Document

california_schools.indd 1 4/4/08 4:29:30 PM

MMIIDDDDLLEE AANNDD HHIIGGHH SSCCHHOOOOLL

SSUUPPPPLLEEMMEENNTTAALL

CCOOUUNNSSEELLIINNGG PPRROOGGRRAAMM::

IInnccrreeaasseedd SSuuppppoorrtt ffoorr SSttuuddeenntt SSuucccceessss

IInn CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa SScchhoooollss

LONNIE ROWELL, PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO; LORETTA WHITSON, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL COUNSELORS;

SUZY THOMAS, PH.D., ST. MARY’S COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2008 (REVISED)

Rowell, L., Whitson, L., & Thomas, S. (2008). Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling

Program: Increased Support for Student Success in California Schools. White Paper published

jointly by the California Association of School Counselors and the Center for Student Support

Systems. San Bernardino and San Diego, CA: CASC and CS3.

Copyright © 2008 Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) & California Association of School Counselors (CASC)

To access this report online, please visit:

www.schoolcounselor-ca.org

www.sandiego.edu/soles/cs3

California Association of School Counselors PO Box 90334, San Bernardino, CA 92427, (909) 815-5222

[email protected]

Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) School of Leadership and Education Sciences, Mother Rosalie Hill Hall University of San Diego, 5988 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110-2492

(619) 260-7708, email: [email protected]

Presented by: California Association of School Counselors • Center for Student Support Systems /April 2008

2

MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSELING PROGRAM CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE: SECTION 52378-52380

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC EDUCATION

Background:

In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law $200 million for a new program for California school counseling for grades 7-12-(Assembly Bill [A.B.] 1802, 2006). The program is now included in the state‟s General Fund for education, with annual adjustments for cost of living increases. The Middle and High School Supplemental School Counseling Program reversed more than two decades of decline in the provision of guidance and counseling in California schools and was arguably the most significant new funding for school counseling in the United States in decades. The Supplemental School Counseling Program represents a major school reform within the nation‟s largest public education system. The new program was established “for the purpose of providing additional counseling services to pupils in grades 7-12, inclusive” (AB 1802, 2006, p. 1). The Governor‟s office announced that the intent of these funds was to “improve the ratio for middle school students to 500:1 and 300:1 at high schools,” asserting that lowering the ratio of students to school counselors was an important element in improving the graduation rates of high school students, strengthening the academic performance of middle and high school students, and insuring that all students are provided with crucial information on the full range of educational and vocational options available to them beyond high school. Historical Significance: Lack of School Counselors in California and Impact on Pupils:

Prior to the passage of AB1802, California ranked 50th in the United States in school counselor-to-student ratios.1 The California ratio was almost twice as high as the national average of 488:1 and nearly four times higher than the recommended ratio of 250:1. This situation did not go unnoticed by the public. For several decades, students, parents, and educators had expressed frustration with the state of counseling and guidance in California schools. By the mid-to-late 1990s, this frustration found its way into the popular press. In 1999, for example, students at one Los Angeles area high school held a protest, expressing their dismay with “being assigned to classes that they already had taken . . . and being unable to see a counselor for weeks to get the proper class assignments at the start of the school year.” 2 An earlier feature story in the LA Times had concluded that, given the excessively high number of students assigned to counselors, school counseling in California amounted to a “mission impossible.” 3


3

The College Board recognized in the 1980s that school reform efforts were overlooking counseling and guidance. A Commission on Precollege Guidance and Counseling appointed by the College Board found, among other things, that “those initiating programs of educational reform must recognize that in the interest of justice and equity for all students, higher standards of performance can be achieved only by mutually supportive systems of instruction and guidance.” 4 The Board initiated three projects to field-test recommendations contained in the Commission‟s report. The projects demonstrated that school counselors can play a crucial role in school reform and documented the benefits of school counselor inclusion in school reform efforts. The College Board projects provided evidence that a piecemeal approach to school counseling reform is an ineffective and inefficient use of educational resources, and that, conversely, carefully planned and systematically implemented counseling and guidance program reforms are crucial elements in student achievement as well as in successful school reform efforts.5

By 2000, school counseling in California was widely recognized as being in very bad shape. In 2001, California legislation (AB 722, 2001), reflecting concern with the state‟s low ranking and high ratios of students to counselors, directed the California Department of Education to “conduct a study of pupil personnel services and programs in the public schools.” 6 The study indicated that, among other things, only 17% of school districts surveyed reported that their current number of school counselors was adequate, with more than 80% of the unified school districts responding indicating that they needed more school counselors (p. 29). Indeed, by 2005, the average student-to-counselor ratio in California was 966:1 (see Appendix A), although this was an improvement over the period 1992-1999 during which the ratio was more than 1000:1.

