Student-To-School-Counselor Ratios,School-Level Factors,and Leadership Practices of School Counselors: A National Investigation

Abstract

Since 1965, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) has recommended a student-to-school-counselor ratio of 250:1; however, a large disparity exists in school counselor caseloads across the United States. To date, most of the literature highlights the positive impact that lower ratios have on student outcomes, yet literature exploring the potential relationships between school counselor caseload and ecological contextual factors is scant. This study examined the association between student-to-school-counselor ratios and school-level variables, school counselor demographics, perceived school climate, and leadership practices. The results, based on a national sample, revealed that school counselors’ racial identity (i.e., identifying as White), school-level variables (i.e., percentages of students with disabilities, students who are bi/multilingual, White students, and White faculty members) were significantly associated with school counselors’ odds of meeting a 250:1 student-to-school-counselor ratio. School counselors with a ratio of 250:1 or lower scored slightly lower in leadership practices. This article discusses implications for practice, policy, and future research.

Keywords

school counseling caseloads student-to-school-counselor ratio equity ecological contextual factors

Introduction

School counselors design and deliver comprehensive school counseling programs aimed at maximizing students’ academic, socioemotional, and postsecondary success and development (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2019). Students’ access to a school counselor, with the condition of lower student-to-school-counselor ratios, is positively associated with achievement (e.g., graduation and SAT scores), and achievement-related outcomes (e.g., attendance and discipline; e.g., Brown & Knight, 2023; Donohue et al., 2022; Kearney et al., 2021). In other words, school counselors’ caseload sizes may inhibit or facilitate their access to students and ability to position themselves to promote positive student outcomes.

School counselors are often assigned caseloads based on resource allocation and funding demands of K–12 schools, with the current national average being well above ASCA’s recommended ratio of 250:1 (ASCA, n.d.b; Mullen et al., 2021). In a recent report, ASCA indicated that the mean caseload size for school counselors in the United States during the 2021–2022 year was 408 students, with a range of 110–694 (ASCA, n.d.a). Despite this average being the lowest student-to-school-counselor ratio in more than 30 years, it is still far from the ASCA-recommended ratio, especially considering the increased mental health needs of students caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Savitz-Romer et al., 2021). The allocation of resources and high caseloads often maintained by school counselors may underscore how educational partners, particularly those in positions of power, do not clearly understand the appropriate roles and responsibilities of school counselors. For example, in a study by Hilts et al. (2019), school counselors reported lack of administrator, teacher, and parent support as being relevant challenges to implementing a comprehensive school counseling program. Furthermore, school counselor caseloads and other school factors may have interactional impacts on school counselors’ ability to advocate for student development across school settings (Kearney et al., 2021; Mullen et al., 2021).

A growing body of literature demonstrates the positive impact of lower student-to-school-counselor ratios both on student outcomes (e.g., Brown & Knight, 2023; Carey et al., 2012; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; Lapan et al., 2012) and school counselors’ overall well-being (Mullen et al., 2021). Conversely, a small body of literature suggests that increase in student loads for school counselors has minimal or insignificant impact on student outcomes (e.g., Kearney et al., 2021; Reback, 2010) and school counselor practices (Fairchild and Zins, 1986; Scarborough & Culbreth, 2008). For example, Reback’s (2010) results showed that an additional school counselor did not have a significant impact on student standardized test scores in a southern state. In another study, Kearney and colleagues’ (2021) meta-analysis indicated that most studies on school counselor caseloads have been conducted at the high school level and without reporting effect sizes. In 2022, ASCA issued a research grant program call for proposals with a specific emphasis on better understanding student-to-school-counselor ratios specific to certain factors, further illustrating the need for additional research on caseload sizes and factors relevant to the school environment.

