##### Washington School Research Center

**Improving Academic Achievement**

**in Primary Students Through a**

**Systemic Approach to Guidance**

**and Counseling**

**Research Report #4**

# April 2003

**Christopher Sink**

**Seattle Pacific University**

**Heather Stroh**

**Washington School Research Center**

**The Washington School Research Center (WSRC)** is an independent
research and

data analysis center within Seattle Pacific University. The Center began
in July 2000,

funded through a gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Our
mission is to

conduct sound and objective research on student learning in the public
schools, and to

make the research findings available for educators, policy makers, and
the general

public for use in the improvement of schools. We believe that sound data
and

appropriate data analysis are vital components for the identification of
school and

classroom practices related to increased student academic achievement.

Washington School Research Center

3500 188th Street S.W., Suite 328

Lynnwood, Washington 98037

Phone: 425-744-0992

Fax: 425-744-0821

Web: www.spu.edu/wsrc

**Jeffrey T. Fouts, Ed.D.** , Executive Director, Professor of Education

**Martin L. Abbott, Ph.D. ,** Senior Researcher, Professor of Sociology

**Duane B. Baker, Ed.D.,** Director, School Information Services

**Copyright 2003 by the Washington School Research Center, Seattle
Pacific University. All rights reserved.**

**Additional copies of this report may be downloaded in pdf format free
of charge at www.spu.edu/wsrc.**

**Improving Academic Achievement**

**in Primary Students Through a**

**Systemic Approach to Guidance**

**and Counseling**

A Research Report From

The Washington School Research Center

**Christopher Sink**

**Seattle Pacific University**

**Heather Stroh**

**Washington School Research Center**

**Table of Contents**

**INTRODUCTION 4**

# METHOD 11

**RESULTS 16**

**DISCUSSION 20**

**REFERENCES 23**

**Primary Improving Academic Achievement in**

## Students Through a Systemic Approach to

**Guidance and Counseling**

**INTRODUCTION**

While the trajectory of institutional change tends to be more gradual in
American

education, elementary (primary) and secondary (middle and high) schools
have not been

immune to the accelerating pace of societal evolution (e.g.,
socio-technological advances

or changes in the family structure). Moreover, the publication of *A
Nation at Risk: The*

*Imperative for Educational Reform* (National Commission on Excellence
in Education,

1983\) and the subsequent passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
(U.S.

Congress, 1994), have further accelerated the pace of school
reorganization and reform

already underway in various states. Genuine modifications, however, in
the industrial

model of schooling and traditional pedagogy are often times difficult to
detect, especially

in secondary buildings (Herr, 2002) and educational scholars and pundits
remain

unconvinced that American schools will ever truly remake themselves for
the better (e.g.,

Kinsler and Gamble, 2001; McNeil, 2000; Shanker, 1990).

During the past two or so decades, the school counseling profession has

transitioned through a developmental process of reorganization as well,
with its

traditional emphases yielding to a more broad-based structure of
assisting schoolchildren

and their caregivers (see e.g., Gysbers, 2001; Gysbers and Henderson,
2000; MacDonald and Sink, 1999; Sink, 2002; Sink and MacDonald, 1998;
Snyder and Daly, 1993, for further discussions). This "new" direction
was originally labeled "developmental guidance and counseling"
(Dinkmeyer and Caldwell, 1970), whereas in contemporary parlance, the
reorientation---one that has to a degree paralleled general school
reform---is called a "comprehensive guidance and counseling program"
(CGCP; Gysbers, 2001; Sink, 2002) or "comprehensive school counseling
programs" (Campbell and Dahir, 1997; Dahir, 2001; Dahir, Sheldon, and
Valiga, 1998). To be consistent with the primary framers' terminology
(Gysbers and Henderson, 2000), we refer to this approach as a CGCP.

In order for school reform to be deemed "efficacious," student
performances in a

variety of areas must demonstrate *bona fide* improvement. As such, we
believe, similar to

other leading scholars in the field (e.g., Adelman and Taylor, 2002;
Gysbers, 2001; Herr,

2002; House and Hayes, 2002), that to accomplish this goal
administrators must realign

their counseling interventions and services within the context of a CGCP
(Gysbers and

Henderson, 2001; Lehr and Sumarah, 2002; Sink, 2002). Given this
assertion, this

unavoidable research question necessitates an answer: Do school
counselors operating

within a well defined and implemented CGCP actually promote higher
academic

achievement and a range of non-cognitive outcomes in schoolchildren? To
respond to this query in some measure, we report here the most germane
results of a large investigation

conducted in Washington State's elementary schools. Prior to summarizing
the study and

its relevant findings, we attempt to clarify the pertinent CGCP
terminology for potential

international readers and those educators unfamiliar with this
orientation to school

counseling. For the purposes of discussion, we also proffer various
recommendations on

how school administrators and other educational personnel may be able to
enhance

academic achievement in elementary school students by deploying a
comprehensive

approach to guidance and counseling. First, though, a context for this
investigation by

reviewing the stage-like history of the American school counseling
profession is

provided.

### Research Contextualization: Three Stages of Professional School Counseling

**Phase 1: Position approach.** Like most disciplines, professional
school counseling in the United States continues to experience shifts in
its foci (see e.g., Gysbers and Henderson, 2000; Gysbers, 2001; Herr,
2002; Myrick, 2003b, 1997, for more extensive discussions). The first
period (circa 1910s to 1950s) instituted a "position" orientation, where
guidance personnel (i.e., typically vocational and classroom teachers)
dispersed occupational and career information to high school students
(Grades 9 to 12, ages 14 to 18 years) with the objective directed
largely on employment training (Gysbers and Henderson, 2001). Little
thought was given to students' psycho-social and educational issues, and
elementary-age children and early adolescents remained, essentially,
beyond the scope of the guidance professional's work.

**Phase 2: Services model.** During the next stage (circa 1960s to
1980s), a

"services" model (also called a "process-based" or pupil-personnel
orientation; Gysbers

and Henderson, 2000; Herr, 2002) was established. Middle (Grades 6 to 8,
ages 12 to 14

years) and high school counselors, as well as other guidance personnel
(e.g., nurses,

attendance officers, teachers) attempted to provide (a) adequate
psycho-educational

support (reactive/crisis) services to students at risk for school
failure or those

experiencing personal-social difficulties, and (b) educational and
career guidance to the

college- or university-bound. For this reason, a more
psychological-clinical outlook

replaced the work focus of the previous period. Simply stated, students
on either end of

the normal curve (about 15 to 20% of the student population) were the
center of attention,

leaving the mainstream pupil without vital counseling and guidance
services. Even

though school counseling at the elementary level (Grades K to 6, ages 5
to 11 years)

surfaced during this time, the influence on students' overall welfare
was insufficient

given that nearly all school districts had (and continue to have) few
resources to employ

one or more school counselors per building and public accountability
targeted general

education rather than counseling and guidance.

**Phase 3: Comprehensive guidance and counseling movement***.*
Approaching the late 1970s and early 1980s, several leading researchers
in school counseling and career education (e.g., Donald Dinkmeyer,
Norman Gysbers, Edwin Herr) argued that the

profession required a major transformation. While the background for
these appeals for

change is well summarized in the literature (e.g., Dinkmeyer and
Caldwell, 1970; Gysbers and Henderson, 2000; 2001; Herr, 2002; Myrick,
2003b, 1997; Paisley and Borders, 1995; Vanzandt and Hayslip, 2001),
briefly they are: (a) the enactment of federal legislation (e.g.,
National Defense Education Act of 1958 and Carl D. Perkins Vocational
Educational Act of 1984) that supported the advancement of school
counseling, (b) the influence of developmental (e.g., Piaget's
cognitive, Kohlberg's moral reasoning, and Erikson's psycho-social) and
career education (e.g., Donald Super's stage model) theories, and (c)
the economic-political demands for educational accountability, program
evaluation, and curricular revisions. In response to these catalysts,
the school counseling mission has been revitalized, where all children,
not just those on the margins, are supposed to be served within a
framework of a competency-based or results-based CGCP (Johnson and
Johnson, 2003; Johnson and Whitfield, 1991; Lapan, 2001).