However, in 2006 school counseling became a significant part of the larger school reform conversation in California. Two issues were crucial to this change. First of all, major concerns began to be expressed over the low pupil pass rate for the California High School Exit Examination. In addition, the increasing number of drop outs from California high schools and the declining percentage of seniors in high schools who were enrolling in the California State University and University of California systems became a focus of serious concern. Publication of a 2006 study, The California Educational Opportunity Report: Roadblocks to College,7 raised awareness regarding these issues. The report identified the high ratio of high school students to school counselors as one of the most significant roadblocks to college for a large number of California students, in particular students from low income communities. As the report stated, “These roadblocks help explain why California sends fewer students to four-year colleges than most other states in the country” (p. 1). The report further indicated that compared to students in Massachusetts and New York, California‟s high school seniors are half as likely to enroll in four-year colleges. According to the report‟s authors, Mississippi is the only state that sends fewer students directly to college from high school than California.


4

Most recently, a review of college eligibility among students in 20 high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District found that the lack of adequate guidance services was, in part, responsible for 28% of the graduates missing opportunities for college. These students were between ½ credit to two courses short of UC/Cal State requirements. The report claimed that over 35,000 pupils were impacted by the inadequate guidance and counseling in their schools.8 One of the prevailing educational issues in California is the groups of students who have traditionally struggled and trailed behind their peers in school. To address the achievement gap experienced by these pupils, schools need to ensure that all students have equal access to college preparatory programs. In addition, all schools need support programs and services that assist all students in navigating their future career and educational choices and that provide adequate and on-going assessment of the educational support students need to be successful. Having the appropriate support along with rigorous college-preparatory curriculum and exceptional career and technical education have been shown to close the achievement gap, increase high school graduation, and reduce dropout rates. It is extremely hard to avoid the conclusion that the exceedingly high students-to-counselor ratios in California for the last 25 years, and the lack of adequate support and guidance because of these ratios, are likely to have compromised the futures of hundreds of thousands of youth in the state.

From an educational policy perspective, the inclusion of the Middle and High School Supplemental School Counseling Program in the AB 1802 bill marked a significant step forward for school counseling. The announcement of the $200 million for counselors for grades 7-12 included an explicit acknowledgment that school counseling is a critical educational priority in California. The rationale for the program highlighted school counseling as a strategic investment in the state‟s future and identified the restoration of school counseling as a significant element in the overall effort to make major improvements in California public education (Office of the Governor, 2006).

Middle and High School Supplemental School Counseling Program Statute

The Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling Program provides funds to increase the number of school counselors serving pupils in grades 7-12 and to support counselor professional development. Through MHSSCP, pupils are to receive individualized counseling and guidance regarding their educational status in middle and high school, as well as future career development opportunities, including prospects for admission to the UC and CSU systems.

Although the clear intent of the legislation is to insure that all California pupils in grades 7-12 are better served through guidance and counseling, MHSSCP also gives emphasis to pupils identified as at risk in relationship to three educational categories. These pupils include: 1) pupils who have not passed the California High School Exit Examination; 2) pupils who have scored Far Below Basic on state standardized tests in Mathematics and Reading; 3) pupils who have fallen behind their classmates in credits, grades or other factors that impede a student‟s ability to be successful in school. The statute


5

delineates the services to be provided to all pupils in grades 7-12 as well as the particular services to be provided for pupils at-risk of school failure.

In 2007, SB 405 (Steinberg) and AB 347 (Nava) added additional requirements to the MHSSCP. SB 405 focuses additional attention on college and career readiness by requiring that MHSSCP meetings include a review of each student's career goals, the academic and career-related opportunities available to the student, and an explanation of the coursework and academic progress required for eligibility for admission to a 4-year college. AB 347 requires that MHSSCP meetings include a notification of the intensive instruction and services available to help students pass the CAHSEE for up to two years after they have completed 12th grade.

Of the districts eligible for funding (districts containing pupils in grades 7-12), an estimated 98% have chosen to participate in the new program.9 This amounted to 557 unified, union, high school, and elementary school districts serving pupils in grades 7-12. The only districts not eligible to participate were those elementary districts serving only grades K-6. Also ineligible for funding were educational programs provided by County Offices of Education, many of which serve children and youth in the custody of the state‟s juvenile justice system.

Because of differences in how districts interpreted key provisions of the language in AB 1802, a variety of program implementation approaches surfaced in the months following the authorization of MHSSCP. Some districts concluded that the money allocated (based on a per-pupil formula for pupils enrolled in grades 7-12) would go to their district‟s middle schools only, some decided to focus additional counseling services on at-risk students only, some hired school social workers instead of school counselors, etc.10 One critical factor in implementation was the statute‟s requirement that funds be used to supplement and not supplant existing counseling and guidance staffs. As will be discussed in the findings, this factor has been a focus of concern among counselors and counselor advocates, with many districts seeking ways around the requirement.

