Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 411 306 TM 027 354
AUTHOR Dahir, Carol; Campbell, Chari; Johnson, Laurie; Scholes,Roberta; Valiga, Michael
TITLE Supporting a Nation of Learners: The Development of NationalStandards for School Counseling Programs.
PUB DATE 1997-03-00NOTE 72p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28,1997) .
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative (142) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)Tests/Questionnaires (160)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Attitude Measures; *Counselors; Educational Practices;
Elementary Secondary Education; *National Standards;*Professional Development; *School Counseling; Surveys;Tables (Data)
IDENTIFIERS *Standard Setting
ABSTRACTA study was conducted to examine the attitudes of
elementary, middle/junior high, and high school counselors toward thedevelopment of national standards for school counseling programs. An effortwas also made to identify the components counselors thought should beincluded in the national standards. Input from leaders of the American SchoolCounselor Association (ASCA) was used to develop a questionnaire that wasrefined and distributed to 102 participants at the ASCA annual meeting.Responses of 1,127 ASCA members provided the data. Results clearly establishthat school counselors strongly and broadly wish to have national standards.They generally believe that national standards will identify a focal pointfor practice, articulate a professional mission, provide a center foraspiration, and drive momentum for the future of the profession. Thesefindings can be a foundation for the development of national standards forschool counseling programs, but considerable thought, exploration, andconversation will be needed to ensure that the voice of the practitioner isnot lost as standards are developed. The survey is attached. (Contains 22tables and 2 references.) (SLD)
********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
********************************************************************************
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
c61-01 A. Kr
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
SUPPORTING A NATION OF LEARNERS:The Development of National Standards For School Counseling Programs
American Educational Research AssociationChicago, IllinoisMarch 24, 1997
paper submitted by:
Carol Dahir, doctoral student, Hofstra University, Research Chair, American SchoolCounselor Association
Dr. Chari Campbell, Coordinator, School Counseling Program, University ofSouth Florida
Dr. Laurie Johnson, Associate Professor and Coordinator, Graduate Programs inCounseling, Hofstra University
Dr. Roberta Scholes, Research Associate, ACT
Dr. Michael Valiga, Director of Research Services, ACT
(27
BEST COPY MAMA LE
INTRODUCTION
During recent years, interest has increased in the development of national
standards for school counseling programs. Although this current wave of the school
reform movement strongly recommended the development of national standards to
direct educational practice, school counseling has largely been ignored. Yet, school
counselors face the enormous challenge of preparing students to meet the expectations
of higher academic standards and to become contributing members of society. School
counseling continues to play an increasingly complex role in contemporary education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study reported herein was to: (a) examine the attitudes of
elementary, middle/junior high and high school counselors towards the development of
national standards for school counseling programs; (b) clarify the purpose that
standards would serve for school counseling programs; and, (c) identify the program
components that school counselors believe should be contained in national standards.
Initial Development
Before the current study was initiated, we took a number of essential steps to
determine the content and issues that needed to be addressed. These included:
(a) a leadership discussion summary; (b) an open-ended questionnaire and, (c) a
comprehensive review of the literature.
In June, 1994, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Governing
1
Board engaged in a lengthy discussion to determine whether or not there was a
purpose for and a need to develop national standards for the school counseling
community. The ASCA determined that national standards would identify what
students should know and be able to do as a result of participating in a school
counseling program, articulate the strategies that support student success in school,
and clarify the relationship of school counseling to the educational system. As a result,
the ASCA, the national professional association representing school counselors,
decided to undertake the process of developing national standards for school
counseling programs.
The results of this discussion were incorporated into a brief questionnaire which
was distributed to 27 ASCA leaders. The recipients represented elementary,
middle/junior high and high school work settings as well as the four major regions of the
country (north-Atlantic, south, mid west, and west).
The questionnaire asked the following:
1. Describe your thoughts on establishing national standards
for school counseling.
2. What purpose will national standards serve?
3. What does it mean to have standards?
4. How are school counselors looking at standards?
5. What should the voluntary national standards include?
6. How would you implement the voluntary national standards
in your school building (system)?
2
The response rate to the questionnaires was 81%. We used this information to
develop a matrix of attitudes and perceptions about national standards, purposes for
developing standards, and issues that standards should address. It was reported that
the development of national standards for school counseling programs would:
create framework for a national model for school counseling programs;
establish school counseling as an integral component of the academic mission of
the educational system;
encourage equitable access to a school counseling services for all students
provided by a credentialed school counselor;
identify the key components of a developmental school counseling model
program;
identify the knowledge and skills that all students should acquire as a result of
the K-12 school counseling program; and
ensure that school counseling programs are comprehensive in design and
delivered in a systematic fashion for all students.
These beliefs, in addition to a comprehensive review of school counseling
literature and the existing thirty-five developmental state models for school counseling
programs were the foundation for the pilot instrument. Thus, survey instrument
reflected a blend of theory and practice.
As part of the development process, ASCA committed to a detailed study of the
need for and potential content of these standards. This document reports the results of
a national survey study that collected information pertinent to the development of the
3
5
national standards for school counseling programs.
Pilot Study
A pilot survey was distributed to 102 participants in the ASCA annual delegate
assembly in April, 1995 to assess the state and national leadership's attitudes toward
the development of national standards for school counseling programs. The return rate
for this study was 51%. Additionally, the leadership rated a variety of program activities
for inclusion in school counseling program standards and suggested additional activities
that were not included in the pilot survey.
ACT served as research consultant and coordinator for the collection of
information and contributed personnel and resources to ensure that the survey design,
distribution, and data analysis followed universally accepted research practices.
The pilot instrument consisted of ninety-two content related items and twelve
demographic questions. The survey responses were analyzed using simple
descriptive statistics including percentages, means, standards deviations and
correlation coefficient. Factor analyses also were conducted on each section of the
survey. A principal components analysis with varimax rotations were used to extract
factors. The factor analyses provided us with the ability to examine the pattern of the
items within each factor. This assisted us to eliminate redundancy, clarify and refine the
language, and eliminate items. We sought to achieve reliability and confirm that each
section was consistent with its defined purpose. Items were regenerated from the pilot
survey based upon the empirical results of the analyses. The original number of items
4
was subsequently reduced 92 to 77.
METHODS
Instrumentation
In order to accomplish the purpose of this study, this research study required the
development of an original survey instrument (see Appendix). The instrument
contained five general sections to respond to the areas of investigation as presented in
the purpose for the study. A five point Likert scale was used by the respondents
throughout the survey to rate the items from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with
exception of the responses to the demographic inquiries.
The eight items in the first section asked specifically if national standards should
be developed and assessed attitudes toward the development of national standards.
The second section of the survey sought opinions as to what purpose the development
of national standards would serve. The nine items in this section addressed
professional concerns about the role of school counseling programs in the educational
system.
The items in section three of the survey asked respondents which school
counseling program activities should be considered in national standards. The
construction of the individual items for each domain was based on school counseling
research, and the program components and student outcomes identified in
developmental school counseling state models. The items were organized into three
domains or topics: personal/social development, academic development, and career
5
7
development. The respondents used a five point Likert scale to rate the relative
importance of the same item in their current school counseling program.
The fourth section assessed the role of the school counselor in school system
support activities. The purpose of this section was to determine which activities school
counselors considered as a component of a school counseling program. This study did
not determine whether specific activities were appropriately or inappropriately assigned
to the school counselor.
The items in this section considered two phenomena: (a) school counselor
contributions to the overall well being and needs of a school building; and, (b) perceived
non-counseling functions that school counselors often are required to assume.
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of addressing the item in a national
standard and the importance of the same item in their current school counseling
program.
The fifth section requested demographic information about the respondents.
Survey respondents reported additional demographic information not requested by the
professional association such as community wealth (socio-economic status), number of
students assigned to the caseload, and urban, suburban or rural designation which
allowed for an examination of differences.
Sample and Sampling Procedures
The instrument was administered to two thousand school counselors who were
employed in a K-12 school setting selected randomly from the ASCA membership data
6
base in September, 1995. Three stratified computerized samples were drawn from the
data set to closely approximate the level of the work setting and regional proportions of
the ASCA membership.
The survey instrument and cover letter were mailed in September, 1995. This
mailing was followed by a reminder post card and a subsequent complete packet to
non-respondents within the first three weeks. Respondents were numerically coded
and deleted from the data base as the surveys were returned.
Data Analysis Procedures
We used simple descriptive statistics for a preliminary review of the data. We
examined percentages, computed means, correlation coefficients and cross tabulations
as a first step to organize and sort the data. Inferential statistical procedures, including
factor analyses, analyses of variance, and follow up pairwise comparisons were
conducted. Factor analyses were then applied to determine the structure underlying
the variables in each section. We examined the item means and overall section means
to determine an item's importance in national standards and the item's importance in
current school counseling programs. Analyses of variance and follow up pairwise
comparisons were performed to check for differences between means that could be
attributed to the work setting, region, student caseload, school setting, and community
wealth represented by the respondents.
7
9
RESEARCH STUDY RESULTS
Respondents
A total of 1127 ASCA members, representing elementary (43.2%), middle/junior
high (19.6%), and high school counselors (35.1%) responded to the 77 item
questionnaire. The return rate following the three wave mailed administration was
56.4%.
Analysis of the Research Questions
Attitudes Toward and Purpose for National Standards
One of the fundamental questions raised in this research study concerned
whether or not national standards should be developed. Eighty percent of the
respondents supported the development of national standards. We found no significant
differences in responses among elementary, middle/junior high school, high school
counselors or counselor supervisors. However, the mean agreement scores for
elementary counselors (M=4.17, SD=.83) were somewhat higher than those for high
school counselors (M=4.05, SD=.93) and displayed the most variation in responses for
this item. Also, the means for the midwest region were significantly lower than the
means for the other three regions of the country.
In section II, school counselors were asked to determine whether national
standards should be theory based or practice based. Two different survey questions
asked respondents to choose the preferred basis for standards development. When
asked if standards should be based on practice, two-thirds (66.7%) of the respondents
8
clearly indicated that national standards should be based more upon practice than
theory. When asked about standards based upon theory, 15.3% of the respondents
indicated that standards should be based more upon theory than practice. The
correlation of -.63 between these two items indicated a relatively large relationship. As
expected, respondents who rated one item high, tended to rate the other item low.
