A House Divided: Guidance and Counseling in 20th‐Century America

Abstract

Historical analysis of guidance and counseling within American public education reveals a house divided by diversity and contradictions.

The challenging role of school counselors and youth problems in the United States

“…School systems, educational processes, and counseling are all being increasingly placed under scrutiny (Sullivan & O'Hare, 1971;Pulvinio & Sanborn, 1972;Aubrey, 1982). When applied to counseling, however, accountability assessment usually carries with it some limitations and risks bacause of inadequate measurements, public and clientele demands, and administrators' expectations, all o f which reflect conditions of role ambiguity of school counselors' functions.…”

“…Zopf (1975) expresses concern about the risk of task-oriented specialization which makes counseling become fragmented and less effective. Aubrey (1982) decries the excessive time spent by school counselors in clerical and administrative chores and cautions that cohnseling is in danger of becoming outdated in relation to current student problems.…”

Perceptions of the educational counsellor's role in Kuwaiti secondary schools

“…It has been suggested that the role and function of the secondary school counsellor are vague and ill-defined (Aubrey, 1982;Schmidt, 1984). Multiple roles of the school counsellor, and conflicting perceptions, have been identified by Stinzi & Hutcheon (1972).…”

School guidance and counselling in the United States and Taiwan: Parallels and beyond

“…The so-called nondirective approach emphasized the ability of each individual to resolve problems in the context of the proper counselling climate emphasizing the counselor's communication of genuineness and unconditional positive regard. Aubrey (1982) noted that beginning with Rogers, guidance became open to ideas from the emerging field of counselling, ranging from clinical psychology to pastoral counselling. New techniques became available, however, many were of questionable utility for school settings.…”

“…However, the impact of these efforts was not widely felt. Although there was focus on the need for guidance services to be provided by professionals there were no accredited training programs, and no widely accepted philosophical and theoretical underpinnings, particularly those that linked guidance to the process of education or the development of the individual over time (Aubrey, 1982).…”