To date, little is known about how student-to-school-counselor ratios may facilitate or impede school counselors’ ability to perform their roles and responsibilities (e.g., engagement in leadership) effectively and to reach all students equitably (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; Mullen et al., 2021). Likewise, despite school climate being positively associated with student outcomes (Gage et al., 2019; Lenz et al., 2021), little to no scholarship has documented the relationship between school counselor caseload sizes and school climate. Third, although researchers have begun to reveal relationships between caseload size and school-level sociocultural factors (e.g., Title I status; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018), further research is warranted. Last, researchers have not explored how school counselors’ sociocultural identities may be associated with their caseload sizes. Filling these multilayered gaps will advance our understanding of how institutional discrimination may contribute to inequities of labor and emotional and human resources based on school counselors’ identities (e.g., race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status [SES]), and to underrepresented students’ accesses to school counselors.

Student-to-School-Counselor Ratios and Student Outcomes

Several studies have indicated that lower student-to-school-counselor ratios were correlated with decreases in disciplinary referrals (Lapan et al., 2012), increases in attendance (Carey et al., 2012; Kearney et al., 2021) and grade-point average (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018), and improved standardized test performance (Donohue et al., 2022) and graduation rates (Lapan et al., 2012). For instance, Kearney and colleagues (2021) employed a meta-analytic review of student-to-school-counselor ratios and student-level outcomes. The researchers found that one unit of standard deviation change in the ratios had a 10%–15% change of one unit of standard deviation on students’ attendance, discipline, and high school graduation. More recently, Donohue et al. (2022) investigated student-to-school-counselor ratios and student outcomes in six states across the United States. Their results indicated that lower student-to-school-counselor ratios were positively associated with higher postsecondary enrollment and English SAT scores; conversely, higher ratios were related to lower graduation rates, less optimal learning and academic outcomes, and more suspensions and chronic absenteeism. Although a growing body of literature highlights the importance of maintaining a 250:1 or lower student-to-school-counselor ratio, the literature has only minimally explored factors associated with school counselors’ caseloads.

Theoretical Framework

McMahon and colleagues’ (2014) ecological school counseling framework guided the organization and design of this study. This framework asserts that school counselors and school counselor educators consider a multitude of factors operating across systems when seeking to understand functions of the school environment and school counselor. Several studies have used an ecological or systems perspective (e.g., Kratsa et al., in press; Hilts, Liu, Li, & Luke, 2022), including previous student-to-school-counselor ratio studies (e.g., Brown & Knight, 2023; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018). Thus, in the present study, we examined various sociocultural factors of school counselors, school-level factors, school counselors’ practices (i.e., leadership practice), and their perceived school climate that may be related to school counselors’ caseload size.

Sociocultural Factors of School Counselors and Caseloads

Scholars have increasingly asserted the need for researchers in the counseling profession to recognize individuals and their cultural context as influencing their day-to-day activities and aspects of their work environment (e.g., Dollarhide et al., 2013; Hilts, Liu, Li, & Luke, 2022). This is especially important because school counselors with marginalized identities may encounter forms of discrimination or racism in the workplace. For instance, Dollarhide and colleagues (2013) found that school counselors of color experienced both positive and negative racial events in their respective schools; negative racial events included bias and disrespect from members in the school community that often resulted in additional emotional labor, whereas positive racial events denoted serving as a positive role model for students and being able to establish creditability and connectedness with students from diverse backgrounds. In another study, Hilts, Liu, Li, and Luke (2022) indicated that school counselors’ race/ethnicity, current SES, and age significantly predicted their engagement in leadership practices.

Research has only begun to examine potential relationships between school counselors’ caseload sizes and their sociodemographic makeups; however, existing literature seems to present a grim, yet unsurprising, finding of considerably higher caseload sizes among school counselors of color (McCarthy et al., 2010). In a study of 227 school counselors in Texas, McCarthy and colleagues (2010) examined the relationship between school counselors’ demands and resources in their w ork environment and their caseload characteristics and perceived stress. The researchers found that school counselors of color were significantly more likely to be in the high-demand group, compared with their White counterparts, denoted by higher stress levels and increased paperwork requirements, caseload sizes, and daily disruptions. Further, participants in the high-demand group were more likely to report their intent to leave school counseling in the near future, which further punctuates the racial/ethnic disparities of school counselors serving pre-K–12 students in the United States (ASCA, n.d.b). Given the limited research examining the relationships between school counselors’ identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, and SES) and their caseloads, further studies may offer important insights for school counseling training, practice, and policy. For instance, researchers could consider the impact caseload sizes might have on supporting and retaining school counselors of color, especially in light of the increasingly diverse student body in today’s schools.