There were no significant differences among the respondents when school setting,
region, caseload or community wealth were considered.
Respondents strongly articulated what purposes national standards would serve
as demonstrated below:
eighty-three percent of the total sample population agreed or strongly
agreed that standards are necessary to better define the role of school
counseling in American education;
ninety-one percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
standards would more clearly define the role of school counseling in the
educational system;
eighty-nine percent of the total population agreed or strongly agreed that
standards would define the goals that are considered important for school
counseling;
seventy-four percent of the respondents supported standards
development to address legitimacy for the mission of school counseling;
eighty-five percent stated that standards would assist school counseling in
achieving recognition within the educational system; and,
9
11
eighty-one percent agreed that standards would establish a national
program framework for effective school counseling programs.
Agreement with these items was lowest for the respondents from the midwest.
However, no significant differences were revealed in the analyses by community
wealth, school setting, or the size of the caseload assigned to a school counselor.
A summary of the survey results for sections I and II of the survey can be found
in Tables 1 through 6 in the Appendix.
What Should National Standards Contain?
School Counseling Programs and Personal/Social Development
Tables 7 and 8 report the overall results for the personal/social development
section of the survey. These results suggested that skills such accepting responsibility,
dealing with conflict, and problem solving were of the utmost priority for both national
standards and in current school counseling programs. Although the majority of school
counselors (90.3%) agreed that understanding and appreciating differences should be
addressed in national standards, only 75.7% indicated that it is important in their current
program. Elementary school counselors demonstrated the strongest show of support
for personal and social development skills. Tables 9 and 10 report the significant
differences in mean responses for elementary, middle/junior high and high school
counselors.
10
School Counseling Programs and Educational Development
We found that school counselors highly rated items that provided academic and
learning environment support for national standards. A summary of the findings is
presented in Tables 11 through 14 in the Appendix.
Elementary and middle school counselors assigned the highest priority to
developmental skills (acquiring study skills, time management, life long learning) for
inclusion in national standards, while high school counselors strongly supported
academic planning and goal setting activities as essential to student success. Urban
counselors more strongly favored the concept of understanding the factors that
influence school achievement (M= 4.17) as more important to include in national
standards than their rural counterparts (M=3.99).
School counselors working in low income communities also placed a higher
priority on study skills and time management skills for inclusion in national standards as
did school counselors with the largest caseload. In general, elementary counselors
were more supportive of developmental skill development (acquiring skills for improving
learning) while high school counselors were more inclined to rate items related to goal
planning at a higher level.
School Counseling Programs and Career Development
Just over 70% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that exploratory
career development experiences and activities related to career planning should be
considered in national standards. School counselors more readily agreed that career
11
development activities were more important than employment readiness activities for
national standards. Educational goal setting and career goal setting received strong
support. The results of this section of the survey is presented in Tables 15 through 18
in the Appendix.
We found that high school counselors responded significantly differently from
elementary and middle school counselors on several items. High school counselors
indicated a greater willingness to address career preparation activities in national
standards. Elementary and middle school counselors tended to support career
development program elements that were more developmental in nature such as
explore skills, explore careers, understanding relationships among school, community
and work, career planning, and acquiring information skills. Items specifically related to
employment information generated less support for national standards on the part of
the elementary and middle school respondents than the high school counselors.
Of the three general areas investigated, the overall means for national standards
and current programs showed that school counselors reported the largest support for
personal/social development(M=4.43; M=4.16), followed by educational development
(M=4.13; M=3.78), and career development (M=4.02; M=3.38). Regional differences,
school setting, community wealth and caseload had little or no influence on the
findings.
School Counseling Programs and System Support
The purpose of this section of the survey was to determine which system
support services should be considered part of a school counseling program.
12
14
Respondents were asked to determine the relative importance of addressing the item in
national standards and as part of the current school counseling program.
Elementary school counselors, who reported the largest caseload and often work
in multiple school buildings, tended to favor activities which assisted those who work
directly with students. These included: conducting parent workshops (M=3.62),
collaboration with community agencies (M=4.43), providing staff development for
teachers (M=3.73), and consulting with staff (M=4.72). High school counselors placed
a high priority on activities that focused on academic issues such as student placement
(M=4.06), achievement (M= 3.33), college entrance testing (M=3.60), and administering
career inventories (M= 4.00). Junior high and middle school counselors strongly
promoted involvement in advisory activities (M=3.46), which usually require
collaboration with the entire school staff.
Items concerning conducting parent workshops, collaborating with community
agencies, participating in school reform initiatives, and consultation received strong
support from all respondents for national standards and in current school counseling
programs.
The respondents also strongly agreed that activities such as assisting in
organizing school assemblies, managing grade reporting, and participating in other
school duties, are not considered an essential part of a school counseling program at
either the elementary, middle/junior high school or high school level. An overview of the
findings in this section can be can be found in Tables 19 through 22.
13
15
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Principal Findings
School counselors overwhelmingly (82%) supported the development of national
standards. The basis for the desire to have national standards is rooted in the recency
of the evolution of the occupation, the wide diversity of services that school counselors
provide to students, and the responsiveness of the school counseling community to
societal needs and demands.
The majority of school counselors want national standards based more upon
practice than theory, however, not from their current practice but rather from an
envisioned practice. School counselors strongly and broadly proclaimed that a national
standards based program would raise the expectations of what is important in current
practice. This study also determined that the work setting of the school counselor
strongly influenced program priorities for national standards and in current school
counseling programs. Elementary, middle/junior high and high school counselors
identified program preferences that are based upon developmental or age appropriate
needs of students.
Personal/social development program activities received the strongest level of
support for national standards development and also in current practice. This was
followed by educational development. Within the areas of personal/social, educational
and career development, distinct priorities emerged by work level. These results held
true for national standards and in current programs. The overall findings demonstrated
that most of the statistically significant differences revealed in school counseling
14
program components were related to the work level setting of the school counselor.
Elementary school counselors consistently gave the highest ratings to activities that
supported personal/social growth such as self awareness. High school counselors
strongly supported educational development needs such as academic planning and
goal setting. Despite the current national attention on career development, there was a
lack of consensus in the importance of specific activities for both national standards and
in current programs.
Implications
This research study clearly has established that school counselors strongly and
broadly wish to have national standards. The findings confirmed the belief that national
standards will identify a focal point for practice, articulate a professional mission,
provide a center for aspiration and momentum for the future. School counselor
practitioners have expressed a need and a desire for national standards and have
articulated their opinion as to what national standards should contain. The findings
further delineated the program priorities of elementary, middle/junior high and high
school counselors. School counselors have identified what they believe is important in
their current programs and what is important to include in national standards.
The school counselors who participated in this study responded that national
standards:
would provide the mechanism for school counseling to be accepted as a
legitimate component of the educational system;
15
could establish similar goals, expectations, support systems and
experiences for all students as a result of participation in school
counseling programs; and
may help to define the vision and goals for the school counseling for the
twenty-first century.
National standards will help the school counseling community to look within itself
to clarify its purpose and establish higher expectations of quality. Standards based
programs require a demonstration of what students should know and be able to do.
This will necessitate the development of new and different measures of accountability
to evidence that student outcomes are achieved. National standards could assist the
occupation to demonstrate the effectiveness of school counseling programs and their
relationship to student achievement. Conversations must occur on the national, state
and local level to ensure that a standards based program is viable and feasible.
National standards will accomplish little if implementation is not possible.
The findings also demonstrated that school counselors strongly and broadly
proclaimed that a national standards based program would raise the expectations of
what is important in current practice. The respondents also revealed a tendency to
support the majority of the survey items as important in national standards. However,
this study is not about the capacity of school counselors to accomplish the objectives of
a standards based program.
The development of national standards, as illustrated by events within the
academic disciplines, will raise new issues and concerns and identify new problems.
16
3
Adopting standards can fundamentally change the educational system (Mitchell, 1996),
however, the national standards movement has yet to produce evidence to support this
premise. The impact of change on school counseling programs will remain to be seen.
Considerations For Future Research
Research has demonstrated that school counseling programs support student
success in school through personal/social, educational and career development
experiences. School counseling programs also may assist students achieve the
expectations of the newly released national academic standards. Future research can
be the impetus to develop measures to validate student success as an outcome of a
standards based school counseling program.
This study has raised additional questions about the distinctiveness of
elementary, middle/junior high and high school counseling programs. Respondents
have identified priorities in each of the broad areas of student development
(personal/social, educational, career) that comprise school counseling programs at
each school level. These preferences may necessitate the need to research current
school counselor pre-service programs and credentialing models to determine if specific
training for each level, similar to the educational model for elementary, middle/junior
high and high school teachers, is necessary.
The development of national standards also may require an articulation between
the pre-service curriculum and the requisite knowledge and skills essential to success
in a school system. The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related
17
Educational Program (CACREP) and organizations such as the Association for
Counselor Educators and Supervisors (ACES) must work with the American School
Counselor Association to identify the gaps and bring about the necessary alignment.
The findings from this research study form the foundation for the development of
national standards for school counseling programs. Considerable thought, exploration
and conversation are essential to ensure that the voice of the practitioner is not lost
among good intentions and political agendas. The school counseling community can
proactively apply these findings to direct the future role and mission of school
counseling and support a nation of learners to achieve academic success in school.
REFERENCES:
Campbell, C. & Dahir, C. (1997). National standards for school counseling programs.Manuscript submitted for publication.
Mitchell, R. (1996). Front end alignment. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust.
18
APPENDIX
National Standards for School Counseling Programs
SCHOOL COUNSELOR SURVEY
The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) is considering developing national standards for school counselingprograms and is extremely interested in your opinion. Because school counseling is different from the academic disciplines,ASCA's consideration of the development of national standards for school counseling programs must reflect the thinkinaof school counselors and include research and practice. Elementary, middle/junior high, high school counselors and schooldistrict counselor supervisors from across the country are being asked to provide input concerning the development ofnational standards for school counseling programs.