Over the past decade or so, this programmatic vision has emerged as the
most commonly deployed organizational structure for the profession (Sink
and MacDonald,

1998), endorsed strongly by the national professional guild, the
American School

Counselor Association (ASCA, 1997, 1999, 2003; Campbell and Dahir, 1997;
Dahir, 2001; Dahir et al., 1998; Wittmer, 2000a, 2000b). More than 50%
of the states have devised or are working on some form of a
comprehensive program (Sink and MacDonald, 1998). The ASCA national
model (ASCA, 2003) is now available for school districts to use as a
framework for their CGCPs.

Two recent studies on the dissemination of CGCPs across the U.S. showed
that

the implementation process creates significant obstacles for many
counselors (Sink and

Yillik-Downer, 2001) and numerous state CGCPs require better evidence
that their

programs were theoretically grounded (MacDonald and Sink, 1999).
Furthermore, many

state and district programs posit in their mission statements that one
of the central

outcomes is to facilitate the development of "good" or "productive"
citizens or people of

character (e.g., Coats, Ash, and Dorsey, 1998; Hatch, 2000; Sink, 2002).
Some evidence

suggests, however, that citizenship or character/moral education, among
others, is a

largely ignored domain in most state and district-wide CGCPs (MacDonald
and Sink,

1999). Given the lack of civility in our schools, this domain is badly
needed (Sink, 2002).

Despite these concerns, as mentioned earlier, preliminary efficacy
research on a wide

array of student and program outcomes is encouraging (see e.g., Borders
and Drury, 1992; House and Hayes, 2002; Lapan, 2001; Whiston and Sexton,
1998, for reviews). Before we discuss the current study, the key
terminology and elements of the CGCP are overviewed.

**Definitional Issues and Key Components of a CGCP**1

1 According to Myrick (2003b), the usage of the term *guidance* in the
US has changed over time,

where in the early 1900s, the term normally involved vocational
guidance. Currently, "guidance"

tends to be an overarching term, which involves a collection of services
aimed at students'

educational, personal-social, and career development, as well as school
adjustment. Educators,

including school and career counselors, teachers, and school
psychologists (or as in the UK,

educational psychologists), perform these activities. Most schools have
*guidance programs* that

include a formal curriculum that is taught in the classroom. Some
educationalists still tend to use

*guidance* interchangeably with the term *counseling*. Most often, when
school counselors speak of

*counseling*, they are referring to the interactive and confidential
process of helping a student(s)

either individually or in a small group setting with personal, social,
or other concerns.

**Principal elements.** For those who are unfamiliar with the essence of
a CGCP, its primary characteristics are summarized. A CGCP acts as an
organizational and pragmatic scaffold from which counselors and guidance
personnel (e.g., nurses and career counselors) direct their interactions
with students, parents, and community members (Campbell and Dahir, 1997;
Gysbers and Henderson, 2000, 2001; Paisley, 2001; Wittmer, 2000a,
2000b). Structurally, the majority of programs, whether they are
district- or state-developed, comprise statements that address their
mission, underlying assumptions, and rationale. Students are provided
with classroom guidance presentations (lessons that address specific
curricular outcomes), individual planning (e.g., advisement, assessment,
placement, and follow-up), responsive services (e.g., individual and
small group counseling, consultation, and referral), and overall system
support (e.g., program

management activities, community outreach, public relations). CGCPs also
include

student competencies which are carefully arranged in a scope and
developmental

sequence (at least kindergarten through secondary school or Grade 12)
and have

performance benchmarks. The outcomes are largely restricted to three
principal areas:

personal/social behavior, educational skills, and career/vocational
proficiencies. Some

programs have additional competences that relate, for example, to
multicultural issues,

emotional intelligence, and moral and character formation.

At their heart, school counseling programs should be *comprehensive*,

*collaborative*, and *developmental* (Campbell and Dahir, 1997; Myrick,
2003b, 2003b,

1997; Paisley, 2001; Paisley and Hubbard, 1994). They are wide-ranging
because they

attempt to (a) serve all pupils and their caregivers, (b) encourage the
attainment of the

prescribed student competencies, (c) offer an assortment of services
(e.g., counseling,

coordination, consultation, and large-group guidance), and (d) provide
remediation and

prevention (ASCA, 1997; Gysbers and Henderson, 2000, 2001; Henderson and
Gysbers,

1998).

Comprehensiveness also refers to a multi-systemic orientation to
guidance and

counseling, which implies that in order to be helpful to students (i.e.,
promote behavior

change), school counselors need to be mindful of the various,
interconnected subsystems

(e.g., family, peer group, the school, and the community) that influence
their lives (Keys

and Bemak, 1997; Keys, Bemak, and Lockhart, 1998; Keys and Lockhart,
1999; Littrell and Peterson, 2001). A systems perspective draws upon
both general systems (e.g., von

Bertalanffy, 1968) and social ecological theories (Bronfenbrenner,
1979), where the

school counselor, for instance, directly confers with the child's
teachers and caregivers in

a coordinated way to facilitate student growth. Enduring behavior
change, thus, is not

chiefly the responsibility of the schoolchildren, but instead
necessitates a salient

alteration of their micro-systems (i.e., their day-to-day relationships
among relevant

persons), and perhaps, of their macro-systems (i.e., school and societal
levels) as well

(Keys and Lockhart, 1999).

> If a systems adjustment is, therefore, often required for students to
> do well at

school, comprehensive programs must support collaboration and
partnerships among

school personnel and leading stakeholders (e.g., parents, community
agency

representatives; Keys and Lockhart, 1999; Lehr and Sumarah, 2002;
Littrell and Peterson, 2001; Myrick, 2003b, 1997; Porter, Epp, and
Bryant, 2000; Rowley, 2001). Paisley (2001) suggested that collaborative
school counseling programs focus on group rather than individual problem
solving and are integrated rather than isolated counselor interventions
either in the office or in the classroom. Recent research on CGCPs
nationwide points to the lack of meaningful collaboration among
counselors during the program planning and implementation phases (Sink
and Yillik-Downer, 2001). Clearly, this dilemma needs to be remedied.

Further, CGCPs should support healthy development across curricular
domains

(Clark and Stone, 2000; Gysbers and Henderson, 2000, 2001; Myrick,
2003b, 1997;

Neukrug, Barr, Hoffman, and Kaplan, 1993; Olson and Perrone, 1991;
Paisley, 2001; Paisley and Benshoff, 1996; Paisley and Peace, 1995).
Pupils are assumed to advance through a series of qualitatively
disparate developmental stages involving such dimensions as cognition,
moral and ethical reasoning (care and justice), psycho-social dynamics,
and career decision-making. Because developmentally based programs are
educative and preemptive in nature, rather than mainly crisis or
remediation oriented, school guidance personnel are charged with
promoting students' psychological growth and school and life success
(Paisley, 2001). To do so, school counselors, in partnership with other
key members of the program leadership team, must formulate developmental
curricula that reflect up to date research and best practices. Moreover,
systemic counseling interventions should focus on student mastery of
developmental tasks (e.g., Havighurst, 1972). Succinctly stated,
developmental theory is the foundation for most aspects of the program
structure.