As school districts hired additional counselors, MHSSCP began to take shape at school sites all over the state. At some schools, the new counselors were added into the existing structure of counseling and guidance, and counselor caseloads were reconfigured. In these instances, students-to-counselor ratios were often reduced significantly. In other instances, pupils identified as being at-risk of school failure were reassigned from their current counselors to the new, sometimes specially designated, “AB 1802 counselor.” In many cases, the new counselors were encouraged to be innovative in their efforts to reach out to, and establish good working relationships with, at-risk pupils.

In addition to structural changes in school sites‟ counseling and guidance programs, new administrative procedures were quickly developed. New forms were created to document the provision of the services called for in the statute. To encourage sharing of the newly developing procedures and forms, a web-based clearinghouse of information and other MHSSCP resources was established through a joint effort of the University of


6

San Diego‟s Center for Student Support Systems (CS3), the California Counselor Leadership Network (CCLN), the California Association of School Counselors (CASC), and the Western Association for College Admission Counseling (WACAC). The AB 1802 Clearinghouse website posted several examples of forms, which were then adapted by other districts. This process of shared development of forms and recordkeeping took place throughout the fall and spring of 2006-2007. By spring 2007, a district-based AB 1802 recordkeeping infrastructure had been established, with assistance provided by the AB 1802 Clearinghouse, the California Association of School Counselors (CASC), the California Counselor Leadership Network, trainings conducted in conjunction with advocacy for the American School Counselor Association‟s National Model for School Counseling Programs11, and word-of-mouth among school counselors around the state. Table 1 below outlines the basic provisions of the MHSSCP as presented in one of the forms developed in 2006-07. TABLE 1: INDIVIDUAL STUDENT CONFERENCES – BASIC ELEMENTS 12

AT RISK CATEGORY CHECKLIST

At risk of not graduating with class

Not earning credits at a rate that will enable student to pass the CAHSEE

Does not have sufficient training to allow student to fully engage in his or her chosen career

Attendance issues

Other

ACADEMIC & DEPORTMENT INFORMATION TO BE DISCUSSED

Requirements necessary for graduation

Academic progress towards graduation

Performance on standardized and diagnostic assessments

Importance of preparation for the CAHSEE and consequences of not passing

Avenues for academic support

Remediation strategies / Alternative education options

Attendance issues

Discipline issues

POST-SECONDARY PLANNING INFORMATION TO BE DISCUSSED

Community College opportunities

4 Year School opportunities (including A-G requirements)

Vocational Program opportunities (including Adult School and ROP)


7

The provisions addressing services for all pupils and services for at-risk pupils constitute the first two components of the MHSSCP. A third component of the MHSSCP contains the accountability provisions. The authorizing legislation called for an annual report by the school district‟s Superintendent that addresses the following: the number of pupils served; the number of school counselors involved in conferences; the number and percentage of pupils who participated in conferences and who failed to pass one or both parts of the exit examination; and, a “summary of the most prevalent results for pupils based on the graduation plans developed” (AB 1802, p. 22). In practice, because the allocations for the first year of the program were not determined until January 2007 and many districts did not complete hiring of additional counselors until February or March, or even later, the California Department of Education relaxed the reporting requirements for the first year of the program.13 The first reporting by school districts and Charter schools was due to the California Department of Education in December 2007 as a part of the Consolidated Application. In preparing this report, the authors did not have access to the annual reports submitted by participating school districts.

Impact of Funding

The Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling Program (MHSSCP) is in its formative stage, with funds first distributed to school districts choosing to participate in the program in January 2007. Although the authors know of no large-scale empirical research or program evaluation of the inaugural year of MHSSCP, a small number of local studies were conducted during 2006-2007. To the authors‟ knowledge, the studies referred to in this report were the only ones undertaken in relationship to the first year of AB 1802 funding.

For this report, preliminary findings regarding the implementation of the program and the impact of AB 1802 funding are based on four sources: 1) the state school counseling association (California Association of School Counselors [CASC] at www.schoolcounselor-ca.org); 2) the AB1802 Clearinghouse, a project of the University of San Diego‟s Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) (www.ab1802clearinghouse .com); 3) the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), California Counselor Leadership Network (CCLN) (http://www.lacoe.edu/orgs/233/index.cfm); and, 4) Field-based research conducted by the University of San Diego working in collaboration with St. Mary‟s College of California. The first two sources began collecting data from the very beginning of the implementation of the Supplemental School Counseling Program. The field-based research projects completed by faculty and students at the University of San Diego and St. Mary‟s College of California took place from September through May during 2006-2007.The CCLN gathered data through an on-line survey conducted in February 2008. In addition, a Chapman University faculty member conducted an additional survey among Orange County school counselors, but results of this survey were not available at the time that this report was prepared.

From July 2006 to the present, CASC has received more than 450 emails and phone calls from all over the state regarding the implementation of AB 1802. The association kept a record of these contacts, and the records provided anecdotal evidence of significant developments in school counseling as districts moved forward with


8

implementation. The California Counselor Leadership Network (CCLN) also received hundreds of email and phone inquiries regarding AB 1802 implementation throughout the 2006-2007 school year and during the summer and fall of 2007. In February 2008, CCLN gathered survey data in conjunction with applications submitted to the network‟s SPARC (Support Personnel Accountability Report Card) program. For 2007-2008, all applicants for SPARC Awards from schools serving pupils in grades 7-12 were required to complete an on-line AB 1802 survey.