School-Level Factors and School Counselor Caseloads

Students from historically marginalized backgrounds, such as those who are bi/multilingual and students of color, often require more support in their academic, social/emotional, and postsecondary development; however, these students often reside in school districts with less local and state revenue (EdBuild, 2019; Education, n.d.; Institute of Education Sciences, n.d.), which can have implications on students’ access to a highly qualified school counselor. Scholars have asserted that budget constraints may prevent lawmakers from instituting more manageable caseload sizes, and that the states that do have mandated ratios have policies based on grade levels served (Savitz-Romer et al., 2023). In other words, despite research showing that students from marginalized backgrounds especially benefit from access to school counselors, these students often attend schools with the highest student-to-school-counselor ratios (Donohue et al., 2022; Gagnon & Mattingly, 2016). Furthermore, these school funding disparities (EdBuild, 2019; Education Trust, n.d.) seem to be consistent with the extant school counseling literature that underscores inequities between school counselor caseloads and student demographics such as racial/ethnic makeup and language background (Donohue et al., 2022; National Office for School and Counselor Advocacy, 2012). For instance, Donohue and colleagues’ (2022) multistate study revealed that access to school counselors was greater for White students, but less for bi/multilingual students, Asian students, and students in larger schools. Similarly, Martinez et al.’s (2013) results revealed that larger caseloads stifled school counselors’ ability to support the college choice process among Latino students.

During the 2021–2022 school year, students with individualized education programs (IEPs) and those considered economically disadvantaged were more likely to seek mental health services than other student groups (e.g., LGBTQ+ students and students in gifted and talented programs; Institute of Education Sciences [IES], n.d.). That period also saw increased percentages of students identifying as bi/multilingual and students from other marginalized racial/ethnic backgrounds seeking mental health services (IES, n.d.). Further, IES (n.d.) reported that approximately two-thirds of public schools indicated having increased mental health services provided to students since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the greater needs for mental health services among students, the top two most reported factors that influenced schools’ ability to effectively provide such services included insufficient mental health professional staff coverage to manage caseloads and inadequate access to licensed mental health professionals (IES, n.d.). This is especially troublesome because school counselors have a shared responsibility in facilitating the socioemotional and behavioral development of all students (ASCA, 2019), yet large caseloads may prevent them from supporting students most in need. Taken collectively, with the increased mental health needs among all students, these reports offer preliminary evidence suggesting that inadequate student-to-school-counselor ratios may contribute to schools’ inability to efficaciously respond to the mental health and well-being needs of students during the pandemic (Hilts & Liu, 2023). Beyond the need for further investigation regarding the relationship between school counselor caseloads and student demographics, more insights concerning potential inequities in caseload sizes and school counselor demographics may be useful.

School Counselor Caseload Sizes and Leadership Practices

School counselors’ engagement in leadership is positively associated with their emotional intelligence, involvement in school–family–community partnerships, and programmatic service delivery, including their level of comprehensive school counseling program implementation (e.g., Bryan et al., 2017; Hilts, Liu, & Luke, 2022; Shillingford & Lambie, 2010). Given that leadership is considered an integral responsibility of school counselors’ mindsets and behaviors (ASCA, 2019), scholars have begun to examine factors that predict school counselors’ engagement in leadership (Hilts, Liu, Li, & Luke, 2022). In light of the emerging body of literature that underscores the positive relationship of school counseling practice to service delivery and involvement with the school community, understanding of other factors that may contribute to school counseling leadership, such as caseload size, may provide important implications for school counseling.