While the supposition that comprehensive programs are devised on a solid

developmental footing remained largely uncontested until recently,
contemporary

scholars have raised serious questions. Keys et al. (1998) suggested,
for instance, that

CGCPs are insufficient to effectively address the developmental needs of
at-risk students.

MacDonald and Sink's (1999) qualitative developmental analysis of nearly
25 state

programs found major deficiencies as well. Numerous programs were
largely replicas of

preexisting models (see e.g., Gysbers and Henderson, 2000 or ASCA, 2003,
for template). Nearly all programs failed to address in depth vital
issues affecting development such as children's cultural heritage and
ethnicity (MacDonald and Sink, 1999; Sink, 2002). We now consider the
potential role programs may have in improving the academic performance
of schoolchildren.

**Linkage Between CGCPs and Academic Achievement**

In keeping with Lapan's (2001) recent recommendations for CGCP
evaluation,

Green and Keys (2001) and others (e.g., Adelman and Taylor, 2002;
Gysbers and

Henderson, 2000; Johnson and Johnson, 2003; Johnson and Whitfield, 1991;
Myrick, 2003a; Schmidt, 2000) emphasized that school counseling programs
(a) align their student targets with the goals of school reform, (b) use
evidence-based best practices, and (c) report outcome-based data as way
of ensuring accountability of their work with students and their
caregivers.

In particular, several prominent scholars in the school counseling field
have

recommended that CGCPs should include results-based assessments, where
school

counseling program outcome data ought to be directly aimed at improving
student

learning (e.g., Gysbers, 2001; Lapan, 2001; Lapan, Kardash, and Turner,
2002; Paisley and Hayes, 2003). For instance, House and Martin (1998)
and House and Hayes (2002),

resonating with the positions of Green and Keys (2001) and Gysbers,
called for school

counselors to provide evidence that they positively impact student
achievement and other

relevant outcomes (see also Paisley and Hayes, 2003). Bemak (2000)
pressed the issue a bit farther. He suggested that by revising school
counselors' position descriptions to include the advancement of student
academic achievement, the highly publicized performance gap among low
income, disadvantaged pupils and other student groups would diminish. As
if to put a capstone on the issue, a leading school counseling
researcher alleged, in the context of a CGCP: "By performing a more
proactive leadership role in empowering students to become
self-regulated learners, professional school counselors will both
motivate young people to *more fully realize their academic potential*
\[italics added\]..." (Lapan et al., 2002, p. 264).

Although Glosoff and Koprowicz (1990) offered preliminary research
findings in

the area of elementary school counseling and its relationship to
enhancing academic

achievement, student retention rates, and children's socio-emotional
behaviors, attitudes,

and skills, studies attesting to the potential efficacy of CGCPs as a
scaffold for

improving, in particular, academic achievement, are scarce (House and
Hayes, 2002).

Program evaluation research conducted in Missouri (see summaries in
Gysbers, 2001;

House and Hayes, 2002; Lapan, 2001) and to a lesser extent in Utah
(Nelson and Gardner, 1998) indicates that CGCPs can have a positive
influence on various non-cognitive and cognitive student outcomes,
including achievement.

These results tend to be correlational in nature and rely heavily on
self-report

surveys which measure student and staff perceptions of self-efficacy or
change (Lapan,

Gysbers, Multon, and Pike, 1997). For instance, in a large state-wide
study of seventh graders (13 to 14 year olds), Lapan, Gysbers, and
Petroski (2001) reported that in more fully implemented comprehensive
school counseling programs, no matter what the socioeconomic status
(SES) of the surrounding community, middle school students "felt" they
were doing better in school (earning higher marks) and were safer. These
results appear to be largely consistent with previous CGCP studies
conducted by Gysbers, Lapan, Hughey, and their research colleagues
(e.g., Hughey, Gysbers, and Starr, 1993; Lapan, Gysbers, Hughey, and
Arni, 1997; Lapan, Gysbers, and Sun 1997). Other research reviewed in
the school counseling literature (Borders and Drury, 1992; Whiston and
Sexton, 1998) support these findings.

**Research Focus and Hypothesis**

Given that the claims for improved elementary-age student achievement in
the

cognitive and non-cognitive domains appear to be rigorously untested,
this document

reports on the empirical findings of one dimension of a larger study
which intends to answer this question: Do CGCP elementary (primary)
school pupils2 show enhanced

performance over those children in buildings without a school- or
district-wide school

counseling program?

To respond to this research question, the following alternative
hypothesis was

examined: Third and fourth grade students enrolled in elementary schools
with at least

five years of CGCP implementation will significantly out perform those
children who

were attending schools with no systemic guidance and counseling program
on various

formal measures of academic achievement (e.g., reading, mathematics, and
listening).

2 This study examined results for third, fourth, and sixth grade
students. However, this report discusses

the results for third and fourth grade students only; sixth grade
students' results will be examined in a

subsequent report.

#### METHOD

**Participants**

**School level.** One hundred and fifty elementary schools from
Washington state

were randomly selected to participate in the study. The buildings
represented small

(enrollment from 1 to 365 students, *n* = 49, or 33%), medium
(enrollment from 366 to

499 students, *n* = 57, 38%), and large (enrollment of 500 or more
students, *n* = 44, 29%)

schools and were distributed across the state in rural (*n* = 59, 39%),
suburban (*n* = 57,

38%), and urban (*n* = 34, 23%) areas. Schools reported an average of
39% of their

students eligible for a U.S. government financial assistance program for
low income or

"disadvantaged" families. Qualified pupils receive a free or reduced
cost lunch, and in

some cases, breakfast as well. This percentage has been used as an
estimate of a family's

level of poverty in several statewide educational studies (personal
communication with

researchers at the Washington School Research Center, 2002).

**School personnel**. Of the 150 elementary schools, 31 did not have a
formally

educated counselor on staff, and therefore, these schools were *a
priori* categorized as a

non-CGCP building and further questioning was not needed. Of the
original 150 schools

contacted, 119 school personnel were surveyed by telephone. They were
primarily female

(79%) and European American or white (93%), with an average age of 45.5
(*SD* = 9.6),

representing the general state-wide demographics for school counselors.
Most

respondents (95%) also reported having at least one graduate degree
(e.g., master's).

Those more fully queried about their counseling program either were a
Washington State

Educational Services Agreement (ESA) Certification as a school counselor
(*n* = 99 out of

119 or 83%), non-certificated but formally trained counselors (2.5%),
ESA certificated

school psychologists (10%), ESA certificated counselors who were also
teachers (2.5%),

or ESA certificated social workers (1.7%). Not uncommon in elementary
schools, some

respondents reported working full time (58%), while others indicated
that they were

employed only part time (42%). The school personnel's caseloads averaged
451 students

and they had worked on average nine years total in their specific
profession and five

years in their current educational position. Finally, of the original
150 schools, 67 schools

were identified as having implemented a CGCP (i.e., the research group)
and 83 schools

were identified as not using a CGCP (i.e., the comparison group).

**Students---total sample**. During the 2000-2001 school year, data on
students (*N* = 20,131) within each of the 150 participating elementary
schools were also collected.

Specifically, information was garnered from schoolchildren in Grades 3
(*n* = 9,863, 49%)

and 4 (*n* = 10,268, 51%). In general, the students reflected the ethnic
diversity of the state

(European American, 72%; Hispanic, 12%; Asian American, 6%; African
American, 5%;

Native American, 3%; other, 2%). The gender distribution was 51% males
and 49%,

female, with less than1% no gender indicated.

