Priorities and Practices in Field Supervision of School Counseling Students.

A fundamental ethical principle undergirding the practice of counseling in all settings is that the counselor must be aware of the limitations of his or her own professional competence and not exceed those limitations in the delivery of service (American Counseling Association, 1995). One strategy recommended (Garret & Schmidt, 1986; Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 1998; Davis & Mickelson, 1994; Herlihy & Corey, 1996) for the ongoing professional development of a counselor is to engage in a supervisory relationship. Supervision stands as a "distinct field of preparation and practice" (Dye & Borders, 1990, p. 32) and a significant training tool for both those in practice and those becoming practitioners. While there has been a recent increase in the research on supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Hart & Falvey, 1987; Holloway, 1982; Pitts, 1992; Pitts, Miller, Poidevant, & Meyers-Arvin, 1990), relatively little research has focused on field-site supervision of master's level counseling students, particularly school-based counselors. One possible explanation for the lack of research concerning site supervision of master's level school counseling students is that the roles of the school counselor are numerous and unique when compared to clinicians in other settings. According to the most recent role revision statement by the American School Counselor Association (1990), counselors within our schools are encouraged to engage in individual counseling, consultation, coordination, small group counseling, and large group guidance. The question arises whether or not the supervision that students receive targets similar functions. Borders et al. (1991) noted "the conceptual and empirical supervision literature has emphasized one-toone counseling with scarce mention of other activities such as group counseling, consultation, and assessment" (p. 78). With such a wide definition of role and function it is clear that training and supervision must extend beyond the typical target of individual counseling skills to include the unique cognates and skills required of these other functions (Borders, 1991; Boyd & Walter, 1975; Schmidt & Barret,1983; Wilson & Remley, 1987). The current study was designed to investigate the degree to which on-site supervision time of school counseling practicum students is allocated to these various roles and functions and to identify factors associated with any differential time allocation. Method A three-page questionnaire (see Appendix A) was piloted by three school counselors, representing all levels, who had served as site supervisors for more than 5 years. This group met to provide feedback on format, clarity of definitions and instructions, and wording of items. After revisions, the questionnaire was mailed to 197 Pennsylvania public school counselors. The participants had been identified as previously providing site supervision for practicum students for at least one semester during the past 5 years in a Pennsylvania public school. Some 41 follow-up phone contacts were made one month after the initial mailing. Of the original 197 surveys mailed, 119 (68%) were collected and analyzed. In addition to this data, qualitative data from structured telephone interviews of 12 of the participants were analyzed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the results (see Appendix B). These participants-- approximately matched to the larger sample considering variables such as gender, age, ethnicity, school level, and years of counseling experience-were specifically selected because of their course work or certification in supervision and their extensive supervision experience. The typical respondent was a female site supervisor (67.2%), averaging 45 years of age with an average of 9.8 years of counseling experience. Five respondents were African Americans, two were Hispanic, and the remainder were White. Respondents were equally divided among the three school levels. …