As a school counselor you have been selected to help in this very important undertaking. Your responses will contributeto the future direction of school counseling programs and the contribution they make to our nation's educational system.Thank you for participating in this very important undertaking.
Directions: For purposes of this survey, a school counseling program is defined as the comprehensive set of services,tasks, and functions delivered by a professional school counselor practitioner in an elementary, middle/junior high, or highschool setting. The information you supply will be kept confidential. However, if any item requests information that youdo not wish to provide, feel free to omit it.
SECTION 1. Attitudes toward developing national standards for school counseling programs
Please answer the following by checking the one response that best indicates your opinion:
Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutral
isagreeStrongly Disagree
1 I
Not Applicable
National standards for school counseling programs
A. should be developed.
B. are necessary to better define the role of school counseling in American education.
C. should be based more upon school counseling theory than on practice.
D. should be student-outcome oriented.
E. should support the educational mission of the school.
F. should reflect the belief that all children can learn given the time, tools, and motivation to do so.
G. should be based more upon school counseling practice than on theory.
H. should help ensure equal access and equal opportunity for all students.
I. should emphasize counseling, consultation, coordination, and collaboration as the primary methodsof delivery.
4 BEST COPY MAILABLE0)1995 by Carol Dahir and American School Counselor Association. All riahts reserved.
SECTION II. What purposes would the development of national standards for school counseling programsserve?
Please answer the following by checking the one response that best indicates your opinion:
Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutral
isagreeStrongly Disagree
1 I
Not Applicable
National standards for school counseling programs
A. would legitimize the mission of school counseling.
B. would establish similar expectations and experiences for all students.
C. would more clearly define the role of school counseling programs in the educational system.
D. would assist school counselors in becoming active players in school reform.
E. would establish school counseling as a recognized component of the educational system.
F. would define the goals that are considered important for school counseling.
G. would establish a framework upon which effective school counseling programs can be designed.
H. would ensure high expectations for school counseling programs.
SECTION III Program Domains
Directions: The three program domains presented in this section are based upon the principles of comprehensivedevelopmental school counseling. Each domain's section contains a list of items that could be considered for inclusionin program standards.
Please respond to this section based upon your role as an elementary, middle/junior high, or high school counselor orcounselor supervisor.
The scale on the left gives you the opportunity to rate an item for consideration as a national program standard, whilethe scale on the right provides you with an opportunity to think about and rate the item as part of your current schoolcounseling program.
22
Please answer the following by checking one response in each column that best indicates your opinion:
Domain A. Personal/Social Development (Learning to Live). Items in this domain deal with assisting studentsto successfully employ interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and social skills.
How important is it that this item beaddressed in the national standards
for school counseling programs?
Very Moderately NotImportant Important Important
5 4 3 2 1
Does NotApply
How important is this item as apart of your current school
counseling program?
Very Moderately NotImportant Important Important
5 4 3 2 1
Does NotApply
Opportunities for students to
A. participate in self awarenessactivities.
B. develop positive attitudes towardsself and others.
C. learn to make healthy and safechoices.
D. understand and acceptresponsibility for choices.
E. learn to resolve conflicts.
F. get help in securing assistancefrom outside the school.
G. practice interpersonal relationshipskills.
H. demonstrate safety, survival andcoping skills.
I. establish life goals.
J.. acquire self management and selfdiscipline skills.
K. apply problem solving skills.
L. express feelings.
M. examine the influence of peerpressure.
N. understand and appreciate thedifferences in others.
0. learn to appreciate home, family,and community.
P. develop a personal support group.
23
Domain B. Educational Development (Learning to Learn). Items in this domain deal with assisting students toachieve school success and develop skills to successfully engage in life long learning.
How important is it that this item beaddressed in the national standards
for school counseling programs?
Very Moderately NotImportant Important Important
5 4 3 2 1
Does NotApply
How important is this item as apart of your current school
counseling program?
Very Moderately NotImportant Important Important
5 4 3 2 1
Does NotApply
Opportunities for students to
A. establish educational goals.
B. understand individual learningstyles.
C. acquire effective study and testtaking skills.
D. identify the factors that influenceschool achievement.
E. participate in parent, student,teacher conferences.
F. examine course options to developan academic plan of study.
G. understand standardized testscores.
H. organize, manage, and use timeeffectively.
I. assess and evaluate progresstowards educational goals.
J. gather information about collegeand postsecondary career optionsand opportunities.
K. know when and where to seekacademic support and assistance.
L. advocate for equitable educationalopportunity.
M. appreciate the value of life-longlearning.
N. understand individual capabilitiesand potential to achieveeducational goals.
Domain C. Career Development (Learning to Work). Items in this domain deal with assisting students tobecome aware of life/career choices and participate in career development activities to prepare for the world ofwork.
How important is it that this item beaddressed in the national standards
for school counseling programs?
How important is this item as apart of your current school
counseling program?
Very Moderately Not Does Not Very Moderately NotImportant Important Important Apply Important Important Important
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Does NotApply
Opportunities for students to
A. explore skills, interests, andabilities.
B. explore careers.
C. understand the relationship 0'between school, community, andwork.
D. understand the relationshipbetween personal qualities andcareer planning.
E. make decisions, set goals, andtake action to achieve careergoals.
0
0
F. identify the balance between workand leisure.
G. apply job readiness skills to seekemployment opportunities.
H. learn about the rights andresponsibilities of employersand employees.
I. understand the changing needs ofthe workforce.
J. receive assistance in jobplacement.
K. develop information acquisitionskills.
L. have a work-based explorationexperience.
M. develop an educational plan tosupport their career goals.
N. understand the education andtraining needed to achievecareer goals.
0. acquire employability skills.
cr.!. trti0
SECTION IV. System Support Activities by School Counselors
Directions: School counselors are involved in a variety of activities in their school building. Some of these are directlyrelated to the school counseling program, and some are related to the operational needs of the school building. Thepurpose of this section is to determine which activities are considered part of a school counseling program.
Please respond to this section based upon your role as an elementary, middle/junior high, or high school counselor.
The scale on the left gives you the opportunity to rate an item for consideration as a national program standard, while the scaleon the right provides you with an opportunity to think about the item as part of your current school counseling program.
Please answer the following by checking the one response in each column that best indicates your opinion:
How important is it that this item beaddressed in the national standards
for school counseling programs?
How important is this item as apart of your current school
counseling program?
VeryImportant
5 4
ModeratelyImportant
3 2
NotImportant
1
Does NotApply
VeryImportant
5 4
ModeratelyImportant
3 2
NotImportant
1
Does NotApply
School counselors providesystem support by
0A. facilitating student placement.
B. coordinating parent, teacher,and/or student conferences.
C. conducting parent workshops. 0
D. planning and managing studentacademic programs of study.
0
E. coordinating advisory programs. 0
F. assisting in organizing schoolassembly programs.
G. managing grade reporting andstudent rank in class.
0
H. providing staff developmentprograms for teachers.
0
I. collaborating with communityagencies on student referrals.
J. organizing and conductingstandardized achievement andaptitude test programs.
K. organizing and conducting careerassessment inventories.
0
, L. organizing and conducting college/vocational entrance examinationprograms.
0
M. participating in other schoolduties such as: bus duty,playground duty, lunch and hallduty.
0
N. participating in school/districtschool reform initiatives.
0
0. consulting with f4sy4ty andadministration. 4)0)
0
SECTION V, Demographics
A. Please indicate your sex. H. At which level(s) do you work as a schoolcounselor? Check all that apply:
FemaleMale
B. Which category best describes your raciaVethnicbackground?
White (Non-Hispanic)Black (Non-Hispanic)HispanicAsian or Pacific IslanderNative American (Alaskan Native, AmericanIndian)Multi-racial/multi-ethnicOther
C. In which state do you live?
Elementary School CounselorMiddle/Junior High School CounselorHigh School CounselorSupervisor of School Counselors
I. Do you work in a special purpose school?
No Yes If yes, indicate the type ofschool.
Magnet schoolTechnical/vocational schoolSpecial education schoolOther
J. How many years have you worked as a schoolD. Which of the following best describes your current counselor?
level of education?
Bachelor'sBachelor's plus coursesMaster's degreeSpecialist's degreeDoctorate
E. Which of the following best describes your schoolsetting?
UrbanSuburbanRural
F. Which of the following best describes your school?
Public schoolPrivate or parochial school
G. Which one of the following best describes thepopulation of the community in which your school(s)are located?
Low incomeLow to middle incomeMiddle incomeMiddle to upper incomeUpper income
1 year or less2 to 5 yearsMore than 5 yearsMore than 10 yearsMore than 20 years
K. Please fill in the number of students in yourindividual caseload and the approximate number ofstudents in each of the school building(s) to whichyou are assigned.
BuildingYour Student
CaseloadTotal Number of
Students in Building
1
2
3
4
5
L. Are you a member of the American SchoolCounselor Association (ASCA)?
yesno
continued...
SECTION VI. Comments
Are there any comments you would like to make concerning national standards for school counseling programs?
2Thank you for assisting us with this important project!
PE
RC
EN
TS
& F
RE
QU
EN
CIE
S O
F T
OT
AL
RE
SP
ON
SE
S/F
RE
QU
EN
CIE
ST
able
1
SE
CT
ION
1 A
ttitu
des
Tow
ards
Dev
elop
ing
Nat
iona
l
Neu
tral
(3)
Sta
ndar
ds
Dis
agre
e
(2)
Str
ongl
y D
isag
ree
(1)
SE
CT
ION
IT
otal
%(4
) +
(5)
Str
ongl
y A
gree
(5)
Agr
ee
(4)
Sho
uld
deve
lop
82.0
%40
636
.0%
5181
46.0
%13
3111
.8%
413.
6%18
11.
6%
Nec
essa
ry83
.3%
4041
35.8
%53
5147
.5%
104
9.2%
524.
6%14
11.
2%
The
ory
base
d15
.3%
464.