Similar to the scarce literature highlighting the relationship between school counselors’ leadership practices and caseload sizes, the research examining the impact of school counselor ratios on actual practices is limited and shows mixed results (Fairchild & Zins, 1986; Foxx et al., 2022; Lewis & Borunda, 2006; Scarborough & Culbreth, 2008). For instance, in Lewis and Borunda’s (2006) retrospective account as school counselors, the researchers described the nature of their professional development, engagement, and collaborative efforts to facilitate positive change in their respective schools. They noted the challenges associated with having higher student-to-school-counselor ratios, including limits on their ability to efficiently construct and effectively deliver programs for all students. This seems to corroborate Foxx et al.'s (2022) findings, based on a sample of 144 school counselors, that lower caseload sizes predicted higher perceived abilities in school counselors to provide transition services for students with disabilities. In contrast to these findings, Scarborough and Culbreth’s (2008) results indicated that the number of students on a school counselor’s caseload was not related to the discrepancy between the actual amount of time and preferred amount of time spent on school counselor activities. In another study, Fairchild and Zins (1986) found that school counselors with larger caseloads (750+ students) were actually more likely to be involved in accountability efforts than those with smaller caseloads. Based on these limited and discrepant findings, scholars’ call for further examination of the relationship between caseload sizes and actual practices, such as the leadership practices of school counselors, is not surprising (Hilts & Liu, 2023; Scarborough & Culbreth, 2008).

School Climate and School Counselor Caseloads

A school’s climate, or how an individual affectively or cognitively perceives the behavior and attitudes of educational partners (Hoy et al., 2002), can play an important role in students’ sense of safety, level of social support, and overall academic performance throughout their K–12 experience (e.g., Daily et al., 2019; Gage et al., 2019). To this end, ASCA (2019) asserts that school counselors are responsible for cocreating a sustainable environment that is conducive to support student successes. The existing body of literature revealed student- and school-level predictors of school climate (e.g., disability status, racially homogenous schools, and resilience; Gage et al., 2019; Lenz et al., 2021). Nevertheless, we identified no research that examined the potential relationship between school counselors’ caseload sizes and their perceptions of school climate. Educators’ perceptions of school climate are associated with their own well-being, such as depressive and anxious symptoms (Hu et al., 2019; McLean et al., 2017). Researchers also have revealed the positive relationship between school counselors’ perceptions of school climate and the principal–counselor relationship, and school counselors’ efficacy, outcome expectancy, and engagement in leadership practices (Hilts, Liu, Li, & Luke, 2022; Rock et al., 2017). Given that school counselors’ workload, denoted by increased student caseload size, may influence their ability to contribute to a positive school climate, the present study aimed to better understand this potential relationship.

Purpose of the Study

Scholars have asserted that when school counselors are able to perform their roles and responsibilities effectively and reach all students equitably, they are more adequately equipped to advocate for students and respond to the unique and evolving needs of the school community (e.g., Gonzalez, 2017; Hilts, Liu, Li, & Luke, 2022); however, school counselors’ job demands can hinder their capacity to reach all students equitably (Goodman-Scott et al., 2018). Although scholars have clearly explicated the relationship between lower student-to-school-counselor ratios and student outcomes (e.g., Carey et al., 2012; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018), only limited research has examined the relationship between school counselors’ caseload sizes and school-level variables of students and school counselors (Donohue et al., 2022; McCarthy et al., 2010), and the association of caseload size with school counselor leadership practices (Foxx et al., 2022; Mullen et al., 2021; Shi & Brown, 2020). Therefore, the following research questions guided this study:

Research Question 1

Are sociocultural factors of school counselors—including their race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age—associated with school counselors’ student-to-school-counselor ratio?

Research Question 2

Are critical school-level factors—including percentage of students served with disabilities, percentage of students served who are bi/multilingual, and racial/ethnic makeup of student body and faculty body—associated with school counselors’ student-to-school-counselor ratio?

Research Question 3

Is a 250:1 student-to-school-counselor ratio associated with school counselors’ engagement in leadership practices and their perceived school climate?