The USD and St. Mary‟s research involved teams of graduate students working in partnerships with school counselors who were implementing MHSSCP in districts in northern and southern California. This research focused on counselor and pupil perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the provisions called for in the MHSSCP and counselor familiarity with the AB1802 bill. The Southern California team was assigned to a San Diego County unified school district that wished to evaluate the implementation of MHSSCP with 7th grade pupils in the district‟s middle schools. Three of the district‟s six middle schools were the focus of the 2006-2007 research (the other three are being examined during the 2007-2008 academic year). Of the approximately 1,300 seventh grade students in all three participating schools in the Southern California study, 230 students were systematically selected14 to participate in the study after returning signed parental consent forms; 204 surveys were completed for an 89% return. In addition, sixteen counselor surveys were distributed to the 7th grade counselors in the district; fifteen were returned.

The Northern California team surveyed six schools, including four high schools and two middle schools. Preliminary findings from these collaborative action research projects were presented in December 2007 at the 2nd California School Counseling Research Summit, which was held at the University of San Diego. These initial results indicated that the students found the individual conferences to be helpful in giving them information about next steps in their educational progress and in becoming more comfortable seeking help from counselors. The counselors‟ awareness of the purpose of AB1802 varied, which is not surprising given that this study was conducted during the first year of implementation.

A secondary purpose of this research was to develop an instrument that could be used statewide, in order to promote consistency in the evaluation of MHSSCP. The survey was revised based on feedback from school counselors, counselor educators, and pupils, and a new version was implemented in schools in Southern and Northern California in early spring of 2008. The Northern California team again involves graduate student researchers at Saint Mary‟s College of California, who are surveying students, teachers, and some parents in six schools this spring, including three high schools and three middle schools in the larger Bay Area. Results will be available at the end of the school year. The Southern California team involves graduate student researchers at the University of San Diego, who are surveying students, counselors, and parents in three middle schools in a San Diego County unified school district.


9

Findings

The findings described below provide a preliminary look at the impact of the Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling Program (MHSSCP) funded by AB 1802. The findings have been organized into five themes that emerged from the available data: 1) Changes in the ratio of school counselors to pupils; 2) Impact of individual student conferences on CAHSEE pass rates; 3) Impact of individual student conferences on applications to UC and CSU systems; 4) Impact of MHSSCP on strengthening pupil engagement in learning; 5) Impact of MHSSCP on improving home-school relations and parent involvement in schools. Each of the five themes is examined below.

Changes in the ratio of school counselors to pupils. Based on reports from the field submitted to CASC and the survey data compiled by the Los Angeles County Office of Education‟s California Counselor Leadership Network (CCLN), the University of San Diego‟s Center for Student Support Systems (CS3), and St. Mary‟s College of California, it is estimated that the new Middle and High School Supplemental School Counseling categorical program funded an additional 2,500 school counseling positions at the middle and high school levels. Some districts added counselors as early as September 2006 while the majority hired additional counselors between December and February. The additions brought the estimated number of FTE school counselors from 7,461 in 2005 to 9,961 by the fall of 2007. (The California Basic Educational Data System [CBEDS] had not released staffing data for the 2007-08 year at the time of publication of the present report.) The table below shows the number of school counselors and school counselor ratios in California from 2004-2007 (California Department of Education). The 2007-08 figures included in the table below are an estimate based on unofficial information provided by C.D.E. and the informal reports and surveys mentioned above and provided by school districts around the state.

TABLE 2: COUNSELORS AND STUDENTS-TO-COUNSELOR RATIOS: 2004-2008

Year Student Enrollment

Counselors Number of FTEs Ratio

2004-05 6,322,182 6,977 906:1

2005-06 6,312,436 7,461 846:1

2006-07 6,286,943 7,711 815:1

2007-08 6,258,007 9,961 (estimated)

628:1 (est.)


10

Overall, it is estimated that California has seen a 25 percent increase in the school counselor workforce in the last 2 years, going from 7,461 as reported for the 2005-06 year to 7,771 (4% increase) in 2006-07 to approximately 9,961 in 2007-08. Based on anecdotal data gathered by CASC and survey data from CCLN and the AB 1802 Clearinghouse, it is evident that a number of school districts reduced their school counselor-to-pupil caseloads by up to 50 percent. As indicated earlier, the intent of the new funding was to improve the ratio for middle school pupils to 500:1 and for high school pupils to 300:1. Although available data indicates that this intent has not been realized, the reduction of the overall ratio by an estimated 275 pupils per counselor represents a significant change in counseling and guidance practices in California. Key questions for researchers to examine based on this reduction include whether or not, and if so how, California pupils are being better served as a result of this strategic investment by the state? The other themes examined below begin to shed some very preliminary light on these questions. The authors of this report have drawn from the few available initial studies of MHSSCP implementation to identify emerging themes that might point the way towards more robust findings regarding what is gained by reducing the ratio of students to counselors in California middle and high schools.