1%12
6 i
11.2
%27
624
.5%
526
46.7
%11
910
,6%
Out
com
e or
ient
ed78
.1V
343}
30.4
%
4271
37.9
%
538
47.7
%1-
---
583
51.7
%
145 77
12.9
%
6.8%
59 19
5.2%
1.7%
131.
2%
50.
4%M
issi
on s
uppo
rt89
.6%
Lear
n91
.0%
i
553
'49
.1%
472
41.9
%62
5.5%
181.
6%6
0.5%
Pra
ctic
e ba
sed
66.7
%28
225
.0%
470
41.7
%21
218
.8%
112
9.9%
211.
9%
Stu
dent
acc
ess
95.4
%67
860
.2%
397
35.2
%34
3.0%
50.
4%4
0.4%
Del
iver
y91
.8%
574
,50
.9%
461
40.9
%53
4.7%
141.
2%5
0.4%
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5) =
tota
l per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts s
elec
ting
"Str
ongl
y A
gree
" or
"A
gree
"
2930
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
S
Tab
le2
Wor
k S
ettin
g A
naly
sis
SE
CT
ION
1 A
ttitu
des
Tow
ards
Dev
elop
ing
Nat
iona
l Sta
ndar
ds
Ele
men
tary
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mid
dle/
JHS
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Hig
h S
choo
l
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Sup
ervi
sor
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Tot
al R
espo
nden
ts
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
SE
CT
ION
1
Sho
uld
deve
lop
4.17
310.
8343
4.10
190.
9057
4.05
720.
9267
4.14
700.
9021
4.12
030.
8723
Nec
essa
ry4.
1827
0.83
024.
0919
0.87
664.
1022
0.91
254.
3088
0.79
654.
1259
0.86
23
The
ory
base
d2.
5580
0.99
352.
4921
0.95
382.
4409
0.97
592.
5220
1.02
032.
4995
0.97
31
Out
com
e or
ient
ed4.
0000
0.88
363.
9921
0.89
874.
0793
0.87
544.
1594
0.79
744.
0280
0.88
17
Sup
port
mis
sion
4.27
900.
6920
4.22
300.
7113
4.27
400.
7109
4.38
570.
5969
4.25
960.
7077
Lear
ning
4.39
550.
7282
4.40
610.
7096
4.35
220.
7246
4.57
970.
5259
4.37
910.
7266
Pra
ctic
e_
base
d
Stu
dent
acc
ess
3.76
611.
0111
3.80
311.
0101
3.84
330.
9715
3.92
641.
0690
3.79
310.
9952
4.55
280.
5885
4.55
180.
6398
4.54
960.
6497
4.62
850.
5155
4.54
860.
6217
,Del
iver
y4.
4752
0.71
974.
3946
0.67
46_
4.42
49_
0.66
194.
4202
0.62
794.
4330
0.69
20
3132
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
S
Tab
le 3
Reg
iona
l Ana
lysi
s
SE
CT
ION
1 A
ttitu
des
Tow
ards
Dev
elop
ing
Nat
iona
l Sta
ndar
ds
Nor
th A
tlant
icS
outh
Mid
Wes
tW
est
Tot
al R
espo
nden
ts
SE
CT
ION
1M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.
Sho
uld
deve
lop
4.22
700.
8391
4.17
940.
8226
***
3.96
290.
8902
4.16
390.
9050
4.13
330.
8642
Nec
essa
ry4.
2134
0.86
484.
1925
0.77
514.
016J
0.92
014.
1657
0.85
314.
1471
0.85
32
The
ory
base
d2.
5060
1.03
542.
5338
0.97
222.
5187
0.89
352.
4157
1.02
852.
4935
0.98
24
Out
com
e or
ient
ed4.
0674
0.82
264.
0653
0.88
153.
9762
0.85
084.
0617
0.94
574.
0426
0.87
51
Sup
port
mis
sion
4.25
390.
6849
4.27
800.
7082
4.28
180.
6521
4.26
510.
7574
4.26
970.
0701
Lear
ning
4.44
880.
7024
4.38
400.
6755
4.36
780.
7210
4.41
200.
7656
4.40
310.
7161
Pra
ctic
e ba
sed
3.80
401.
0007
3.83
461.
0012
3.77
550.
9405
3.79
211.
0558
3.80
150.
9995
Stu
dent
acc
ess
4.58
030.
6277
4.58
880.
5863
4.48
320.
6041
4.60
430.
6107
4.56
410.
6072
Del
iver
y4.
4658
0.65
974.
4773
0.65
31**
4.32
80.
7210
4.48
350.
6625
4.43
880.
6740
Sig
nific
ance
:p<
.05
-p.0
1
-p<
.001 33
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
A13
LE
34
PE
RC
EN
TS
& F
RE
QU
EN
CIE
S O
F T
OT
AL
RE
SP
ON
SE
S/F
RE
QU
EN
CIE
ST
able
4
SE
CT
ION
II. W
hat p
urpo
ses
wou
ld th
e de
velo
pmen
t of n
atio
nal s
tand
ards
ser
ve?
SE
CT
ION
II.
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)S
tron
gly
Agr
ee(5
)A
gree
(4)
Neu
tral
(3)
Dis
agre
e(2
)S
tron
gly
Dis
agre
e(1
)
Mis
sion
legi
timac
y74
.3%
3431
2331
30.4
%
20.7
%
495
i
5791
43.9
%
51.4
%
199
199
17.7
%
i17
.7%
1
49 i ,
491
4.3%
4.3%
8
15
0.7%
1.3%
Stu
dent
exp
ecta
tions
72.1
%
Def
ine
role
90.8
%46
81
2961
474
41.5
%
26.4
%
42.1
%
5561
501
!
479
I
49.3
%
44.5
%
42.5
%
50
211 96
4.4%
18.7
%
8.5%
28 811
47
2.5%
7.2%
I4.
2%
3 7 7
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
Sch
ool r
efor
m70
.9%
Edu
catio
nal s
yste
m84
.6%
Def
ine
goal
s89
.2%
4101
36.4
%59
552
.8%
67 I
5.9%
272.
4%2
0.2%
Est
ablis
h fr
amew
ork
81.1
%42
2137
.4%
4931
43.7
%!
1931
17.1
%
193!
17.1
%
57 57
5.1%
5.1%
10 10
i0.
9%
0.9%
Hig
h ex
pect
atio
ns74
.5%
3471
30.8
%49
3143
.7%
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5) =
tota
l per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts s
elec
ting
"Str
ongl
y A
gree
" or
:"A
gree
"
3536
lble
5 SE
CT
ION
2
issi
on le
gitim
acy
lude
nt e
xpec
tatio
ns
fine
role
;hoo
f ref
orm
iuca
tiona
l sys
tem
efin
e go
als
stab
lish
fram
ewor
k
gh e
xpec
tatio
ns
'gni
fican
ce:
*pc
05**
pc01 34
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
Wor
k S
ettin
g A
naly
sis
SE
CT
ION
II. W
hat p
urpo
ses
wou
ld th
e de
velo
pmen
t of n
atio
nal s
tand
ards
ser
ve?
Ele
men
tary
Mid
dle/
JHS
Hig
h S
choo
lS
uper
viso
rT
otal
Res
pond
ents
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
4.08
881
0.80
953.
9566
10.
8540
3.99
130.
9215
4.10
290.
8662
4.04
171
0.86
10
3.87
781
0.87
89*
3.72
441
0.93
823.
9104
0.90
123.
8970
0.99
46,
3.83
541
0.90
44
4.36
701
0.65
224.
2684
0.71
934.
3229
10.
7522
4.33
820.
6826
4.31
841
0.70
50
4.00
051
0.89
05**
3.73
620.
9096
3.92
30'
0.91
174.
0140
0.78
243.
9030
0.90
82
4.32
920.
7813
*4.
1882
i0.
8299
*4.
1704
0.90
234.
2794
:0.
7500
4.23
540.
8367
4.28
501
0.67
494.
2055
10.
6995
4.26
060.
7230
4.27
940.
6428
4.25
600.
6992
4.27
341
0.70
384.
2283
0.67
994.
2994
0.73
024.
3623
0.64
104.
2609
0.70
78
4.07
650.
8768
3.98
420.
8592
3.96
871
0.91
623.
9705
.0.
9458
4.01
170.
8804
EST
CO
PY A
VA
ILA
BL
E
u
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
Reg
iona
l Ana
lysi
sS
EC
TIO
N II
. Wha
t pur
pose
s w
ould
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f nat
iona
l sta
ndar
ds s
erve
?
Nor
th A
tlant
icS
outh
Mid
Wes
tW
est
Tot
al R
espo
nden
tsM
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.
4.14
220.
8330
4.09
110.
7844
**3.
8435
0.93
614.
0170
0.85
844.
0234
0.85
29
3.91
460.
9415
3.91
860.
8684
3.71
670.
8980
3.78
970.
9538
3.83
490.
9154
4.36
400.
7110
4.38
560.
6220
4.22
970.
7139
4.29
050.
7749
4.31
740.
7054
3.96
400.
8977
3.95
670.
9125
3.81
970.
8732
3.88
700.
9037
3.90
680.
8967
4.30
400.
7887
4.31
550.
8034
*4.
1047
0.86
304.
2303
0.82
874.
2386
0.82
09
4.30
920.
6990
4.34
570.
6430
***
4.11
220.
7041
4.26
550.
7011
4.25
810.
6868
4.33
06:
0.68
574.
2978
0.66
254.
1462
4.33
520.
6728
4.27
740.
6926
4.05
20!
0.86
034.
0775
0.87
67**
3.83
670.
8785
4.11
290.
8846
4.01
971
0.87
75
39
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
40
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
Tab
le7
DO
MA
IN A
. PE
RS
ON
AL/
SO
CIA
L D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
suc
cess
fully
em
ploy
inte
rper
sona
l,
intr
a=on
al, a
nd s
ocia
l ski
lls.
NA
TIO
NA
L S
TA
ND
AR
DS
Dom
ain
A.
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
(5)
Agr
ee
(4)
Neu
tral
(3)
Dis
agre
e
(2)
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee
(1)
Sel
f Aw
aren
ess
81.8
0%51
.80%
30.0
0%12
.90%
1.70
%0.