Method

Participants

A nationally representative sample of 824 school counselors from various regions throughout the United States and from different school levels responded to the survey. Among them, 639 participants completed the survey in its entirety. Of the 639 participants, 31.7% (n = 237) were from the Northeast, 32.1% (n = 205) from the South, 15.5% (n = 99) from the Midwest, and 15.3% (n = 98) from the West. As to the school location type, 21.6% (n = 138) were from urban schools, 47.6% (n = 304) from suburban schools, and 30.8% (n = 197) from rural schools. The percentages of the valid participants from elementary, middle, high, and multilevel schools were 26.1% (n = 167), 19.2% (n = 123), 42.1% (n = 269), and 12.5% (n = 80), respectively.

In terms of participants’ race/ethnicity, 80.1% (n = 512) identified as White; 6.9% (n = 44) as Black or African American; 6.7% (n = 43) as Hispanic or Latina/o/x; 1.9% (n = 12) as multiracial/biracial; 0.5% (n = 3) as Indigenous, American Native, or Alaska Native; and1.3% (n = 8) as Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander; 2.6% (n = 16) did not indicate their race/ethnicity. The majority identified as cisgender female (n = 529, 82.8%), with 16.1% (n = 103) identifying as cisgender male and 0.3% (n = 2) as nonbinary, genderqueer, gender fluid, or transgender; 0.8% (n = 5) chose not to disclose their gender. In terms of age, 32.1% (n = 205) of participants reported being between 20 and 35 years old, 45.8% (n = 293) between 36 and 50, and 22.1% (n = 141) reported being over 50 years of age. The study sample was generally representative of the larger population based on a recent national study by ASCA (2021) that surveyed nearly 7000 school counselors.

Procedures

Before beginning this study, we obtained approval from the university’s institutional review board. We employed email-based survey procedures via a one-time recruitment message describing the study and a link via Qualtrics to the informed consent and questionnaire. Given the aim of having a representative sample, we employed nonprobability sampling methods (Balkin & Kleist, 2016), which entailed recruiting participants through the following means: (a) requesting that ASCA-affiliate state school counselor associations share the recruitment message with their membership; (b) contacting school counselors listed in publicly available directories provided in several state Department of Education websites; (c) posting on the ASCA SCENE’s open forum; (d) posting in closed-group Facebook pages designed specifically for school counselors; and (e) contacting ASCA members via email with an invitation to participate in the study. To determine the sample size for each research question, we conducted power analysis using G* Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007). The optimal sample sizes for Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 were 511, 634, and 448, respectively; therefore, the final sample (n = 639) was sufficient to ensure a power of .80.

Measures

School Counselor and School Demographics Survey

We constructed a demographic survey that asked participants to report information about themselves such as their race/ethnicity, age, and gender. It also asked respondents to self-report (a) their caseload size, (b) percentage of students at school identified as bi/multilingual, (c) percentage of students at school served under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, (d) racial/ethnic demographic makeup of school faculty, and (e) racial/ethnic demographic makeup of school’s student body. Each percentage-based variable was collected on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (0–15%) to 6 (> 76%). Given the study’s aim to investigate factors associated with odds of meeting ASCA’s recommended ratio, we treated caseload size as a binary measure, assigning a value of 1 for student-to-school-counselor ratio less than or equal to 250:1 and a value of 0 for student-to-school-counselor ratio greater than 250:1.

School Counselors’ Socioeconomic Status (SES)

To explore participants’ childhood and current SES, we used the Individual Differences in Perceived Resource Availability (IDPRA; Griskevicius et al., 2011) instrument. The IDPRA, consisting of two 3-item subscales, Childhood SES and Current SES, is a self-report measure that asks participants to rate each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item from the Current SES subscale is: “I don’t need to worry too much about paying my bills.” A sample item from the Childhood SES subscale is: “I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighborhood.” In the original evaluation of the measure, Cronbach’s alpha for Current SES and Childhood SES were .70 and .87, respectively, which is considered an acceptable threshold for reliability for a composite score. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for Current SES and Childhood SES were .88 and .83, respectively.