**Research and comparison groups.** The total student sample was divided
into research (CGCP, *n* = 9,816) and comparison (non-CGCP, *n* =
10,315) groups. Overall, the research sample (European American, 68%;
Hispanic, 11%; African American, 7%; Asian American, 8%; Native
American, 3%; other, 2%) was slightly more ethnically diverse than the
comparison group (European American, 76%; Hispanic, 12%; Asian American,
5%; African American, 3%; Native American, 2%; other, 2%). The former
group was comprised of 4,999 (51%) males, 4,805 (49%) females, and
another 12 (0.1%) students who did not indicate a particular gender. A
similar gender breakdown was reported for the comparison group: 5,308
(52%) males, 4,975 (48%) females, and 35

(0.3%) non-identified students.

In regards to total building enrollment, the research group's students
were enrolled in large (enrollment of 500 or more students, *n* = 4,464
or 46%) schools, with fewer medium (enrollment of 366 to 499 students,
*n* = 3,941, 40%) and small (enrollment of 1 to 365 students, *n* =
1,411, 14%) schools than the comparison group's students (i.e., large,
38%; medium, 42%, small, 20%). The research sample's schools represented
a

more even distribution of urban (31%), suburban (42%), and rural (26%)
buildings than

the comparison group's buildings (urban, 16%; suburban, 38%, rural,
44%). Schools in

the research group reported an average of 39% of their students eligible
for a U.S.

government program for low income families that involves receiving a
free or reduced

cost lunch as compared to an average of 37% for the non-CGCP group.

**Research subgroup**. The CGCP sample was further broken down into a
group of "high" CGCP implementation (5 or more years, *n* = 3,027). In
general, the students in

these buildings reflected the ethnic diversity of the larger research
group from which it

was comprised (European American, 68%; Asian American, 12%; African
American,

10%; Hispanic, 8%; Native American, 2%; other, 1%); males (51%) slightly

outnumbered females (49%). Students in high CGCP schools also
represented mainly

large (total enrollment of 500 or more students, *n* = 1,391 or 46%)
schools, with fewer

medium (total enrollment of 366 to 499 students; *n* = 1,295, 43%) and
small (total

enrollment of 1 to 365 students, *n* = 341, 11%) schools compared to
both the total sample

and the comparison group (non-GCGP schools). Students in these
high-implementation

schools represented rural (*n* = 743, 25%), suburban (*n* = 1,487, 49%),
and urban (*n* = 797,

26%) areas of the state and reported an average of 37% of their students
eligible for a

federal lunch assistance program for economically disadvantaged pupils.

# Instrumentation

*The Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs and Student Success
in*

*Washington State Elementary Schools Telephone Survey* was constructed
by the

researchers for this study. The questionnaire, orally administered to
the respondents over

the telephone, consists of simple items that solicit various background
(e.g., current

educational position, full time equivalent, age, gender, ethnicity,
academic degree, years

as a school counselor, years in current position) and school (e.g.,
location \[urban,

suburban, or rural\], grade levels served, total caseload) data.

If the school or district had a CGCP in place, which was largely aligned
with the

standard Gysberian-type (Gysbers, 2001; Gysbers and Henderson, 2000),
school personnel answered these survey items as well:

1\. What was the program's origin?

2\. What is the level of district-wide implementation (i.e., across all

> elementary schools, in counselor's school only, or across multiple
> schools
>
> but not in all)?

3\. How long (in months and years) has the program been in use?

4\. What developmental phase was the program currently operating in (a.

> Planning, b. Designing, c. Implementing, or d. Evaluating)?

5\. Rate on a seven-point Likert scale (a) your level of involvement
with the

> CGCP (1, not involved, to 7, very involved), (b) your perception of
> the
>
> importance of a CGCP within the district (1, not important, to 7, very
>
> important), and (c) the level of the positive impact the CGCP has made
> on
>
> students' academic performance (1, no impact, to 7, significant
> impact).

*The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills-Form M* (ITBS) are a series of
norm-referenced

achievement measures designed to provide a broad assessment of student
progress in

basic academic skills. It is administered annually to Washington State's
third-, sixth-, and ninth-grade students. The well-established and
widely used group-administered test battery has produced internal
consistency and other reliability coefficients in the satisfactory range
of low .70s to mid .90s (Hoover, Hieronymus, Frisbie, and Dunbar, 1996).
In addition, numerous research studies have generally confirmed the
validity of the ITBS (see Riverside, 1997, for a literature review).

The *Washington Assessment of Student Learning* (WASL) is a relatively
new

criterion-referenced test (CRT) group-administered annually to
Washington's fourth,

seventh, and tenth grade students (Taylor, 2000). A modified Rasch model
(Masters's

\[1982\] partial credit scoring approach; see Taylor for details) was
used in developing an

equal interval scoring system, where a theta value (è) was computed for
each examinee

and then transformed to a positive, whole number scale through a linear
conversion

procedure. The possible scale score range for the WASL's four subtests
(Mathematics,

Reading, Listening, and Writing) is 150 to 600. The general standard for
passing the test

is 400; however, this cutoff varies to some extent depending on the
subtest and year of

test administration. The actual range of scale scores in the content
areas can also vary

slightly each year.

Recently, Taylor (2000), one of the statistical specialists
investigating the

instrument, reported on the psychometric properties of the WASL
administered to fourth graders in 1999. The validity of the WASL scores
was examined using the

inter-correlations among WASL strand scores (*r*s ranged from .42 to
.75) and an

exploratory factor analysis. The latter analysis revealed three
underlying dimensions, that

is, language arts, mathematics, and writing (factor loadings ranging
from .62 to.79;

Taylor, 2000). Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the
1999 Grade 4 WASL

were generally satisfactory for the Listening (á = .61), Reading (á =
.86), Mathematics (á

= .88), and Writing (á = .81) tests. Inter-rater reliability
coefficients for the open-ended

questions on the different subtests were high (.97 to .98). Since this
CRT continues to be

refined each year, the psychometric properties for the other versions of
the WASL have

not, at the time of publication, been reported in the professional
literature or by the State

of Washington's Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI).

**Procedures**

Telephone surveys were administered in the spring of 2001 by three
trained

confederates who were also school counseling doctoral students at a
western Washington

university. Essentially, those schools without an identified school
counselor completed

only the demographics part of the survey and were subsequently
classified as a non-

CGCP school. The rationale behind this assumption involved the
recommended

leadership of CGCP. The school counselor, in collaboration with other
educators, largely

facilitates the program (Gysbers and Henderson, 2000; Henderson and
Gysbers, 2001). The remaining school representatives were queried
further about whether the building had in place some type of a CGCP. If
it was a "CGCP school," the respondent was administered the entire
questionnaire. Where there was confusion about the data coding, the
surveyors conferred with the primary investigators to resolve the issue.

Data for the 2000-2001 school year on the percentage of students
eligible for a

free or reduced cost school lunch, the school's enrollment, and the
district's total

enrollment were obtained directly from the Washington School Research
Center's

database. The Center received the information from OSPI officials. In
addition, data on

students' gender, ethnicity, number of years enrolled in the building,
and number of years

enrolled in the district were gathered from OSPI on the third and fourth
grade students in

those schools.

Students' 2000-2001 test scores from the ITBS and WASL were collected
from

the Washington School Research Center via OSPI. This data included Grade
3 ITBS

Vocabulary, Comprehension, Reading, and Mathematics standard scores, and
Grade 4

WASL Listening, Reading, Writing, and Mathematics scale scores.