62%
Pos
itive
Atti
tude
91.3
0%73
.00%
20.2
0%3.
50%
0.27
%0.
18%
Cho
ices
93.8
0%74
.50%
19.4
0%3.
00%
0.27
%0.
27%
Res
pons
ibili
ty94
.80%
80.0
0%14
.60%
2.30
%0.
09%
0.18
%
Con
flict
Res
olut
ion
93.3
0%76
.40%
16.9
0%3.
50%
0.18
%0.
18%
Out
side
Hel
p72
.10%
36.8
0%35
.30%
20.4
0%3.
11%
0.80
%
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls86
.70%
57.9
0%28
.80%
9.40
%0.
71%
0.35
%
Cop
ing
Ski
lls81
.40%
48.4
5%33
.00%
12.4
0%2.
66%
0.35
%
Life
Goa
ls85
.00%
44.9
0%31
.14%
17.2
0%2.
75%
0.62
%
Sel
f Man
agem
ent
88.5
0%57
.32%
31.2
3%7.
99%
0.27
%0.
27%
Pro
blem
Sol
ving
90.8
0%63
.18%
27.6
0%5.
68%
0.44
%0.
18%
Exp
ress
Fee
lings
82.6
0%53
.24%
29.3
7%13
.31%
0.89
%0.
35%
Pee
r P
ress
ure
81.6
0%48
.09%
33.5
4%13
.22%
1.60
%0.
62%
Diff
eren
ces
90.3
0%63
.89%
26.3
5%6.
30%
0.62
%0.
18%
Hom
e/F
amily
/Com
mun
ity78
.17%
45.4
3%32
.74%
15.7
1%2.
48%
0.08
%
Sup
port
Gro
up65
.10%
32.2
1%33
.90%
24.8
4%4.
17%
1.69
%
4142
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
Tab
le 8
DO
MA
IN A
. PE
RS
ON
AL/
SO
CIA
L D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T -
Wor
k S
ettin
gA
naly
sis
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
suc
cess
fully
empl
oy in
terp
erso
nal,
intr
a.er
sona
l, an
d so
cial
ski
lls.
Dom
ain
A.
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
(5)
Agr
ee
(4)
Neu
tral
(3)
Dis
agre
e(2
)
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee
(1)
Sel
f Aw
aren
ess
66.7
0%41
.26%
25.3
8%22
.98%
5.59
%1.
69%
Pos
itive
Atti
tude
83.6
0%61
.93%
21.6
5%10
.91%
2.75
%0.
18%
Cho
ices
84.4
0%60
.60%
24.7
6%9.
23%
2.31
%0.
35%
Res
pons
ibili
ty87
.00%
66.9
0%20
.14%
8.52
%1.
60%
0.44
%C
onfli
ct R
esol
utio
n83
.30%
62.2
0%21
.12%
11.3
6%2.
13%
0.71
%O
utsi
de H
elp
60.4
0%25
.82%
34.6
1%27
.51%
6.65
%1.
33%
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls73
.80%
44.3
7%29
.37%
17.6
6%5.
06%
0.71
%
Cop
ing
Ski
lls66
.20%
33.4
5%32
.65%
21.1
2%7.
36%
1.77
%Li
fe G
oals
58.8
0%26
.97%
31.7
7%27
.15%
7.72
%1.
86%
Sel
f Man
agem
ent
75.5
0%42
.50%
33.0
1%17
.04%
3.99
%0.
53%
Pro
blem
Sol
ving
88.8
0%45
.87%
32.9
2%14
.73%
3.64
%0.
53%
Exp
ress
Fee
lings
77.6
0%49
.16%
28.3
9%14
.55%
4.17
%0.
98%
Pee
r P
ress
ure
68.9
0%36
.82%
32.1
2%21
.56%
5.86
%1.
15%
Diff
eren
ces
75.7
0%47
.83%
27.8
6%16
.33%
4.26
%1.
24%
Hom
e/F
amily
/Com
mun
ity64
.40%
31.2
3%33
.19%
23.8
7%6.
83%
2.31
%S
uppo
rt G
roup
50.1
0%21
.12%
29.0
2%31
.77%
11.0
9%3.
28%
4344
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
ST
able
9D
OM
AIN
A. P
ER
SO
NA
US
OC
IAL
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
Wor
k S
ettin
g A
naly
sis
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
succ
essf
ully
em
ploy
inte
rper
sona
l, in
trap
erso
nal a
nd s
ocia
l ski
lls
Dom
ain
A
NA
TIO
NA
L S
TA
ND
AR
DE
lem
enta
ryM
iddl
e/JH
SH
igh
Sch
ool
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Sel
f Aw
aren
ess
4.47
830.
7520
4.37
050.
7589
4.21
860.
8670
Pos
itive
Atti
tude
***
4.81
260.
4508
***
4.70
750.
5426
4.60
580.
6030
Cho
ices
4.77
520.
4947
4.72
110.
5495
4.71
590.
5128
0.44
01R
espo
nsib
ility
4.81
770.
4653
)4.
8031
0.40
304.
7832
Con
flict
Res
olut
ion
4.83
370.
4250
4.76
980.
4825
***
4.65
300.
5930
Out
side
Hel
p4.
1253
0.88
953.
9920
0.89
734.
1399
0.87
44In
terp
erso
nal S
kills
***
4.67
340.
5618
***
4.44
840.
7015
***
4.32
650.
8034
Cop
ing
Ski
lls4.
4578
0.74
85*
4.29
960.
7765
4.21
050.
8573
Life
Goa
ls4.
0928
0.91
08**
4.12
200.
8507
4.45
770.
9400
Sel
f Man
agem
ent
4.54
310.
6733
4.46
400.
6306
4.48
400.
6672
Pro
blem
Sol
ving
_4.
6911
0.56
70**
*4.
4827
0.66
474.
5462
0.65
74E
xpre
ss F
eelin
gs4.
5736
0.67
23**
*4.
3386
0.55
464.
2347
0.86
15P
eer
Pre
ssur
e4.
4506
0.71
804.
3426
0.78
684.
1502
0.88
83D
iffer
ence
s4.
6725
0.59
384.
5968
0.62
464.
4869
0.70
38H
ome/
Fam
ily/C
omm
unity
4.36
450.
8381
***
4.17
850.
8615
4.15
650.
8957
_Sup
port
Gro
up4.
0826
0.88
593.
8200
0.96
843.
9352
10.
9521
Sig
nific
ance
:"p
<.0
1
""p<
.001
***p
<.0
001
45
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
46
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
ST
able
10D
OM
AIN
A.
PE
RS
ON
AL/
SO
CIA
L D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T
Wor
k S
ettin
g A
naly
sis
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
succ
essf
ul)
em lo
v in
terie
rson
al in
tra
erso
nal a
nd s
ocia
l ski
lls
Dom
ain
A
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Ele
men
tary
Mea
n
Mid
dle/
JHS
Hig
h S
choo
lI S
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Sel
f Aw
aren
ess
4.36
120.
8588
***
4.10
350.
9601
* *
3.58
011.
0944
Pos
itive
Atti
tude
***
4.76
450.
5192
***
4.54
940.
7209
***
4.04
920.
9785
Cho
ices
***
4.69
440.
6134
***
4.54
980.
7066
***
4.18
550.
9086
Res
pons
ibili
ty**
*4.
7544
0.55
52**
*4.
6220
i0.
6375
***
4.27
740.
9143
Con
flict
Res
olut
ion
***
4.72
040.
5953
*4.
5634
0.70
76**
*4.
1049
0.99
65O
utsi
de H
elp
3.80
940.
9354
3.79
601.
0013
3.76
960.
964
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
llsC
opin
g S
kills
***
4.52
91**
*4.
2301
0.70
19**
*4.
1785
,0.
8872
0.99
49
***
3.70
84**
*3.
5526
1.03
99
1.08
290.
8463
***
3.95
54Li
fe G
oals
**3.
5464
1.00
16**
3.61
601.
0235
4.10
780.
9459
Sel
f Man
agem
ent -
-4.
3502
0.79
66**
*4.
1680
0.86
25**
*3.
9565
0.97
29P
robl
em S
olvi
ng**
*4.
5012
0.68
76**
*4.
2270
0.86
97**
*3.
9479
0.97
39E
xpre
ss F
eelin
gs**
*4.
6142
0.64
91*
*4.
2549
0.84
98**
*3.
8376
1.06
5P
eer
Pre
ssur
e4.
2354
0.85
414.
1515
0.85
61**
*3.
6300
1.08
14D
iffer
ence
s**
*4.
4886
0.72
59**
*4.
2025
0.89
22**
*3.
8695
1.10
28H
ome/
Fam
ily/C
omm
unity
***
4.09
620.
9292
***
3.82
141.
0098
***
3.61
651.
0824
Su.
ort
Gro
u**
3.71
530.
9926
3.51
20,
1.04
073.
4117
1.12
42S
igni
fican
ce:
*p<
.01
no<
.001
*p<
.000
1
4748
Tab
le11
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
DO
MA
IN B
. ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
ach
ieve
sch
ool s
ucce
ss a
nd d
evel
op
skill
s to
suc
cess
ful!
y en
gage
in li
fe Io
nq le
arni
ng.
Dom
ain
B.
NA
TIO
NA
L S
TA
ND
AR
D
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
(5)
Agr
ee
(4)
Neu
tral
(3)
Dis
agre
e
(2)
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee
(1)
Edu
catio
nal g
oals
79.0
0%49
.51%
29.5
5%14
.73%
1.69
%0.
98%
Lear
ning
sty
les
67.9
0%
76.2
0%
32.1
2%
40.6
4%
35.8
5%
35.5
8%
23.3
4%
15.5
9%
3.99
%
3.28
%
1.15
%
0.98
%S
tudy
ski
lls
Ach
ieve
men
t74
.50%
37.6
2%36
.91%
18.5
4%3.
02%
1.06
%
Con
fere
nces
74.0
0%43
.66%
30.3
5%18
.28%
2.84
%1.
