Abstract
In this rejoinder, we review contributions by Palmer and Horne of their responses to our earlier submission in this issue. Together, we present a compelling case for the urgent imperative to constructively address the role of master’s education as a priority in counseling psychology. We not only need to address pressing threats to the viability of counseling psychology but also need to seize opportunities to enhance the quality and value added in our training to help meet vast needs for mental health services. Finally, we extend our analysis and recommendations for strategies to reintegrate and update our foundational counseling master’s training to bridge the sequence and to connect core values of counseling psychology training, for example, the Masters in Counseling Accreditation Committee (MCAC) option and the Counseling Master’s Benchmark Competencies.
In our earlier submission (Jackson & Scheel, 2013), we reviewed the historical context and current controversies about counseling master’s accreditation and licensure relevant to the quality, foundation, and status of master’s education for the American Psychological Association (APA)–accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology. To constructively address these issues, we offered recommendations for reexamining and updating the integration of counseling master’s with counseling psychology education and training. As one recommendation to address pressing issues in counseling master’s accreditation with harmful implications for counseling psychology (e.g., the revision in 2009 to Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP] standards that exclude core faculty in counseling psychology), we advocated for the Masters in Counseling Accreditation Committee (MCAC) as an alternative option. Furthermore, we proposed building a career lattice framework for counseling master’s to counseling psychology training and scope of practice that is (a) developmentally sequenced from core foundations to greater depth and breadth, (b) based in master’s to doctoral competency benchmark assessment and outcomes, and (c) clearly connected to the value added by the counseling psychology specialty for effectively serving both our own colleges/universities and broader public mental health needs.
We gratefully acknowledge Drs. Andrew Horne and Laura Palmer for their thoughtful responses in this issue. Both are counseling psychologists and national leaders, and they also provide perspectives of a dean and of a training director for an APA-accredited program in counseling psychology, respectively. In this rejoinder, we briefly highlight their contributions, note points of our convergence and divergence, and conclude by summarizing our analysis that incorporates their perspectives and extends our recommendations.
Palmer and Horne provide distinct reality checks through their reactions to our article titled “Quality of Master’s Education: A Concern for Counseling Psychology?” (Jackson & Scheel, 2013). Palmer’s dose of reality is her description of the licensing regulations fight to reverse a new CACREP-only requirement in New Jersey. She makes an urgent call to counseling psychology to build effective coalitions for legislative advocacy and take political action now to reclaim our foundational master’s training and ensure the viability of our discipline. Horne highlights the economic realities and increased demands for accountability that challenge the viability of counseling psychology if not integrated with master’s training. He calls for us to clearly demonstrate how we support the priorities and needs of our colleges/universities and the public, and offers several directions to constructively address the current threats to our field. Both Horne and Palmer agree that counseling psychology should develop a new model of training that includes the master’s level. They also submit that counseling psychology makes important contributions to the promotion of the mental health needs of society at large.
A Reply to Palmer’s Urgent Call
We are impressed with and indebted to Palmer’s and others’ successful efforts in legislative advocacy to counter exclusionary CACREP efforts that restrict accreditation and licensure of master’s level counselors trained by counseling psychology faculty. The urgency of her call is merited to counseling psychology to effectively organize and take immediate action to counter these significant threats to our specialty.
We appreciate Palmer’s support for our analysis that master’s counselor education is a critical component of doctoral counseling psychology education, both historically and currently. One step she proposes to reclaim master’s training is to realign counseling programs granting terminal master’s degrees within our counseling psychology doctoral programs. We suggest this proposal merits consideration, because we see its potential to enhance not only the viability of our specialty but also the quality and value added in counseling psychology training. By reintegrating our foundational counseling master’s training, we might better incorporate the core values of counseling psychology doctoral training and bridge the sequence of training between the master’s and doctorate with benchmark competencies. Thus, we might better prepare our graduates so that they may well serve the vast and compelling needs for comprehensive mental health services that integrate strength-based prevention, psychoeducation, vocational development, and multicultural social justice. Furthermore, we agree with Palmer (2013) that “the ultimate goal of reclaiming our master’s graduates and subsequently situating the master’s program within a defensible scope of practice and training paradigm is achievable and imperative to the long-term viability of the doctoral training program [in counseling psychology]” (p. 707).
Palmer (2013) provides an ambitious recommendation to establish “interim accreditation structures within the existing [APA] CoA structure for accreditation of master’s programs” (p. 708). While this seems desirable, at present the most feasible avenue for master’s accreditation after the CACREP exclusion of counseling psychology is the recently formed MCAC alternative.
On one hand, we share Palmer’s perspective about the importance of including master’s training within the larger sequence of psychology training and accreditation. We applaud the APA Education Directorate for its recent efforts to address this issue. We further suggest that counseling psychology is one specialty in professional psychology that is already well positioned to bridge terminal degree master’s training with doctoral training. On the other hand, the APA Commission on Accreditation (CoA) does not currently accredit master’s programs, whereas the Master’s in Psychology and Counseling Accreditation Council (MPCAC) already accredits master’s programs, including the new MCAC route to accredit master’s programs in counseling. Furthermore, MCAC standards align with core values in counseling psychology. Therefore, in response to Palmer’s urgent call for action, we argue that the most expedient option is MCAC for pursuing counseling master’s accreditation for programs currently affiliated or integrated with counseling psychology programs.