**Data Analysis**

Telephone surveys were coded and tabulated and data were analyzed by the

researchers and their assistants. To examine the parametric assumptions
underlying the

multivariate procedures, the data were checked for normality using
standard procedures

(Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2003; Green and Salkind, 2003; Grimm and Yarnold,
1995). Although the specific output is not reported here, Box's test of
equality of covariance matrices and Levene's test of equality of error
variance were computed. Given the large sample sizes and the reasonably
normal distributions, parametric analyses were justified.

Inter-correlations among the variables and hierarchical multiple
regression (HMR)

procedures were calculated as well. Because this document addresses only
the potential

differences between groups, the matrices and HMR results are not
presented.

Using SPSS's (version 11) general linear model (GLM), the hypotheses
were

examined using a series of factorial multivariate analyses of
covariances (MANCOVAs;

see Green et al., 2000 and Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000, for details).
The independent

variables were: Group (participants in CGCP vs. non-CGCP schools),
Length of

Enrollment (i.e., length of time students were enrolled in the
particular school), and

Gender. The dependent measures were the student achievement ITBS or WASL
test

scores. In each analysis, the percentage of students receiving a free or
reduced cost lunch

was used as the covariate. This concomitant variable correlated largely
in the moderate

range with each dependent measure (*rM* = .35).

#### RESULTS

The majority (54.6%) of the participating schools with high CGCP

implementation used as their template the *Washington State Guidelines
for*

*Comprehensive Counseling and Career Guidance Programs from Kindergarten
through*

*Community and Technical College* (Coats et al., 1998). On average these
schools had

their CGCP in place for over 6.5 years (*M* = 6.64, *SD* = 2.17), almost
double the amount

of time the non-high usage or general CGCPs had implemented their
programs (*M* =

3.66, *SD* = 4.96). The mean length of time respondents in the general
CGCP group and

high CGCP sample worked in their current positions were 4.96 and 5.46
years,

respectively, and their total number of years of educational service
were comparable (*M*s

= 9.4 and 10.5 years, respectively). All counselors in CGCP schools
generally viewed

themselves as moderately to highly involved in their program. For
example, the mean

rating for counselors in the high-usage CGCP sub-sample was 6.27, as
opposed to 5.85 for the general CGCP group. The perceived levels of CGCP
importance and student impact were similar as well, ranging in the
moderate to high levels (*M*s \> 5).

The magnitude of the average inter-correlations among the dependent
variables

was in the moderate to strong range. For instance, for the entire Grade
6 sample, the

mean Pearson correlations, ranged from .20 (ITBS school environment
scores) to .62

(ITBS achievement subtests). For the third and fourth grade students,
the correlations

among the covariate and the dependent measures were on average .58 and
.43,

respectively.

Means and standard deviations were calculated by Group (CGCP vs.
non-CGCP),

Length of Enrollment, and Gender for Grade 3 ITBS standard scores and
Grade 4 WASL

scale scores. In addition, means and standard deviations were computed
by Group (high

CGCP vs. non-CGCP), Length of Enrollment, and Gender for the Grade 3
ITBS standard

scores and Grade 4 WASL scale scores. Some preliminary trends are
discernable. For

example, students enrolled for several years in high usage CGCP schools
seemed to have

performed better on various achievement tests than those pupils in
non-GCCP buildings.

Gender differences and interaction effects among factors appear to have
emerged on

several dependent variables as well.

In order to address the two research hypotheses, the following
inferential statistics

are reported by grade level. Most notably, we anticipated that students
in Grades 3 and 4,

who were attending CGCP schools with at least five years of practice
(i.e., high usage

CGCP schools), would produce significantly higher achievement test
scores than

comparable children in non-CGCP schools. In other words, it was expected
that the

Group X Length of Enrollment interaction would be significant for each
dependent

variable. The Gender and Year of Enrollment main effects and the other
interactions

(e.g., Gender X Year of Enrollment) were of lesser import in this study.

**Grade 3.** To examine the initial part of Hypothesis 1, a 2 (Group:
CGCP vs. non-

CGCP) X 4 (Length of Enrollment) X 2 (Gender) MANCOVA with the poverty
index as

a covariate was computed on Grade 3 ITBS Vocabulary, Comprehension,
Reading, and

Mathematics standardized test scores. The statistical procedure produced
significant (*p*s =

.00, *çp* 2 = .00) main effects for Group (favoring the non-CGCP sample
on all dependent

measures), Length of Enrollment (i.e., the longer the enrollment, the
higher the test

scores), and Gender. Furthermore, for Gender, only ITBS Vocabulary score
was

non-significant (*p* \> .10), with the girls scoring significantly
higher than the boys on the

Comprehension and Reading subscales; whereas, the males did
significantly better than

the females on the Mathematics test. The Group X Length of Enrollment
and Group X

Gender interactions were significant (*p*s = .00, *çp* 2 = .00) across
the four ITBS Grade 3

subtests. While the latter interaction is not particularly germane to
the study, the former

shows, not surprisingly, that the longer the students in either group
remain in their

schools, the higher their test scores. Interestingly, across the four
content areas, students

in CGCP schools consistently scored lower than pupils in the non-CGCP
buildings, but

the performance gap disappears gradually over time such that by about
the fourth year of

enrollment, students' mean test scores in both groups are virtually
identical.

A 2 (Group: high CGCP implementation vs. non-CGCP) X 4 (Length of

Enrollment) X 2 (Gender) MANCOVA with the poverty index as a covariate
generated a

significant main effect for Length of Enrollment across the dependent
measures (*p*s = .00,

*çp* 2 = .01) and a significant Gender effect for ITBS Comprehension
(*F* = 5.81, *p* = .02, *çp*

2 = .00) and Mathematics (*F =* 14.11, p = .00, *çp* 2 = .00) subtests.
Similar to the results

above, these indicate the longer the students in either sample remain in
their schools, the

better their performances. The significant Gender effect showed that
females significantly

outperformed the males on Comprehension and males did better than
females on

Mathematics. The Group X Length of Enrollment interaction effects for
Vocabulary,

Comprehension, Reading, and Mathematics scores were significant (*p*s =
.00, *çp*

2 = .01), where students who were enrolled for several years or more in
high usage CGCP schools scored significantly higher on these ITBS
measures than comparable students in non-CGCP schools. (See Figures 1,
2, 3, and 4).

**Figure 1**. Third Grade ITBS Vocabulary subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment interaction.

**Figure 2.** Third Grade ITBS Comprehension subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment

interaction.

**Figure 3.** Third Grade ITBS Reading subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment interaction.

Year first enrolled in building.

**Figure 4.** Third Grade ITBS Math subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment interaction.

**Grade 4.** Similarly, a 2 (Group: CGCP versus non-CGCP) X 5 (Length of
Enrollment)

X 2 (Gender) MANCOVA with the percentage of students receiving a free or
reduced

cost lunch as a covariate was computed using Grade 4 WASL Listening,
Reading,

Writing, and Mathematics scale scores as dependent variables.
Significant main effects

favoring the non-CGCP sample on all dependent measures were found for
Group (*p*s =

.00, *çp* 2 = .00) and Length of Enrollment (*p*s = .00, *çp* 2 = .01).
Additionally, a significant

Gender effect favoring the girls for the WASL Reading (*F* = 133.20, *p*
= .02, *çp* 2 = .00)

and Writing (*F* = 321.62, *p* = .00, *çp* 2 = .03) measures were found.
The MANCOVA also

yielded significant Group X Length of Enrollment interactions for Grade
4 WASL

Listening (*F* = 4.91, *p* = .00, *çp* 2 = .00), Reading (*F* = 3.81,
*p* = .00, *çp* 2 = .00), and Mathematics (*F* = 3.60, *p* = .00, *çp* 2
= .00) scale scores. These interactions reflect those

reported for the Grade 3 ITBS data, in that, for Grade 4 WASL Listening,
Reading, and

Mathematics scores, students in CGCP schools consistently scored lower
than pupils in

the non-CGCP buildings in the first few years of school enrollment, but
the initial

significant mean differences diminished over time. By the fourth year of
attendance,

students' scores in the high-implementation CGCP group were on par with
the

performances of the non-CGCP participants.