Impact of individual student conferences on CAHSEE pass rates. It is much too soon to make any claims regarding possible relationships between the slight increase in overall CAHSEE pass rates for 2007 (2%), the 4% increase for African American pupils and the implementation of MHSSCP.15 At present, only small scale and anecdotal data can be found regarding the impact of the first year of MHSSCP on schools‟ efforts to bolster pass rates.

The California Counselor Leadership Network survey provides the most substantive data to date. In February 2008, the survey was distributed to approximately 250 California schools who participated in the Support Personnel Accountability Report Card (SPARC) program. Approximately 200 schools annually submit student support program data to the Student Support Services Division of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Participating schools that meet all SPARC criteria receive recognition in various forms. As part of the submission criteria for 2008, questions were asked pertaining to the implementation of the new Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling Program. Data from 170 respondents was collected by CCLN staff and was analyzed in preparing this report. A small sampling of the open-ended responses to the survey‟s CAHSEE question is listed below. The prompt for this item was:

If you answered yes to question number 7, please share with us in the Comment Box CAHSEE pass rate data or other objective measures that help us to understand AB 1802 impact.

Sample Responses:

1. We are a middle school and most parents as well as students did not know about the CAHSEE or the other high school graduation requirements. They know now! 64% of


11

students moved 1 band (from far below basic to below basic); 11 % of students moved up 2 bands (from far below basic to basic); 100% of students were enrolled in various interventions to improve skill levels; and 100% of student were enrolled in summer school.

2. This school is an intermediate school so they do not take the CAHSEE. So, I compared the last two years CST scores for last year‟s targeted group and found that there were 39 fewer students classified as at risk based on the AB 1802 criteria.

3. In 2006 150 students took the PSAT, after developing college awareness 388 students were funded for the PSAT in 2007. As a district, 66% of the students identified as at risk passed the CAHSEE.

4. We had only one student who did not graduate because she did not pass the CAHSEE!! With the 1802 funding we have been able to meet with every junior and senior who has not passed the CAHSEE and counsel parents and students about options for obtaining their diploma. We have also enrolled students in the intervention classes to offer assistance in their academic skills. These interventions have kept the students and families very well informed of options available to them.

5. 57% of students who previously failed the CAHSEE were able to pass after 1802 intervention. These increased academic reviews allow counselors to better assess the needs of individual students which can result in finding best placements (e.g. support classes, exit exam classes).

6. Since implementing AB1802 and meeting with parents and students to develop academic plans, we have seen an increase in parental involvement and support for what we do as counselors. Parents are more aware of the importance of the CAHSEE, credits toward graduation and their student's post secondary plans.

7. 83 of 88 At Risk Juniors passed the CAHSEE after conferencing with their counselor, five failed one or both sections. 180 of 184 At Risk Seniors passed the CAHSEE after their conference with their counselor. Only four did not pass.

8. After the conferences, 225 additional students passed the CAHSEE. We had only 2 seniors in 2007 not graduate due to not passing the CAHSEE. The percentage of students passing the CAHSEE in 2005-2007 was approximately 35%. However, with recent interventions such as the CAHSEE “boot camp” and Saturday CAHSEE Prep Classes, the passing rate has increased to 51% as of the November 2007 CAHSEE results. We are confident that this improvement will continue for the upcoming CAHSEE.

Impact of individual student conferences on applications to UC and CSU systems. Formal research on the relationship between more high school counselors providing information to students regarding post-secondary options including college, career and technical education, multiple pathways, and financial aid and the number of undergraduate applications to the CSU and UC systems has yet to be conducted. However data on undergraduate applications to UC and CSU systems is available for 2008-2009 and this data indicates a significant change in the number of applications.

According to UC and CSU system sources, California's public universities have experienced a record number of undergraduate applications this year.16 Undergraduate applications to California State University campuses are up by 11 percent. Similarly, UC


12

applications have increased. On February 28, 2008 the UC Newsroom posted the following item: “California undergraduate applications for admission are up more than 7 percent for the 2008-09 year, setting a new record for undergraduate application volume and reflecting strong increases among students traditionally underrepresented at the University.”17 The 2007-08 school year is the first year in which MHSSCP is fully operational throughout California. Although one might speculate that the increase in undergraduate applications is due to the increased number of school counselors serving high school pupils, research is needed that empirically examines this possibility.

Impact of MHSSCP on strengthening pupil engagement in learning. The fourth theme is the impact of the Supplemental School Counseling Program on strengthening pupil engagement in learning. Here, three sets of data revealed key elements of this theme. In the SPARC survey, 100 participants replied to the following question:

In your estimation, has AB 1802 conferencing made a significant impact on the academic achievement and/or career planning of students at your school?