Reply to Horne’s Perspectives as Dean
Horne (2013) provides us with multiple perspectives, not only as a dean but also through his substantial background as a veteran counseling psychologist and trainer as well as the 2012-2013 President of the Society of Counseling Psychology (APA Division 17). As counseling psychologist trainers ourselves, we empathize with Horne’s dismay with the CACREP exclusions that now thwart opportunities for interprofessional collaborations as well as limit occupational options for our graduates of APA-accredited programs in counseling psychology. Horne reminds us that psychologists alone cannot possess the resources needed to address the public’s overwhelming need for mental health services. He notes that when considerable efforts are focused on conflicts between or among professional groups, this functions to divert our attention and resources away from our priority common goal of providing effective care and mental health services to so many in need. We agree with his recommendation that we refocus our efforts and combine our forces in strong interprofessional alliances, including a range of disciplines.
From his perspective as a dean of a large college, Horne notes the continuing need for colleges/universities to cut programs and further downsize to reduce costs as a result of the realities of severe and lingering economic recession effects, a changing political climate, and increased demands for accountability of higher education. He warns that expectations for a rebound to former levels of funding are extremely unrealistic in the foreseeable future. Therefore, he recommends that counseling psychology programs take heed to strategically address several ways to enhance viability. He provides a useful list of these considerations, abbreviated as follows: (1) fit with the mission of the college; (2) expensive nature of applied/clinical doctoral training; (3) additional professional requirements (i.e., accreditation, liability insurance, involvement with professional organizations); (4) support for students to become licensed; (5) internship match capability; (6) program quality (i.e., rankings, uniqueness); (7) current, viable, and funded research consistent with the college mission; (8) students engaged in collaborative learning; (9) healthy and positive program climate; (10) faculty serving as good role models and mentors; (11) collaboration with other programs; (12) alumni support; (13) contributions serving the state or community; and (14) reputation across the campus.
In sum, Horne offers incisive strategies to counseling psychology programs to plan for a future that builds on our field’s specific strengths and connects directly with the missions of the school and university. He reinforces the argument in favor of integrating master’s with doctoral training in counseling psychology with the following:
Masters programs that are complementary to doctoral programs definitely may generate the counseling psychology program support that is needed. However, if masters programs are not connected, engaged, or with a common core of orientation, philosophy, and clinical mission, then not only are they not complementary, but they may also become competitive for resources and faculty. (Horne, 2013, p. 714)
Beyond viability considerations, Horne’s presidential theme for the Society of Counseling Psychology in 2012-2013 is “Addressing Tomorrow’s Needs Today: Promotion, Prevention, and Beyond in Counseling Psychology” (Horne, 2013, p. 711). Certainly relevant to the quality of training and service delivery, the emphasis of this theme is on preparing counseling psychologists to understand and meet future needs for others’ social, physical, and emotional well-being. We argue that this holistic and integrative approach of counseling psychology adds value by our contributions, as Horne (2013) described “of assisting others in healthy lifestyles, effective personal problem management, and managing stress and conflict” (p. 711).
We appreciate Horne’s support for our suggestions to enhance the quality of training by developing an updated model that bridges master’s and doctoral education in counseling psychology. Counseling master’s programs might be better integrated with counseling psychology that (a) include psychological foundations (e.g., in individual, biological, learned, and socio/cultural/systemic bases of behavior; education and training standards of the Council of Applied Master’s Programs in Psychology [CAMPP], 1993) and (b) are aligned with the MCAC accreditation standards consistent with core values in counseling psychology (e.g., strength-based, preventive, vocational, developmental, multicultural, and social justice applications; Packard, 2009; Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006).
Master’s Education: A Priority for Counseling Psychology
In conclusion, a compelling case is presented in this issue for the urgent imperative to constructively address the role of master’s education as a priority in counseling psychology. By reintegrating and updating foundational counseling master’s education into the sequence of training in counseling psychology, we may not only improve our viability options but also enhance the quality and value added in training to help meet current and future needs of immense proportions for mental health services. We thank Palmer and Horne for their contributions.
Finally, we highlight the recent formulation of the Competencies in Professional Counseling and Related Human Services (Counseling Master’s Benchmark Competencies Grid; Scheel, Lichtenberg, Jackson, & Fouad, 2012) as one tool that can be used to begin to bridge the sequence of training in master’s professional counseling and doctoral professional psychology. The development of this document was described in our earlier submission (Jackson & Scheel, 2013), and it builds on the model of benchmark competencies in professional psychology (Fouad et al., 2009). This is a general resource for use to guide competency development at the master’s level for professional counseling programs (i.e., mental health counseling) and to be adapted for each individual program’s emphasis. In June 2012, the working group (Scheel et al.) reviewed public comments and further edited the master’s competencies grid. The full counseling master’s benchmarks competency grid document, including proposed alignments with MCAC standards, introductory statement, and table of contents, is available on the website of the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (www.ccptp.org).
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
The authors contributed equally to this article and are listed in alphabetical order.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.