A 2 (Group: high CGCP implementation vs. non-CGCP) X 5 (Length of

Enrollment) X 2 (Gender) MANCOVA with the poverty index as a covariate
was

generated. The analysis indicated a significant Group effect for Grade 4
WASL Writing

scale scores, *F* = 4.54, *p* = .03, *çp* 2 = .00. The
high-implementation CGCP students

significantly outperformed those participants in the comparison group.
Like the earlier

MANCOVAs, Length of Enrollment was a significant main effect across each
of the

WASL subtests (*p*s = .00, *çp* 2 = .01), where students who were
enrolled the longest in

their particular school outperformed all others on each of the dependent
measures.

Significant Gender effects were also found for Listening (*F* = 4.78,
*p* = .03, *çp*

2 = .00), Reading (*F* = 51.65, *p* = .00, *çp* 2 = .01), and Writing
(*F* = 141.66, *p* = .00, *çp*

2 = .02) subtests. The girls had significantly higher achievement than
the boys on the Reading and Writing WASL tests, whereas the boys
produced superior mean Listening scores than their female counterparts.
Finally, as with the third grade students attending a high
implementation CGCP school, those Grade 4 pupils enrolled for multiple
years in the same high usage CGCP school significantly outperformed
comparable children in non-CGCP schools. Significant Group X Length of
Enrollment interaction effects for Grade 4 WASL Listening (*F* = 7.54,
*p* = .00, *çp* 2 = .01), Reading (*F* = 4.73, *p* = .00, *çp*

2 = .00), and Mathematics (*F* = 3.87, *p* = .00, *çp* 2 = .00) scale
scores were found. (See Figures 5, 6, and 7).

**Figure 5.** Fourth Grade WASL Listening subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment interaction.

**Figure 6**. Fourth Grade WASL Reading subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment interaction.

**Figure 7.** Fourth Grade WASL Math subtest. Group x Length of
enrollment interaction.

To summarize the most relevant findings, as measured by the Grade 3 ITBS
and

Grade 4 WASL test scores, students in their initial CGCP school
enrollment years

generally produced significantly lower achievement scores than those
students attending

schools with no systemic guidance and counseling program. As such, it is
not altogether

surprising that the significant interaction between Group and Length of
Enrollment on

various Grade 3 and 4 achievement measures generally favored students in
schools with

no program. However, as students in both groups remained in their
buildings for multiple

years, the achievement disparity between them became non-significant.
Moreover, the

significant interaction between Group and Length of Enrollment indicated
that over time,

students in high usage CGCP schools performed significantly better than
did students in

non-CGCP schools on the Grade 3 ITBS Vocabulary, Comprehension, Reading,
and

Mathematics, and Grade 4 WASL Listening, Reading, and Mathematics
assessments. The

Gender main effects for Grades 3 and 4 were somewhat consistent across
achievement

dimensions. Females tended to do better on the verbally-loaded tests
(Reading and

Writing), while the boys seemed to outperform girls on the mathematics
tests.

#### DISCUSSION

The principal aim of this study was to examine whether students
attending

elementary schools with fully implemented comprehensive guidance and
counseling

programs would significantly increase their academic achievement over
and above those

children enrolled in non-CGCP buildings. Since there have been no other
CGCP studies

published with a similar participant base and methodology, it is
difficult to draw any firm

long-term conclusions. Nonetheless, the results do provide some causal
comparative

evidence for the research hypothesis.

Specifically, this investigation appears to support the notion that
younger children

(Grades 3 and 4, ages 8 to 10) may benefit academically, whether they
are economically

disadvantaged or not, by attending for several years elementary schools
with a well

functioning comprehensive guidance and counseling program. These
students seem to do

better on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures of reading,
writing, and

mathematics than their peers in schools without any systemic guidance
and counseling

program. It also appears that even when children (a) attend a school
with a less than

totally engaged comprehensive program and (b) have significantly lower
initial academic

achievement than similar pupils in non-CGCP schools, these CGCP children
over a few

years tend to close the achievement gap. These findings extend the
somewhat dated

research reviewed in Glosoff and Koprowicz (1990) and Whiston and Sexton
(1998).

These writers generally concluded that children are helped academically
and

interpersonally by attending schools with elementary school counselors
in place.

Over the past decade or so, multiple CGCP studies conducted with
middle/junior

and senior high school students (e.g., Gysbers, 2001; Lapan, 2001) have
been published

in refereed journals. Gysbers concluded after reviewing the empirical
evidence:

When certified professional school counselors have the time, the
resources, and

the structure of a comprehensive guidance program in which to work, they

contribute to positive student academic and career development as well
as the

development of positive and safe learning climates in schools. (p. 103)

The differences, however, between the research cited, for example, in
Gysbers

\(2001\) and the current investigation not only concern the age range of
the samples, but

also their design and foci. As mentioned above, the empirical studies
conducted in

Missouri were largely correlational and prediction focused in design,
rather than, as in the

current study, directed at examining group differences among CGCP and
non-CGCP

schools across an array of cognitive and non-cognitive measures. Thus,
the evidence

provided here augments the Missouri research and should encourage those
scholars who

advocate for school counseling programs to promote academic and
nonacademic gains in

students (e.g., House and Hayes, 2002; Lapan et al., 2002; Paisley and
House, 2003).

**Implications for Schools and School Counseling**

The research presented in this document lends itself to some
recommendations for

school practice, especially in the area of guidance and counseling. It
appears obvious that

school counselors would do well, in collaboration with other building
and district-wide

personnel, to design, implement, and further refine their comprehensive
programs so that

all children are adequately served. Continued collaboration, as
encouraged by, for

example, Keys and her colleagues (Green and Keys, 2001; Keys and Bemak,
1997; Keys et al., 1998; Keys and Lockhart, 1999) and others (e.g.,
Rowley, 2001; Sink and Yillik-

Downer, 2001) should be facilitated by the administrative staff. Ongoing
evaluation is

also needed to ensure that the program is fostering relevant outcomes
(Lapan, 2001).

**Research Limitations**

Studies tend to have problematic elements and this investigation is no
exception.

As such, the major limitations are discussed in this section. First,
self-report survey data

used in this study may bias the findings. Second, since the magnitude of
the effect sizes

(partial *ç*2) were modest at best (Green and Salkind, 2003), the
practical value of the results may be lessened. Third, the very large
sample size and the relative increase in statistical power contributed
to producing significant group differences. Fourth, the WASL is a
relatively new CRT and its psychometric properties have yet to be firmly
established in the literature. Fifth, the poverty index used is less
than optimal. Finally, causal attributions cannot be asserted given that
the data were derived *ex post facto*. Even

though these caveats will influence the validity of the findings, the
efficacy of district-

and statewide comprehensive programs can be enhanced by the suggestions
outlined in

the previous section.