24%
Cou
rse
optio
ns66
.90%
36.4
7%30
.43%
14.8
2%4.
26%
2.57
%
Sta
ndar
dize
d te
sts
60.8
0%28
.39%
32.3
9%26
.00%
5.24
%2.
48%
Tim
e m
anag
emen
t79
.10%
45.9
6%33
.10%
14.2
0%2.
40%
1.06
%
Pro
gres
s71
.50%
34.6
1%37
.89%
19.4
3%2.
48%
1.24
%
Gat
her
info
rmat
ion
68.2
0%40
.99%
27.2
4%11
.98%
3.46
%3.
11%
Aca
dem
ic s
uppo
rt77
.90%
64.2
0%
45.1
6%
37.0
9%
32.6
5%
27.0
6%
13.5
8%
21.0
3%
2.84
%0.
98%
Equ
al o
ppor
tuni
ty4.
35%
2.22
%
Life
long
lear
ning
79.3
0%50
.93%
28.3
9%13
.66%
2.48
%0.
62%
Indi
vidu
al p
oten
tial
82.9
0%48
.98%
33.9
0%11
.80%
1.33
%0.
62%
4950
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
Tab
le12
DO
MA
IN B
. ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
ach
ieve
sch
ool s
ucce
ss a
nd d
evel
op
skill
s to
suc
cess
fully
eng
age
in li
fe lo
ng le
arni
ng.
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Dom
ain
B.
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
(5)
Agr
ee
(4) 27
.60%
Neu
tral
(3) 24
.31%
Dis
agre
e
(2) 6.
12%
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee
(1)
1.86
%E
duca
tiona
l goa
ls62
.60%
35.0
5%
Lear
ning
sty
les
47.1
0%18
.37%
28.6
6%32
.92%
13.6
6%2.
40%
Stu
dy s
kills
59.9
0%26
.97%
32.9
2%26
.00%
8.25
%1.
77%
Ach
ieve
men
t55
.90%
24.0
5%31
.94%
28.8
4%9.
85%
1.86
%
Con
fere
nces
71.0
0%44
.90%
26.0
9%17
.75%
5.50
%1.
42%
Cou
rse
otio
ns49
.60%
28.0
4%21
.56%
15.9
7%6.
83%
3.11
%
Sta
ndar
dize
d te
sts
47.4
0%21
.03%
26.4
4%26
.62%
10.2
9%4.
53%
Tim
e m
anag
emen
t56
.10%
31.9
4%34
.25%
21.8
3%7.
36%
1.33
%
Pro
gres
s54
.00%
21.4
7%32
.48%
26.7
1%9.
85%
1.15
%
Gat
her
info
rmat
ion
44.8
0%27
.06%
17.6
6%13
.22%
7.01
%4.
08%
Aca
dem
ic s
uppo
rt63
.50%
30.6
1%32
.92%
21.2
1%5.
68%
0.80
%
Equ
al o
ppor
tuni
ty44
.60%
21.6
5%22
.89%
27.6
8%8.
70%
3.19
%
Life
long
lear
ning
58.2
0%31
.50%
26.7
1%25
.47%
8.96
%1
51%
Indi
vidu
al o
tent
ial
6.98
%34
.07%
35.6
7%20
.41%
5.06
%0.
62%
51
Tab
le13
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
SD
OM
AIN
B. E
DU
CA
TIO
NA
L D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T -
WO
RK
SE
TT
ING
AN
ALY
SIS
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
ach
ieve
sch
ool
succ
ess
and
deve
lop
skill
s to
suc
cess
fully
eng
age
in li
fe-lo
ng le
arni
ng
Dom
ain
B.
NA
TIO
NA
L S
TA
ND
AR
DE
lem
enta
ryM
iddl
e/JH
SH
igh
Sch
ool
Edu
catio
nal g
oals
Lear
ning
sty
les
Stu
dy s
kills
Ach
ieve
men
tC
onfe
renc
esC
ours
e op
tions
Sta
ndar
dize
d te
sts
Tim
e m
anag
emen
tP
rogr
ess
Gat
her
info
rmat
ion
Aca
dem
ic s
uppo
rtE
qual
opp
ortu
nity
Life
long
lear
ning
Indi
vidu
al p
oten
tial
Sig
nific
ance
:"p
<.0
5
p<.0
1
***p
<.0
01
53
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
4.10
720.
9138
4.18
950.
8673
***
4.56
810.
7229
4.00
520.
9521
3.90
760.
8714
4.01
450.
9187
4.22
020.
9103
4.02
780.
8929
4.19
640.
8648
4.19
430.
8380
4.00
390.
8494
4.10
460.
9558
4.21
050.
9498
4.14
000.
8955
4.20
880.
8952
3.77
891.
1250
3.87
150.
9957
***
4.42
73:
0.82
08**
*3.
7594
1.08
41**
*3.
7078
0.97
884.
0787
0.90
424.
3171
0.82
854.
1474
0.90
884.
2332
0.86
964.
0029
3.75
690.
9394
1.22
223.
9268
3.75
730.
8532
1.01
41
*4.
2573
:4.
5581
0.81
290.
6992
4.16
220.
9740
4.19
580.
8104
4.42
890.
7730
4.07
661.
0690
3.87
281.
0350
4.12
460.
9466
4.41
500.
8414
**4.
2113
0.88
174.
3333
0.84
474.
3842
0.78
904.
2360
0.80
284.
4046
0.77
35
MT
CO
PYA
VA
ILA
BL
E
5 4
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
ST
able
14D
OM
AIN
B. E
DU
CA
TIO
NA
L D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T -
WO
RK
SE
TT
ING
AN
ALY
SIS
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
ach
ieve
sch
ool
succ
ess
and
deve
lop
skill
s to
suc
cess
fully
eng
age
in li
fe-lo
ng le
arni
ng
Dom
ain
B.
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Ele
men
tary
Mid
dle/
JHS
Hig
h S
choo
lM
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.E
duca
tiona
l goa
ls**
**3.
5335
1.04
80**
**3.
7096
0.97
82**
**4.
4667
0.78
22Le
arni
ng s
tyle
s3.
5312
3.80
311.
0177
1.03
833.
4096
3.75
690.
9985
1.00
773.
4593
3.75
671.
0652
0.98
10S
tudy
ski
llsA
chie
vem
ent
3.74
931.
0128
3.66
000.
9810
3.64
821.
0477
Con
fere
nces
4.06
841.
0662
4.17
200.
9601
4.18
520.
9273
Cou
rse
optio
ns**
**3.
0000
1.18
53**
**3.
5642
1.10
08**
**4.
4825
0.70
47S
tand
ardi
zed
test
s3.
2753
1.23
743.
4321
1.08
22**
**3.
9008
.0.
9449
Tim
e m
anag
emen
t3.
9948
0.96
683.
9641
0.94
70**
*3.
8017
:1.
0115
Pro
gres
s3.
4463
1.01
163.
4837
0.96
341.
1311
4.03
80_
0L87
56.
4.53
770.
6887
Gat
her
info
rmat
ion
2.80
551.
2934
3.14
43A
cade
mic
sup
port
**3.
6607
1.01
54*
3.90
410.
9352
*4.
2927
0.77
12E
qual
opp
ortu
nity
3.57
141.
1611
*3.
4736
1.08
133.
6990
1.05
91Li
fe lo
ng le
arni
ng**
3.96
491.
0158
3.75
611.
0794
3.73
641.
0598
Indi
vidu
al p
oten
tial
4.06
840.
9762
3.92
000.
9015
4.07
80.
0.84
64S
igni
fican
ce:
"p<
.05
**p<
.01
***p
<.0
01
****
p<.0
01
5558
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
Tab
le15
DO
MA
IN C
. CA
RE
ER
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
assi
stin
g st
uden
ts to
bec
ome
awar
e of
life
/car
eer
choi
ces
and
artic
i sat
e in
car
eer
deve
losm
ent a
ctiv
ities
to s
re a
re fo
r th
e w
orld
of w
ork.
Dom
ain
C.
NA
TIO
NA
L S
TA
ND
AR
D
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)
84.9
0%
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
(5) 54
.66%
Agr
ee
(4) 30.1
7%
Neu
tral
(3) 9.
49%
Dis
agre
e
(2) 1.
77%
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee
(1)
0.27
%E
xplo
re s
kills
Exp
lore
car
eers
79.9
0%.
46.7
6%33
.10%
13.3
1%2.
66%
0.44
%
Sch
ool/w
ork/
com
mun
ity75
.80%
42.4
1V33
.66%
16.2
4%2.
75%
0.80
%C
aree
r pl
anni
ng79
.70%
46.0
5%33
.63%
12.6
9%2.
04%
0.71
%A
chie
ve c
aree
r go
als
76.7
0%46
.32%
30.4
3%12
.33%
29.3
0%1.
06%
Bal
ance
55.9
0%25
.73%
30.1
7%27
.77%
7.99
%1.
95%
Job
read
ines
s55
.80%
28.0
4%30
.79%
20.6
7%4.
44%
2.75
%
Em
ploy
ee r
ight
s/re
spon
sibi
lity
47.1
0%21
.47%
25.5
5%29
.37%
8.52
%3.
82%
Wor
kfor
ce n
eeds
63.8
0%33
.36%
30.4
3%20
.67%
4.35
%2.
84%
Job
plac
emen
t41
.00%
18.9
0%22
.09%
25.0
2%10
.91%
6.92
%In
form
atio
n sk
ills
67.7
0%36
.29%
31.4
1%18
.72%
4.17
%1.
33%
Wor
k-ba
sed
51.4
0%23
.69%
27.6
8%24
.49%
7.10
%3.
99%
Edu
catio
nal p
lan
73.3
0%45
.34%
28.0
4%11
.36%
3.28
%2.
13%
Edu
catio
nal n
eeds
77.6
0%48
.00%
29.6
4%10
.83%
3.37
%1.
06%
Em
ploy
abili
ty s
kills
71.1
0%42
.95%
28.2
2%14
.55%
3.39
%2.