School Counseling Leadership Practices

To measure participants’ engagement in leadership, we employed the School Counseling Leadership Survey (SCLS; Young & Bryan, 2015, 2018). In this 31-item scale, participants report the extent to which they engage in the described practices or behaviors on a scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The SCLS consists of five dimensions: (a) interpersonal influence, (b) resourceful problem solving, (c) systemic collaboration, (d) social justice advocacy, and (e) professional efficacy. A sample item is: “I find resources to secure what is needed to improve services for all students.” Young and Bryan (2018) indicated the five dimensions as having Cronbach’s alpha scores ranging from .82 to .88. The present study summed the scores of all five dimensions, with higher scores suggesting a high level of engagement in leadership practice. The Cronbach’s alpha for the SCLS in the current study was .94.

School Climate

To examine participants’ perceived school climate, we used the Organizational Climate Index (OCI; Hoy et al., 2002). The OCI is a 27-item measure that asks participants to rate the extent to which statements are reflective of their school, on a scale of 1 (rarely occurs) to 4 (very frequently occurs). Hoy et al.’s (2002) OCI comprises four distinct dimensions: (a) collegial leadership, (b) professional teacher behavior, (c) achievement press, and (d) institutional vulnerability. A sample item is: “The principal puts suggestions made by faculty into operation.” In the original evaluation of the measure, the Cronbach’s alphas for each of the domains ranged from .87 to .94. In the current study, we summed the scores of all four domains, with higher scores denoting a more positive school climate; the Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was .86.

Data Analyses

We employed a correlational, cross-sectional survey design and conducted logistic regression and two independent t tests to answer the research questions. Prior to testing the research questions, we conducted data screening. Because the dataset had 0.17% missing values, and the missing pattern was not completely at random (Little's MCAR test: Chi-square = 1753.011, DF = 1645, Sig. = .032), traditional technique (e.g., pairwise deletion and listwise deletion) was not appropriate due to the violation of assumptions of MCAR pattern. Therefore, we used the expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm with maximum likelihood estimation to impute the missing values to obtain unbiased estimates of the parameters of interest (Schafer & Graham, 2002).

Sociocultural Factors of School Counselors

To answer Research Question 1 (i.e., Are sociocultural factors of school counselors—including their race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age—associated with the student-to-school-counselor ratio?), we conducted a logistic regression with a dependent variable of the status of school counselors’ student-to-school-counselor ratio and four independent variables of sociocultural factors of school counselors’ social-cultural identities, including their race/ethnicity (White vs. school counselor of color), childhood SES, current SES, and age. Following ASCA’s (2019) delineation, the dependent variable is binary: Recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio (i.e., less than or equal to 250:1) coded as 1, and non-recommended ratio (i.e., greater than 250:1) coded as 0.

School-Level Factors

To investigate Research Question 2 (i.e., Are critical school environment factors—including percentage of students served with disabilities, percentage of students served who are bi/multilingual, racial/ethnic makeup of student body and faculty body—associated with the student-to-school-counselor ratio?), we conducted a logistic regression with the same binary dependent variable of student-to-school-counselor ratio. The independent variables included four critical school environment factors: percentage of students served with disabilities, percentage of students served who are bi/multilingual, racial/ethnic makeup of student body (i.e., percentage of White students), and racial/ethnic makeup of faculty body (i.e., percentage of White faculty members).

Leadership and School Climate

Two independent t tests with the same independent variable of student-to-school-counselor ratio were used to examine Research Question 3 (i.e., Is student-to-school-counselor ratio associated with school counselors’ engagement in leadership practices and their perceived school climate?). One t test’s dependent variable was school counselors’ leadership practices, and the other t test’s dependent variable was school counselors’ perceived school climate.

Results

Sociocultural Factors of School Counselors

The subsample size was 236 (37%) for the recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio group and 403 (63%) for non-recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio group. Among the four independent variables of Research Question 1, age and race/ethnicity were collected as ordinal variables: 32.1% (n = 205) of participants reported being between the ages of 20 and 35, 45.8% (n = 293) between 36 and 50, and 22.1% (n = 141) reported being over 50 years of age. The association between age and the status of the student-to-school-counselor ratio was not statistically significant. Similarly, neither school counselors’ childhood SES (M = 3.857, SD = 1.499) nor current SES (M = 5.031, SD = 1.389) had significant association with the student-to-school-counselor ratio.