**Suggestions for Future Research**

The current study is a first of its kind to document significant
differences in

academic achievement between students who attend elementary schools with
strong

comprehensive programs and those without. Further clarification is
needed in those

"high" achieving CGCP elementary schools to ascertain which factors
explain the most

variance in academic performance and perceptions of school climate.
Consequently, once

these dimensions are better understood, they could be implemented in
"underachieving"

CGCP schools. Subsequent research should determine whether the positive
student

outcomes are similar between disparate subgroups of students (e.g.,
majority vs. minority

children or regular education vs. special education students). Finally,
potential gender

differences on various CGCP student competencies may need to be further
explored.

**Conclusion**

The findings from this CGCP study and those discussed in previous
articles (e.g.,

Borders and Drury, 1992; Gysbers, 2001; Lapan, 2001), provide guidance
personnel with a corpus of evidence that provisionally supports the
usefulness of their systemic programs

to augment the educational goals of schools. Hopefully, the results
documented here will

be sustained in other states and at disparate grade levels. Even though
our results are

hopeful, we believe CGCP leadership teams should target those evaluative
dimensions in

which valuable data (e.g., truancy rates, number of discipline
referrals, short-term

outcomes from guidance and counseling interventions) can be more readily
collected by

very busy school personnel. Raising the goal too high and hastily based
on the results of

several positive empirical studies, particularly in terms of promising
significant

achievement gains in CGCP schools, is not altogether defensible. More
workable

approaches to program evaluation as suggested by Hughes and James (2001)
and Schmidt

(1984, 2000) are important sources for school counselors to initially
consider. These

writers suggest that school counseling programs should help facilitate
measurable

changes in the schoolchildren, but the assessment outcomes and tools
need to be tailored

to the specific contexts from which the modifications derive.

In summary, the current study reveals that early elementary-age students
enrolled

for several years in well entrenched CGCP schools can produce
significant achievement

gains over and above those children attending non-CGCP schools. It is
perhaps tempting

for elementary school counselors, in response to mounting external
pressures, to

reprioritize program outcomes, focusing more on academic achievement
than those less

measurable and "marketable" student competencies (e.g., multicultural
and critical

thinking skills, citizenship/character development). Acquiescing to the
educational

agenda of the "back to basics" policymakers, ahead of a strong CGCP
research base,

seems to put school guidance and counseling personnel in the awkward
position of asking

more from their programs than they can be reasonably expected to
deliver.

#### REFERENCES

Adelman, H. S., and Taylor, L. (2002). School counselors and school
reform: New

directions. *Professional School Counseling, 5*, 235-244.

American School Counselor Association. (1997). *The professional school
counselor and*

*comprehensive school counseling programs*. Retrieved August 6, 2001,
from

http://www.schoolcounselor.org/pdf/counsel.pdf

American School Counselor Association. (1999). *The role of the
professional school*

*counselor*. Retrieved August 6, 2001, from
http://www.schoolcounselor.org/role.htm

American School Counselor Association. (2003). *The ASCA national model:
A*

*framework for school counseling programs.* Alexandria, Virginia:
Author.

Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to provide
leadership in

educational reform through collaboration. *Professional School
Counseling, 3,*

323-331.

Borders, L. D., and Drury, S. M. (1992). Comprehensive school counseling
programs: A

review for policymakers and practitioners. *Journal of Counseling and*

*Development, 70,* 487-498.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). *The ecology human development: Experiments
by nature and*

*design*. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.

Campbell, C. A., and Dahir, C. A. (1997). *Sharing the vision: The
national standards for*

*school counseling programs*. Alexandria, Virginia: American School
Counselor

Association.

Clark, M., and Stone, C. (2000). The developmental school counselor as
educational

leader. In J. Wittmer (Editor), *Managing your school counseling
programs: K-12*

*developmental strategies* (second edition, pages 85-81). Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Educational Media.

Coats, R. Q., Ash, M., and Dorsey, C. J. H. (1998). *Washington state
guidelines for*

*comprehensive counseling and guidance programs from kindergarten
through*

*community and technical college.* Olympia, Washington: Office of the
Superintendent of

Public Instruction.

Dahir, C. A. (2001). The national standards for school counseling
programs:

Development and implementation. *Professional School Counseling, 4,*
320-327.

Dahir, C. A., Sheldon, C. B., and Valiga, M. J. (1998). *Vision into
action: Implementing*

*the national standards for school counseling programs*. Alexandria,
Virginia:

American School Counselor Association.

Dinkmeyer, D. C., and Caldwell, E. (1970). *Developmental counseling and
guidance: A*

*comprehensive school approach.* New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., and Borg, W .R. (2003). *Educational research:
An introduction* (seventh edition). New York: Longman.

Glosoff, H. L., and Koprowicz, C. L. (1990). *Children achieving
potential: An introduction to elementary school counseling and
state-level policies*. Alexandria, Virginia: American Association for
Counseling and Development and National Conference of State Legislatures
(Denver, Colorado). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED330917)

Green, A., and Keys, S. G. (2001). Expanding the developmental school
counseling

paradigm: Meeting the needs of the twenty-first century student.
*Professional School*

*Counseling, 5*, 84-95.

Green, S. B., and Salkind, N. J. (2003). *Using SPSS for Windows:
Analyzing and*

*understanding data* (third edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.

Grimm, L. G., and Yarnold, P. R. (1995). *Reading and understanding
multivariate*

*statistics.* Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gysbers, N. C. (2001). School guidance and counseling in the 21st
century: Remember

the past into the future. *Professional School Counseling, 5*, 96-105.

Gysbers, N. C., and Henderson, P. (2000). *Developing and managing your
school guidance program* (third edition). Alexandria, Virginia: American
Counseling Association.

Gysbers, N. C., and Henderson, P. (2001). Comprehensive guidance and
counseling

programs: A rich history and a bright future. *Professional School
Counseling, 4,*

246-256.

Hatch, T. (2000). *Comprehensive school counseling and guidance program:
The*

*implementation year.* Moreno Valley, California: Moreno Valley Unified
School District

Havighurst, R. (1972). *Developmental tasks and education* (third
edition). New York: David McKay.

Henderson, P., and Gysbers, N. C. (1998). *Leading and managing your
school guidance*

*program staff: A manual for school administrators and directors of
guidance.*

Alexandria, Virginia: American Counseling Association.

Herr. E. L. (2002). The impact of national policies, economics, and
school reform on

comprehensive guidance programs. *Professional School Counseling, 4,*
236-245.

Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, S. D., and Dunbar, S. B.
(1996). *Norms and*

*score conversions with technical information: Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills.* Itasca,

Illinois: Riverside.

House, R. M., and Hayes, R. L. (2002). School counselors becoming key
players in school reform. *Professional School Counseling, 5,* 249-256.

House, R. M., and Martin, P. J. (1998). Advocating for better futures
for all students: A

new vision for school counselors. *Education, 119,* 284-291.

Hughes, D. K., and James, S. H. (2001). Using accountability data to
protect a school

counseling program: One counselor's experience. *Professional School
Counseling, 4,* 306-309.

Hughey, K., Gysbers, N. C., and Starr, M. (1993). Evaluating
comprehensive school

guidance programs: Assessing the perceptions of students, parents, and
teachers.

*The School Counselor, 41,* 31-35.

Johnson, S. K., and Johnson, C. D. (2003). Results-based guidance: A
systems approach to student support programs. *Professional School
Counseling, 6*, 180-184.

Johnson, S. K., and Whitfield, E. A. (Eds.). (1991). *Evaluating
guidance programs: A*

*practitioner\'s guide.* Iowa City, Iowa: The American College Testing
Program and

the National Consortium of State Career Guidance Supervisors.