13%
57B
ES
T C
OP
Y A
VA
ILA
BLE
58
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
able
16D
OM
AIN
C. C
AR
EE
R D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
bec
ome
awar
e of
life
/car
eer
choi
ces
and
part
icip
ate
in c
aree
r de
velo
pmen
t act
iviti
es to
pre
pare
for
the
wor
ld o
f wor
k.
Dom
ain
C.
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Tot
al %
(4)
+ (
5)
64.5
0%
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
(5) 34
.89%
Agr
ee
(4) 29
.64%
Neu
tral
(3)
21.9
4%
Dis
agre
e
(2) 6.
83%
Str
ongl
y di
sagr
ee
(1)
1.51
%xp
lore
ski
lls
xplo
re c
aree
rs53
.40%
26.3
5%26
.99%
25.9
1%10
.47%
3.11
%
'cho
ol/w
ork/
com
mun
ity48
.20%
23.3
4%24
.93%
32.7
4%10
.91%
1.86
%
aree
r pl
anni
ng53
.20%
23.2
5%29
.99%
24.9
3%10
.43%
2.31
%
chie
ve c
aree
r go
als
47.5
0%21
.56%
25.9
1%24
.58%
9.94
%2.
93%
alan
ce30
.40%
9.14
%21
.30%
34.7
8%16
.77%
5.59
%
ob r
eadi
ness
24.6
0%9.
41%
15.1
7%23
.60%
11.0
9%5.
68%
.mpl
oyee
rig
hts/
resp
onsi
bilit
y16
.60%
6.03
%10
.65%
23.6
0%20
.23%
9.05
%
Vor
kfor
ce n
eeds
30.8
0%12
.69%
18.1
0%25
.73%
14.0
2%6.
57%
ob p
lace
men
t10
.00%
4.53
%7.
54%
18.4
6%13
.75%
10.3
8%
'ifor
mat
ion
skill
s41
.00%
15.4
4%25
.55%
27.2
4%11
.09%
4.17
%
Vor
k-ba
sed
18.7
0%6.
83%
11.8
9%19
.99%
13.6
6%8.
61%
'duc
atio
nal p
lan
45.4
0%23
.69%
21.7
4%16
.06%
7.99
%4.
08%
'duc
atio
nal n
eeds
49.7
0%25
.55%
24.1
3%21
.56%
8.52
%3.
55%
'mpl
oyab
ility
ski
lls37
.60%
18.3
7%19
.17%
24.8
4%10
.03%
4.08
%
59B
EST
CO
PYA
VA
IL4B
j60
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
Tab
le17
.D
OM
AIN
C.
CA
RE
ER
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
of li
fe/c
aree
r ch
oice
sac
tiviti
es
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
- W
ork
Set
ting
Ana
lysi
sw
ith a
ssis
ting
stud
ents
to b
ecom
e aw
are
and
part
icip
ate
in c
aree
r de
velo
pmen
tto
pre
pare
for
the
wor
ld o
f wor
k.N
AT
ION
AL
ST
AN
DA
RD
Dom
ain
C.
Ele
men
tary
Mid
dle/
JHS
Hig
h S
choo
lM
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.M
ean
Std
. Dev
.E
xplo
re s
kills
4.35
730.
8266
4.36
360.
7759
**4.
5635
0.67
25E
xplo
re c
aree
rs4.
0989
0.93
844.
1974
0.84
12**
4.52
040.
6584
Sch
ool/w
ork/
com
mun
ity4.
2282
0.89
044.
1250
0.91
154.
2412
0.85
25C
aree
r pl
anni
ng4.
1848
0.93
204.
2345
0.80
53**
4.43
180.
7231
Ach
ieve
car
eer
goal
s4.
0178
1.03
844.
1594
0.82
14**
4.51
300.
7048
Bal
ance
3.77
841.
0436
*3.
6266
0.99
193.
8858
0.99
64Jo
b re
adin
ess
3.71
431.
1356
3.62
641.
0359
**4.
0395
0.88
60E
mpl
oyee
rig
hts/
resp
onsi
bilit
y3.
5060
1.14
663.
4796
1.07
853.
6319
1.04
99W
orkf
orce
nee
ds3.
7454
1.36
503.
9103
1.05
554.
1094
0.90
45Jo
b pl
acem
ent
3.37
231.
2567
3.14
291.
1969
3.43
231.
1462
Info
rmat
ion
skill
s4.
0537
0.99
094.
0717
0.98
734.
0762
0.88
03W
ork-
base
d3.
6311
1.16
523.
5000
1.07
253.
7586
1.04
23E
duca
tiona
l pla
n3.
9186
1.09
154.
0657
1.00
57**
4.49
280.
7596
Edu
catio
nal n
eeds
**4.
0452
0.99
91**
4.20
170.
9038
**4.
5344
0.71
57E
mpl
oyab
ility
ski
lls4.
2152
1.01
114.
0954
1.01
354.
2411
0.91
79p
.05
p <
.000
1
6162
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
Tab
le18
DO
MA
IN C
.C
AR
EE
R D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T-
Wor
k S
ettin
g A
naly
sis
Item
s in
this
dom
ain
deal
with
ass
istin
g st
uden
ts to
bec
ome
awar
eof
life
/car
eer
choi
ces
and
part
icip
ate
in c
aree
r de
velo
pmen
tac
tiviti
es to
pre
pare
for
the
wor
ld o
f wor
k.
Dom
ain
C.
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Ele
men
tary
Mid
dle/
JHS
Hig
h S
choo
lI
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Exp
lore
ski
lls**
3.80
531.
0729
**3.
8347
1.02
24**
4.15
600.
9349
Exp
lore
car
eers
**3.
2939
1.13
25**
3.57
561.
0466
**4.
1052
0.98
34S
choo
l/wor
k/co
mm
unity
3.59
781.
0429
3.54
161.
0882
3.63
371.
0519
Car
eer
plan
ning
**3.
4303
1.08
99**
3.62
961.
0606
**3.
9478
0.95
37A
chie
ve c
aree
r go
als
**3.
1821
1.14
52**
3.43
101.
0225
**4.
0463
0.90
86B
alan
ce3.
1202
1.06
493.
0343
1.01
413.
2042
1.04
82Jo
b re
adin
ess
2.82
711.
3249
2.89
081.
1368
**3.
4073
1.02
45E
mpl
oyee
rig
hts
/res
pons
ibili
ty2.
5723
1.16
242.
7041
1.11
99*
2.87
421.
1169
Wor
kfor
ce n
eeds
**2.
7545
1.17
32**
3.20
281.
1795
**3.
4497
1.10
69Jo
b pl
acem
ent
2.44
681.
2889
2.38
661.
1303
2.77
421.
1131
Info
rmat
ion
skill
s3.
1971
1.15
183.
4529
1.08
593.
5865
1.00
96W
ork-
base
d*
2.60
661.
3222
2.81
581.
1827
3.00
001.
1467
Edu
catio
nal p
lan
**2.
8720
1.25
58**
3.38
961.
1301
**4.
2507
0.87
54E
duca
tiona
l nee
ds**
4.25
571.
1463
**3.
5087
1.12
61**
3.05
280.
8422
Em
ploy
abili
ty s
kills
3.30
941.
2359
3.38
191.
1137
3.57
941.
0988
p <
.05
p <
.000
1 6364
Tab
le19
PE
RC
EN
TS
OF
TO
TA
L R
ES
PO
NS
ES
SE
CT
ION
IV. S
YS
TE
M S
UP
PO
RT
AC
TIV
ITIE
S-
Wor
k S
ettin
g A
naly
sis
Item
s in
this
sec
tion
addr
ess
vario
us a
ctiv
ities
insc
hool
bui
ldin
gs.
The
pur
pose
of t
his
sect
ion
is to
det
erm
ine
whi
chac
tiviti
es a
re c
onsi
dere
dar
t of a
sch
ool c
ouns
elin
gro
gra
m.
Sec
tion
IV
NA
TIO
NA
L S
TA
ND
AR
DS
Tot
al %
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
IA
gree
Neu
tral
Dis
agre
eS
tron
gly
disa
gree
(4)
+ (
5)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
)P
lace
men
t70
.53%
30.5
2%29
.81%
24.1
3%6.
30%
2.98
%C
onfe
renc
es53
.00%
27.6
8%25
.29%
25.7
3%9.
85%
5.77
%P
aren
t Wor
ksho
ps60
.60%
30.8
8%29
.72%
28.3
1%5.
15%
2.04
%A
cade
mic
Pla
nnin
g44
.60%
19.2
5%25
.29%
25.6
4%10
.29%
7.28
%A
dvis
ory
38.7
0%15
.35%
23.3
4%31
.32%
11.8
9%7.
36%
Ass
embl
ies
11.5
0%4.
88%
6.57
%22
.72%
21.5
6%31
.14%
Gra
de R
epor
ting
17.0
0%6.
21%
10.8
3%18
.01%
18.9
9%29
.28%
Sta
ff D
evel
opm
ent
47.2
0%18
.99%
28.2
2%31
.68%
10.3
3%4.
88%
Age
ncie
s79
.30%
47.4
7%23
.83%
12.7
8%2.
13%
1.15
%T
estin
g P
rogr
ams
36.7
0%15
.00%
21.7
4%26
.18%
13.1
3%14
.12%
Car
eer
Inve
ntor
ies
57.6
0%24
.13%
33.4
5%21
.21%
6.21
%3.
90%
Col
lege
Tes
ting
41.3
0%15
.97%
25.2
9%21
.12%
10.0
3%7.
01%
Dut
y A
ssig
nmen
ts7.
00%
3.90
%3.
11%
7.01
%13
.66%
55.4
6%S
choo
l Ref
orm
58.2
0 %
.27
.68%
30.5
2%24
.58%
7.28
%4.
61%
Con
sulti
ng89
.40%
66.9
9%22
.36%
6.30
%0.
35%
0.62
%
65B
EST
CO
PYA
VA
ILA
BL
E
Tab
le 2
0P
ER
CE
NT
S O
F T
OT
AL
RE
SP
ON
SE
S
SE
CT
ION
IV. S
YS
TE
M S
UP
PO
RT
AC
TIV
ITIE
S -
Wor
kS
ettin
g A
naly
sis
Item
s in
this
sec
tion
addr
ess
vario
us a
ctiv
ities
in s
choo
l bui
ldin
gs.
