Accountability Practices of School Counselors: A National Survey

Abstract

A national survey of practicing school counselors was conducted to obtain information regarding (a) their accountability practices, (b) barriers to the collection of accountability data, (c) the relationship between involvement in accountability efforts and demographic variables, and (d) strategies for increasing activity in the area of accountability. Results indicated that 55% of the 239 respondents were collecting accountability data, often for the purpose of enhancing their professional growth and development. The 108 school counselors not involved in the collection of such data identified lack of familiarity with procedures and time constraints as major barriers. Respondents indicated a need for additional preservice and in-service training, as well as for dissemination of exemplary procedures. Thomas N. Fairchild is chairperson, Counseling and Human Services Department, University of Idaho, Moscow. Joseph E. Zins is an associate professor, Department of School Psychology and Counseling, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. The questionnaire and tabular data may be obtained from

Okul Psikolojik Danışmanlarının Hesap Verebilirlik Uygulamaları

“…Araştırma bulgularına göre katılımcıların çoğunluğu okul PDR programını değerlendirmede hesap verebilirlik uygulamalarına yer verdiğini belirtmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarıyla paralel olarak yapılan bazı çalışmalarda okul psikolojik danışmanlarının çoğunun hesap verebilirlik uygulamalarına yer verdiği tespit edilmiştir (Fairchild, 1993;Fairchild ve Zins, 1986;Topdemir, 2010). Bununla birlikte ASCA eğitimi alan katılımcıların ASCA ilkelerini uygulama olasılığının daha yüksek olduğu (Scarborough ve Culbreth, 2008), hesap verebilirlik ile ilgili ASCA eğitimi alan katılımcıların almayan katılımcılara göre daha fazla hesap verebilirlik verilerini kullandığı (Paolini, 2012) (Young ve Kaffenberger, 2009).…”

Program Evaluation: The Accountability Bridge Model for Counselors

“…Much of the literature related to counseling program evaluation has cited the lack of both counselors' ability to systematically evaluate counseling services and of their interest in doing so (e.g., Fairchild, 1993;Whiston, 1996). Many reasons have been suggested for counselors' failure to conduct evaluations.…”

Collaborative Consultation and Program Evaluation

“…A primary reason for evaluating school guidance and counseling programs has been to review intended outcomes and make suggestions for improving practice (Drozd & Goldfried, 1996;Eisen & Dickey, 1996;Gysbers & Henderson, 2000;Lambert & Cattani-Thompson, 1996;Whiston & Sexton, 1998). In addition, program evaluations are often conducted to provide accountability to state legislatures, departments of education (Allen, 1992;Fairchild, 1993;Schmidt, 1996), and to the recipients of counseling and guidance services (Beutler, Kim, Davison, Karno, & Fisher, 1996;Vacc, Rhyne-Winkler, & Poidevant, 1993;Whiston, 1996). Accountability is achieved by sharing information about program effectiveness with parents, community members, and government officials to assure them that their resources are being put to good use.…”