Keys, S. G., and Bemak, F. (1997). School-family-community linked
services: A school

counseling role for changing times. *The School Counselor, 44*, 255-263.

Keys, S. G., Bemak, F., and Lockhart, E. J. (1998). Transforming school
counseling to

serve the mental health needs of at-risk students. *Professional School
Counseling,*

*2,* 381-388.

Keys, S. G., and Lockhart, E. J. (1999). The school counselor's role in
facilitating

multi-systemic change. *Professional School Counseling, 3,* 101-107.

Kinsler, K., and Gamble, M. (2001). *Reforming schools*. London:
Continuum.

Lapan, R. T. (2001). Results-based comprehensive guidance and counseling
programs: A

framework for planning and evaluation. *Professional School Counseling,
4*, 289-

299\.

Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., Hughey, K., and Arni, T. J. (1993).
Evaluating a guidance

and language arts unit for high school students. *Journal of Counseling
and*

*Development, 71*, 444-451.

Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., Multon, K. D., and Pike, G. R. (1997).
Developing guidance competency self-efficacy scales for high school and
middle school students.

*Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30*, 4-17.

Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., and Petroski, G. F. (2001). Helping
seventh graders be safe

and successful: A statewide study of the impact of comprehensive
guidance and

counseling programs. *Journal of Counseling and Development, 79*,
320-330.

Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., and Sun, Y. (1997). The impact of more
fully implemented

guidance programs on the school experiences of high school students: A
statewide

evaluation study. *Journal of Counseling and Development, 75,* 292-302.

Lapan, R. T., Kardash, C. M., and Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students
to become self-regulated learners. *Professional School Counseling, 5,*
257-265.

Lehr, R., and Sumarah, J. (2002). Factors impacting the successful
implementation of

comprehensive guidance and counseling programs in Nova Scotia.
*Professional*

*School Counseling, 5*, 292-297.

Littrell, J. M., and Peterson, J. S. (2001). Transforming the school
culture: A model based

on an exemplary counselor. *Professional School Counseling, 4*, 310-319.

MacDonald, G., and Sink, C. A. (1999). A qualitative developmental
analysis of

comprehensive guidance programmes in schools in the United States.
*British*

*Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 27*, 415-430.

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring.
*Psychometrika, 47*, 149-

174\.

McNeil, L. M. (2000). *Contradictions of school reform: Educational
costs of*

*standardized testing*. New York: Routledge.

Myrick, R. D. (2003a). Accountability: Counselors count. *Professional
School*

*Counseling, 6*, 174-179.

Myrick, R. D. (2003b). *Developmental guidance and counseling: A
practical approach*

(fourth edition). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Educational Media.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). *A nation at
risk: The*

*imperative for educational reform.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing

Office.

Nelson, D. E., and Gardner, J. L. (1998). *An evaluation of the
comprehensive program in*

*Utah public schools*. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State Office of
Education.

Neukrug, E. S., Barr, C. G., Hoffman, L. R., and Kaplan, L. S. (1993).
Developmental

counseling and guidance: A model for use in your school. *The School
Counselor,*

*40*, 356-362.

Olson, M. J., and Perrone, P. A. (1991). Changing to a developmental
guidance program*.*

*The School Counselor, 39*, 41-46.

Paisley, P. O. (2001). Maintaining and enhancing the developmental focus
in school

counseling programs. *Professional School Counseling, 4*, 271-278.

Paisley, P. O., and Benshoff, J. M. (1996). Applying developmental
principles to practice: Training issues for the professional development
of school counselors.

*Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 30*, 163-169.

Paisley, P. O., and Borders, L. D. (1995). School counseling: An
evolving specialty.

*Journal of Counseling and Development, 74*, 150-153.

Paisley, P. O., and Hayes, R. L. (2003). School counseling and the
academic domain:

Transformations in preparation and practice. *Professional School
Counseling, 6*,

198-204.

Paisley, P. O., and Hubbard, G. T. (1994). *Developmental school
counseling programs:*

*From theory to practice*. Alexandria, Virginia: American Counseling
Association.

Paisley, P. O., and Peace, S. D. (1995). Developmental principles: A
framework for school for school counseling programs. *Elementary School
Guidance and Counseling, 30*, 85-93.

Porter, G., Epp, L., and Bryant, S. (2000). Collaboration among school
mental health

professionals: A necessity, not a luxury. *Professional School
Counseling, 3*, 315-

322\.

Riverside Publishing. (1997). *Validity information for the Iowa Tests
of Basic Skills*

*(ITBS) and Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED): Forms K, L,
M.*

Itasca, Illinois: Author.

Rowley, W. J. (2001). Expanding collaborative partnerships among school
counselors

and school psychologists. *Professional School Counseling, 3*, 315-322.

Schmidt, J. J. (1984). School counseling: Professional directions for
the future. *The*

*School Counselor, 31,* 385-392.

Schmidt, J. J. (2000). Counselor accountability: Justifying your time
and measuring your

worth. J. Wittmer (Editors), *Managing your school counseling programs:
K-12*

*developmental strategies* (second edition, pages 273-291). Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Educational Media.

Shanker, A. (2000). The end of the traditional model of schooling---and
a proposal for

using incentives to restructure our public schools. *Phi Delta Kappan,
71*, 345-347.

Sink, C. A. (2000). Modeling collaboration through caring communities of
learners.

*Professional School Counseling, 3*, ii-iii.

Sink, C. A. (2002). In search of the profession's finest hour: A
critique of four views of

twenty-first century school counseling. *Professional School Counseling,
5*, 156-163.

Sink, C. A. (2002). Comprehensive guidance and counseling programs and
the

development of multicultural student-citizens*. Professional School
Counseling, 6*,

130-137.

Sink, C. A., and MacDonald, G. (1998). The status of comprehensive
guidance and

counseling in the United States. *Professional School Counseling, 2*,
88-94.

Sink, C. A., and Rubel, L. (2001). The school as community approach to
violence

prevention. In D. S. Sandhu (Editors), *Faces of violence: Psychological
correlates,*

*concepts, and intervention strategies* (pages 417-437). Huntington, New
York: Nova

Science.

Sink, C. A., and Yillik-Downer, A. (2001). School counselors'
perceptions of

comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: A survey of national
trends.

*Professional School Counseling, 4*, 278-288.

Snyder, B. A., and Daly, T. P. (1993). Restructuring guidance and
counseling programs.

*The School Counselor, 41,* 37-42.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2000). *Using multivariate
statistics* (fourth edition). New York: Harper Collins.

Taylor, C. S. (2000). *Washington Assessment of Student Learning, grade
4, 1999,*

*technical report.* Olympia, Washington: Office of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction.

United States Congress. (1994). *Goals 2000: Educate America Act.*
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vanzandt, Z., and Hayslip, J. B. (2001). *Developing your school
counseling program: A*

*handbook for systemic planning*. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). *General systems theory*. New York: George
Braziller.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., and Walberg, H. J. (1998). Models of
reform: A comparative guide. *Educational Leadership, 55*, 66-71.

Whiston, S., and Sexton, T. (1998). A review of school counseling
outcome research:

Implications for practice. *Journal of Counseling and Development, 76*,
412-426.

Wittmer, J. (2000a). Developing school guidance and counseling: Its
history and

re-conceptualization. In J. Wittmer (Editors), *Managing your school
counseling*

*programs: K-12 developmental strategies* (second edition, pages 2-13).
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Educational Media.

Wittmer, J. (2000b). Implementing a comprehensive developmental school
counseling

program. In J. Wittmer (Editors), *Managing your school counseling
programs: K-12*

*developmental strategies* (second edition, pages 14-34). Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Educational Media.