A common theme in the responses to this open-ended item was counselor enthusiasm regarding the changes that they were seeing, and participating in, at their school sites. Sample Responses:

1. We couldn't have provided this many families with individual level conferencing regarding their child's academic, personal and social progress without 1802 funding. Personally, my case load went from 520 to 380 with the hiring of additional counselors. This has allowed me time to meet with families and assist them in academic planning as well as interventions for their child.

2. AB 1802 conferencing has made a very significant impact on our students' academic success and future planning. We are in the process of meeting with every freshman to develop a four-year plan, and we have met with every senior to discuss her/his post-secondary plan.

3. Absolutely, our career planning has expanded in assessment review, time with counselor, and improved abilities to conduct searches for occupations matching interests and values grades 9-12. Of the 184 at-risk seniors only four failed one or both sections of CAHSEE after conferencing. All but five graduated. Our team strived to be more thorough in its conferencing, using its 1802 form and being more deliberate with procedures for each student.

Data collected from the on-line AB 1802 Clearinghouse survey yielded similar findings. Respondents reported much more follow-up contact with pupils who were struggling academically, an improved ability on the part of many pupils to acknowledge their need for help with specific aspects of their education, and an increase in pupils‟ determination to be proactive regarding their education, including asking for help when needed. Indeed, one of the major strengths of the individual student conferences completed as a


13

part of th e M HSSCP was th e role school co unselors played in incre asing stu dent engagement with lea rning. The Clearinghouse su rvey researchers found th at the conferences provided a “facilitative structure”18 both f or strengthening pupi l-parent-counselor interaction and for supporting g reater pupil eng agement with hi s or her learning. This latter item i ncluded making plans, being p roactive a bout his or her education, encouraging per sistence, and k eeping pu pils‟ progress in school at the forefront.

The S outhern California research project data y ielded an important finding regarding the relat ionship between counselors and 7th g rade pupils in the d istrict participating in t he stu dy. Over half o f t he 7 th g rade pupils su rveyed (61 %) responded th at th ey agreed or strongly a greed w ith th e statement; “As a result of the conference, I now f eel more comfortable a pproaching m y counselor for help” (see Figure 1 ).18 The su rvey a lso gathered q ualitative d ata through op en-ended ite ms

that allowed for students to write comments. Significant themes that emerged from the qualitative d ata inclu ded stu dents believing the co nferences h elped th em th ink about college a nd students a ppreciating that a p arent or guardian was p resent at the conference.

Overall, across all three studies, many school counselors reported that for the first time they w ere able to focus o n e stablishing e ffective e arly stu dent id entification sy stems geared to wards identifying sp ecific academic and p ersonal/social p roblems a nd planning a nd i mplementing i nterventions to hel p improve st udent achievement and personal and s ocial functioning. At m any sch ools low a cademic achievers, including pupils who p reviously exhibited a l ack o f se lf-confidence, disengagement from school activities, or frequent disciplinary a nd/or truancy p roblems, were being provided with support in the ear ly stages of decline rather than when the condition was chronic and out of control. The data did indicate that many previously disengaged pupils were being reconnected with learning, and the anecdotal reports provided preliminary evidence that this reengagement was leading to improved academic performance as well as improved deportment.

The benefits of the MHSSCP were not limited to low academic achievers. Pupils in the mid-range o f academic achievement as well as high ach ievers also be nefited. At the high a chievement level, s tudents who traditionally would have had to “fend for

stronglyagree 27%agree

35%

undecided27%

disagree6% strongly

disagree4%

blank 1%

Figure 1. As a result of the conference, I now feel more comfortable approaching my

counselor for help.


14

themselves” when it came to navigating the college admission process were now meeting one-on-one with school counselors and were receiving support as they worked to outline their plans for the future. For mid-range pupils, often the ones most likely to fall through the cracks in student support programs, the individual student conferences called for in MHSSCP provided a stronger link between these pupils and the counseling and guidance resources available to them.

Should future empirical research support this preliminary finding regarding the impact of MHSSCP on disengagement, then a critical link between guidance and counseling and reducing dropouts will have been found. As the recent California Dropout Research Project Policy Committee Report states, “a growing body of research suggests that dropping out is but the final stage in a dynamic and cumulative process of disengagement or withdrawal from school.”19 When school counselors are available to meet with, and listen to, pupils, as described in the preliminary findings shared in this report, the plea of a California high school student quoted in the Policy Committee Report – “. . . talk to them and tell them it‟s actually worth staying in school…whatever‟s going wrong in their life…they think that if they drop out of school, it‟s the only answer. But, it isn‟t” – may be closer to being realized.