The
pur
pose
of t
his
sect
ion
isto
det
erm
ine
whi
ch a
ctiv
ities
are
cons
ider
edpa
rt o
f a s
choo
l cou
nsel
ing
ro g
ram
.
Sec
tion
IV
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Str
ongl
y ag
ree
Agr
eeN
eutr
alj
Dis
agre
eS
tron
gly
disa
gree
(4)
+ (
5)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
)P
lace
men
t42
.00%
30.9
7%22
.18%
19.7
9%8.
70%
4.35
%C
onfe
renc
es55
.90%
31.3
2%24
.58%
20.7
6%10
.74%
4.08
%P
aren
t Wor
ksho
ps42
.10%
19.9
6%22
.09%
26.1
8%13
.04%
8.52
%A
cade
mic
Pla
nnin
g33
.70%
16.6
8%17
.04%
18.9
9%12
.69%
7.45
%A
dvis
ory
26.1
0%10
.12%
16.0
6%21
.47%
15.7
9%9.
49%
Ass
embl
ies
10.5
0%3.
64%
6.92
%18
.46%
20.2
3%27
.06%
Gra
de R
epor
ting
22.3
0%11
.45%
10.9
1%11
.80%
10.9
1%18
.37%
Sta
ff D
evel
opm
ent
29.0
0%9.
23%
19.7
9%28
.75%
16.6
8%11
.71%
Age
ncie
s72
.10%
40.2
0%31
.85%
16.8
0%4.
26%
1.86
%T
estin
g P
rogr
ams
45.6
0%26
.26%
19.3
4%16
.86%
8.52
%9.
85%
Car
eer
Inve
ntor
ies
36.7
0%16
.68%
19.9
6%17
.75%
8.52
%9.
85%
Col
lege
Tes
ting
23.9
0%48
.00%
11.7
1%-
12.1
6%10
.47%
6.12
%D
uty
Ass
ignm
ents
18.1
0%8.
34%
9.76
%14
.29%
12.8
7%31
.68%
Sch
ool R
efor
m42
.80%
18.1
0%24
.67%
28.3
1%11
.62%
6.83
%C
onsu
lting
87.4
0%64
.60%
22.8
0%7.
63%
1.86
%0.
18%
67
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
Tab
le21
SE
CT
ION
IV. S
YS
TE
M S
UP
PO
RT
AC
TIV
ITIE
SB
Y S
CH
OO
L C
OU
NS
ELO
RS
- W
ork
Set
ting
Ana
lysi
sIte
ms
in th
is s
ectio
n ad
dres
s va
rious
activ
ities
in s
choo
l bui
ldin
gs.
The
pur
pose
of t
his
sect
ion
is to
det
erm
ine
whi
ch a
ctiv
ities
are
cons
ider
ed p
art o
f a s
choo
l cou
nsel
ing
prog
ram
.N
AT
ION
AL
ST
AN
DA
RD
Sec
tion
IVE
lem
enta
ryM
Iddl
e/JH
SH
igh
Sch
ool
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Pla
cem
ent
3.81
671.
0974
3.86
341.
0114
*4.
0598
1.00
18C
onfe
renc
es3.
6253
1.22
47*
3.59
411.
1053
*3.
8413
1.15
56P
aren
t Wor
ksho
ps*
4.11
860.
9366
3.86
400.
9915
3.71
381.
0411
Aca
dem
ic P
lann
ing
3.33
841.
2346
3.17
821.
1199
*3.
8125
1.12
91A
dvis
ory
3.41
701.
1496
3.46
271.
1063
3.28
961.
1934
Ass
embl
ies
*2.
4893
1.22
632.
0995
1.07
822.
2698
1.21
27G
rade
Rep
ortin
g2.
0580
1.19
25*
2.35
141.
2323
*2.
7276
1.36
20S
taff
Dev
elop
men
t3.
7285
1.08
213.
6318
0.95
663.
2768
1.16
13A
genc
ies
4.42
890.
8088
4.29
640.
7820
4.21
00.
0.94
59T
estin
g P
rogr
ams
3.04
211.
3586
*3.
0673
1.23
71*
3.32
621.
2874
Car
eer
Inve
ntor
ies
3.59
011.
1842
*3.
7190
1.01
63*
4.00
300.
9852
Col
lege
Tes
ting
2.85
481.
2751
*3.
1398
1.11
76*
3.59
941.
1927
Dut
y A
ssig
nmen
ts1.
8576
1.15
28*
1.67
681.
1377
*1.
4628
0.97
18S
choo
l Ref
orm
3.75
631.
1329
3.73
711.
0671
3.79
931.
1193
,Con
sulti
ng4.
7157
0.59
394.
6031
0.64
374.
5260
0.74
08P
< .0
001
89
EST
CO
PY A
VA
ILA
BL
E
70
ME
AN
S/S
TA
ND
AR
D D
EV
IAT
ION
Tab
le .2
2S
EC
TIO
N IV
.S
YS
TE
M S
UP
PO
RT
AC
TIV
ITIE
SB
Y S
CH
OO
L C
OU
NS
ELO
RS
- W
ork
Set
ting
Ana
lysi
sIte
ms
in th
is s
ectio
n ad
dres
sva
rious
act
iviti
es in
sch
ool
build
ings
.T
hepu
rpos
e of
this
sec
tion
is to
det
erm
ine
whi
ch a
ctiv
ities
are
cons
ider
ed p
art o
f a s
choo
l cou
nsel
ing
prog
ram
.
Sec
tion
IV
CU
RR
EN
T P
RO
GR
AM
Ele
men
tary
Mid
dle/
JHS
1H
igh
Sch
ool
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Mea
nS
td. D
ev.
Pla
cem
ent
3.39
551.
2465
*3.
8414
1.17
52*
4.13
771.
0036
Con
fere
nces
3.49
291.
2291
3.82
471.
1242
*4.
0209
1.04
69P
aren
t Wor
ksho
ps3.
6658
1.16
593.
1842
1.20
143.
0692
1.27
55A
cade
mic
Pla
nnin
g2.
6515
1.19
04*
2.94
551.
2041
*3.
9000
1.10
10A
dvis
ory
2.95
321.
1926
3.13
931.
2679
2.96
631.
2544
Ass
embl
ies
2.43
931.
2170
2.02
491.
0641
2.10
791.
1681
Gra
de R
epor
ting
1.75
361.
0412
*2.
5964
1.43
36*
3.35
221.
4438
Sta
ff D
evel
opm
ent
3.25
421.
1204
*3.
0545
1.14
43*
2.60
261.
1813
Age
ncie
s4.
2578
0.91
594.
1264
0.93
03*
3.92
011.
0290
Tes
ting
Pro
gram
sC
aree
r In
vent
orie
s3.
1801
1.45
47 L
*3.
5381
1.35
92*
3.84
311.
2323
*3.
8649
1.05
762.
6646
1.33
89*
3.22
861.
2816
Col
lege
Tes
ting
2.20
971.
4491
2.34
411.
2628
*3.
6877
1.24
89D
uty
Ass
ignm
ents
2.67
881.
4058
*2.
3586
1.36
82*
1.92
981.
3701
Sch
ool R
efor
m3.
4229
1.18
133.
3534
1.12
573.
3981
1.18
81C
onsu
lting
4.66
490.
6549
*4.
5912
0.69
50*
4.43
060.
7675
P <
.000
1
71-
72
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
(Specific Document)
TM027354
Title: SUPPORTING A NATION OF LEARNERS: The Development of National Standards for SchoolCounseling Programs
Author(s): Dr. Carol Dahir, Dr. Laurie Johnson, Dr. Chari Campbell, Dr. Michael Valiga,IYIrr ltritrertmSztrutnr-
American School Counselor AssociationCorporate Source: IPublication Date:
March, 1997
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced
in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of-each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.
Check hereFor Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6' film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)and paper copy.
Signhere-)please
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
P\e
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 1
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS
MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
\e
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 2
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
Check hereFor Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.
Sign
'I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other thanERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.'
dig szaboniKlarea:ASCA801 North Fairfax Ave
Alexandria, Virginia
Printed Name /Position/Title:
Carol A. Dahir Ed.D.
Suite
22314
310800 306 4722
t-Mail Address:ASCA @ aol.com
7oz 6k3 Id/Date:
5/20/97
C UA
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICADepartment of Education, O'Boyle Hall
Washington, DC 20064
800 464-3742 (Go4-ERIC)
April 25, 1997
Dear AERA Presenter,
Hopefully, the convention was a productive and rewarding event. We feel you have aresponsibility to make your paper readily available. If you haven't done so already, please submitcopies of your papers for consideration for inclusion in the ERIC database. If you have submittedyour paper, you can track its progress at http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu.
Abstracts of papers accepted by ERIC appear in Resources in Education (RIE) and are announcedto over 5,000 organizations. The inclusion of your work makes it readily available to otherresearchers, provides a permanent archive, and enhances the quality of RIE. Abstracts of yourcontribution will be accessible through the printed and electronic versions of RIE. The paper willbe available through the microfiche collections that are housed at libraries around the world andthrough the ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
We are soliciting all the AERA Conference papers and will route your paper to the appropriateclearinghouse. You will be notified if your paper meets ERIC's criteria for inclusion in RIE:contribution to education, timeliness, relevance, methodology, effectiveness of presentation, andreproduction quality.
Please sign the Reproduction Release Form on the back of this letter and stet two copies of yourpaper. The Release Form gives ERIC permission to make and distribute copies of your paper. Itdoes not preclude you from publishing your work. You can mail your paper to our attention at theaddress below. Please feel free to copy the form for future or additional submissions.
Mail to:
Sincerel ,
Lawrence M. Rudner, Ph.D.Director, ERIC/E
AERA 1997/ERIC AcquisitionsThe Catholic University of AmericaO'Boyle Hall, Room 210Washington, DC 20064
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation
