik-Downer proposed that their research indicated a need for more experienced counselors to work with newer counselors in developing their own programs. It was also found in this study that there was a

relationship between how involved counselors are in developing their programs and the importance it holds with them; a sense of ownership in the program. This gives support, especially in areas o f high turn-over in school staff, for a mentoring program where more experienced staff can assist newer counselors.

Brigman and Campbell (2003) and Webb, Brigman, and Campbell (2005), when conducting research to provided links between school counselor interventions and student academic achievement, decided that the first step in this research process should be to address the needs of the counselor. The professional school counselors in these studies were not only provided with a specific intervention curricula to use, but were also

connected to a mentoring relationship, and provided with research showing effectiveness for what they would be implementing. This reinforces the expectation that perception influences results but also that those counselors working in a mentoring relationship are believed to be better equipped to deliver guidance interventions to students.

There is a need for counselors to join together in support of each other through mentoring and supervision which in turn provides a benefit to students through the

development of an effective comprehensive counseling program. Culbreth et al. (2005) found that role stress could be reduced and counseling skills enhanced through a

supervisory relationship, which then benefits students. Additionally, professional school counselor role identity can be strengthened through involvement with other professional counselors (Henderson et al., 2007). Mentoring and supervision are important for new counselors; however, neither is required for certification purposes. Interestingly, the Licensed Professional Counselor in the state of Alaska must engage in supervised work experience after the completion of his or her degree program, yet the professional school counselor has no such requirement or system support.