Impact of MHSSCP on improving home-school relations and parent involvement in schools. The final theme is the impact of the Supplemental School Counseling Program on home-school relations. This theme emerged from the AB 1802 Clearinghouse and the Northern and Southern California research teams‟ data. As previously indicated, the individual student conferences called for in MHSSCP provided a “facilitative structure”18 for strengthening pupil-parent-counselor interaction. In other words, while the importance of good communication between homes and school seems like a common sense proposition, given the busy lives of parents and educators some kind of minimum structure is needed which can help facilitate the needed communication. Based on the data from the current studies, the individual students conferences called for in MHSSCP seemed to provide just such a structure. Early respondents to the Clearinghouse survey expressed surprise at the extent of parent appreciation expressed at, and as a follow-up to, the conferences. In some instances, parents called the school‟s principal to express their thanks for the meeting and to compliment the counselor for caring about their child. In addition, several counselors reported that parents were phoning and emailing them to follow up on items discussed at the conferences. The data from the 7th grade conferences researched by the Southern California team indicated that most students surveyed appreciated having a parent or guardian present for the meeting. Some counselors reported that the conferences “opened up”20 communication between the school and home in ways that the counselors had not seen before. Overall, the researchers found that improved home-school relations were one of the most visible benefits of the first year of MHSSCP.


15

In addition, the data from the Southern California project provided some initial evidence of how the themes presented in this report overlap in terms of the potential long-term benefits of MHSSCP for middle school students. For example, 86% of the counselors surveyed disagreed or strongly disagreed that the conferences should be only for at-risk students (see Figure 2). This appeared to be linked to the overall benefits that counselors

observed among all students seen in the conferences. Furthermore, 67% of counselors agreed that the conferences provided a useful tool for counselor accountability. In other words, the data collected as a part of the new record-keeping put in place for the program was providing a baseline that counselors and school administrators could use to help answer the question of how students were different as a result of the services provided by the counselors. Counselors largely agreed or strongly agreed (87%) that they felt more connected with their students as a result of the conferences and 100% of the counselors responded that they strongly agreed or agreed that it was beneficial to have parents present at the conferences. In total, the first year implementation of MHSSCP seemed to provide, based on these preliminary findings, a boost for middle schools‟ efforts to strengthen parent involvement. Furthermore, this development had the strong support of parents, counselors, and students.

Conclusion

The first year of funding for MHSSCP saw a significant increase in the school counselor workforce in California. As indicated, approximately 2,500 counselors were hired across the state. Through a wide variety of specific structural approaches to implementing the provisions of the new program, districts sought to build capacity for providing individualized counseling and guidance for pupils in grades 7-12. Although the original legislation establishing the program contained no funds for either empirical research regarding program results or formal evaluation of the new program‟s initial implementation, a few university-based and professional organization-based small-scale research projects were undertaken in 2006-2007 (with some continuing into 2007-2008). The data from these sources have been grouped into the five themes discussed above. More research utilizing more rigorous research methods is needed which explores the impact of MHSSCP.

strongly disagree

40%

disagree 46%

undecided 7%

agree 7%

Figure 2. I believe the conferences should be only for at-risk students


16

Nevertheless, the themes presented here indicate that potentially significant developments in school counseling and guidance were taking shape in school districts all over the state in 2006-2007 and again in 2007-2008. With continued support, MHSSCP seems well-positioned to work in tandem with other significant recommendations for reforming California education, such as the previously mentioned February 2008 Report on Solving California’s Dropout Crisis and the Expanding Pathways: Transforming High School Education in California Policy Guide published by ConnectEd in January 2008. In both of these publications, strengthening supports for students is a key feature of the recommended systematic school reforms. As indicated in the findings presented in the present report, preliminary evidence suggests that the Supplemental School Counseling Program shows real potential as a means to accomplish the strengthening of student support programs and services.

Policy Recommendations

Maintain the MHSSCP, The first full year of program implementation for the MHSSCP (2006-2007) brought major victories in California‟s effort to reduce the student-to-counselor ratio. The success of the program‟s first year was due in great part to concentrated efforts to recruit and train new school counselors, a task made particularly challenging because school counseling is a highly specialized profession. The cadre of newly trained and credentialed school counselors that emerged as a direct result of the MHSSCP is a critical resource in any effort to increase student success, and would be difficult to replace or rebuild. Every effort should be made to retain this critical workforce for California‟s public schools.

The current MHSSCP includes extensive requirements on what must be covered in meetings with students, including requirements to ensure that students are aware of the coursework necessary to graduate, are prepared to pass the CAHSEE, and are aware of their college and career options. Additional requirements should not be added to the MHSSCP without additional program funding.

Include School Counseling in Education Reform Efforts. Much of education policy centers on developing programs that prepare students for success. School counselors bear the responsibility of ensuring students and their parents are aware of their educational options and are well-informed in making decisions about what it is they wish to achieve in school and beyond. In short, most policy-makers direct their attention to building pathways for student success, while school counselors help students find those pathways. As such, school counseling must be recognized as a unique and critical component of efforts to keep students in school and prepare them for successful transitions to college and careers.

Include School Counseling in New Data Programs. The MHSSCP should be included in efforts to develop more comprehensive measures of the relationship between student support programs and successful student outcomes.


17

Appendix A

State School Counseling Ratios, 2005

495 500 522 533 536580

649 689 726783 792

966

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of Pupils Per School Counselor U.S. Department of Education National Statistics, 2005

Average School Counselor Student Ratio = 478

Oregon 39th

Ohio 40th

Washington 41st

Colorado 42nd

Nevada 43rd

Indiana 44th

Michigan 45th

Illinois 46th

Utah - 47th

Arizona 48th

Minnesota 49th

California 50th


18

Notes:

1 Ratio information was retrieved from the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) at www.schoolcounselor.org. Also, see Appendix A for further information regarding ratio comparisons.

2 Smith, D. (1999, September 29) Students seek more teachers, counselors. Los Angeles Times, p. 3.

3 Shuster, B. (1994, June 16). Mission Impossible. Los Angeles Times, p. B1.

4 College Board (1986). Keeping the options open: Recommendations. Final Report of the Commission on Pre-college Guidance and Counseling. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, p. 31.

5 Nailor, P. C. (1999). Developing school counselors as change agents for schools of tomorrow. (Doctoral dissertation, Johnson & Wales University). DAI-60/08, 2815.

6 California Department of Education [CDE] (2003). Assembly Bill 722: Study of Pupil Personnel Ratios, Services, and Programs. Counseling and Student Support Office, California Department of Education. Sacramento, CA: author, p. 14.

7 Rogers, J., Terriquez, V. Valladares, S., & Oakes, J. (2006). California Educational Opportunity Report: Roadblocks to Collage, 2006. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA/IDEA & UC/ACCORD.

8 Blume, D. (2008, February 5). Poor guidance hurts high school students. Los Angeles Times, p. 3.

9 CDE (2007). Middle and High School Supplemental School Counseling Program: Funding. Schedule of the First Apportionment. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/mhsc06result.asp.

10 Rowell, L. Brown, C., & Peterson, J. (in preparation). The AB 1802 Clearinghouse: First year of implementing MHSSCP. Manuscript in preparation based on data collected through the Clearinghouse in 2006-2007.


19

11 ASCA (2003). National Model for School Counseling Programs. Alexandria, VA: author.

12 Based on Individual Student Conference Form developed by La Puente High School.

13 G. Montgomery, California Department of Education Consultant, personal communication, May 2007.

14 Systematic selection of a sample is described in many educational research texts, such as Colin Robson‟s (2002) Real World Research.

15 CAHSEE pass rates for 2007 are available from CDE at the following url: http://inet2.cde.ca.gov/dataresourceguide/search.aspx.

16 Saavedra, S. (2008, January 30). „Bumper crop‟ of grads vying for coveted slots / State‟s public universities deluged by application. San Diego Union-Tribune, A.1.

17 Ricardo Vázquez, UC to offer admission to all eligible undergraduates for 2008-09; State budget challenge deepens for university, http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/index.php.

18 Quote from AB 1802 Clearinghouse Project: The On-line Survey Results. This presentation was a part of the 2nd California School Counseling Research Summit held December 15, 2007 at the University of San Diego. Available from The Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) at www.sandiego.edu/soles/cs3.

19 Solving California’s Dropout Crisis (February 2008). California Dropout research Project Policy Committee Report, p. 4.

20 Quote from AB 1802 Clearinghouse Project: The On-line Survey Results. On-line survey data suggested that the simple act of inviting parents to meet with a counselor to discuss their child‟s progress in school and future plans served to facilitate better home-school relations. Many counselors initially expressed surprise at how powerful this change seemed to be. The researchers identified the meetings with parents and students as a key facilitative structure in strengthening home-school relations.


20

Reference: Studies Included in Report

California Counselor Leadership Network. (in preparation). AB 1802 and SPARC: An on-line survey. Manuscript in preparation based on data collected through SPARCONLINE.Org in 2008.

Center for Student Support Systems (CS3). (2007, December). Proceedings of the 2nd California School Counseling Research Summit. San Diego, CA: CS3, University of San Diego.

Leslie, J., Monroe, J., Sonneman, L., & Waske, L. (2007). Individual student conferences for academic planning in middle school: School counselors implementing AB 1802. Action Research Report: 07-5. San Diego, CA: Center for Student Support Systems, University of San Diego.

Rowell, L. Brown, C., & Peterson, J. (in preparation). The AB 1802 Clearinghouse: First year of implementing MHSSCP. Manuscript in preparation based on data collected through the Clearinghouse in 2006-2007.

Thomas, S.R. (2006-2007). San Francisco Bay Area action research projects on AB1802: Results from graduate student studies. Saint Mary‟s College of California, Moraga, CA. Thomas, S.R., & Mullin, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of AB1802 surveys in Northern California. Presentation of original research at the 2nd California School Counseling Research Summit, San Diego, CA.

Document

Documents

Transcript of Document