The results showed that only race/ethnicity (White vs. school counselor of color) had statistically significant association with the status of the student-to-school-counselor ratio. The estimated value of exp(b_white) was 1.798 (p < .05), which indicated that the odds of having the ASCA recommended ratio for White school counselors was 1.798 times of the odds of such a ratio for school counselors of color, holding school counselors’ childhood SES, current SES, and age constant (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Variables in the Equation for Research Question 1.

	B	SE	Wald	df	Sig.	exp(b)	95% CI for exp(b)
	B	SE	Wald	df	Sig.	exp(b)	Lower	Upper
Childhood SES	–.039	.058	.459	1	.498	.961	.858	1.077
Current SES	–.041	.061	.441	1	.507	.960	.851	1.083
Age	–.020	.040	.245	1	.621	.980	.906	1.061
White	.587	.234	6.307	1	.012	1.798	1.137	2.842
Constant	–.558	.420	1.769	1	.184	.572

We calculated a Homer–Lemeshow test to examine the goodness of fit of the logistic model against actual outcomes. The test yielded a χ² (8) = 0.701 and was not significant (p > .05), suggesting the data provided adequate overall fit of the model.

School-Level Factors

The dependent variable of Research Question 2 was also the status of the student-to-school-counselor ratio: 236 (37%) in the recommended ratio group, and 403 (63%) in the non-recommended ratio group. All four independent variables in the logistic regression equation were statistically significant (see Table 2), indicating significant positive associations between student-to-school-counselor ratio and percentage of students served with disabilities (M = 1.960, SD = 1.017) and percentage of White students (M = 3.340, SD = 1.531), and significant negative association between student-to-school-counselor ratio and percentage of students served who are bi/multilingual (M = 1.620, SD = 1.204) and percentage of White faculty members (M = 4.140, SD = 1.168). An increase of one unit of students served with disabilities was associated with an increase of 43% in the odds of having the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio; an increase of one unit of White students was associated with an increase of 18.5% in the odds of having the ASCA recommended ratio. But an increase of one unit of students served who are bi/multilingual was associated with a decrease of 14.8% in the odds of having the ASCA recommended ratio; and an increase of one unit of White faculty members was associated with a decrease of 19.7% in the odds of having the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio.

Table 2.

Variables in the Equation for Research Question 2.

	B	SE	Wald	df	Sig.	exp(b)	95% CI for exp(b)
	B	SE	Wald	df	Sig.	exp(b)	Lower	Upper
IDEA	.358	.086	17.441	1	.000	1.430	1.209	1.692
Bi/multilingual students	–.160	.080	3.949	1	.047	.852	.728	.998
White students	.169	.071	5.628	1	.018	1.185	1.030	1.363
White staff	.219	.089	6.039	1	.014	.803	.674	.957
Constant	-.656	.401	2.685	1	.101	.519

A Homer–Lemeshow test yielded a χ² (7) = 11.099 and was not significant (p > .05), suggesting the data provided adequate overall fit of the model.

Leadership and School Climate

The results indicated a statistically significant difference in school counselors’ leadership practices between the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio (M = 5.471, SD = .672) and non-recommended ratios (M = 5.587, SD = .674), with t(637) = -2.113 and p = .035; however, such significant difference was not found in school counselors’ perceived school climate, t (637) = -1.174 and p = .241 (see Table 3 and Table 4).

Table 3.

Groups Statistics.

	Student-to-school-counselor ratio	N	M	SD	Standard error mean
Leadership practices	Recommended	236	5.471	.673	.0438
Leadership practices	Non-recommended	403	5.587	.674	.0336
Perceived school climate	Recommended	236	2.744	.357	.0232
Perceived school climate	Non-recommended	403	2.781	.399	.0199

Table 4.

Results of t Tests for Equality of Means.

	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean difference	Standard error difference	95% CI of the difference
	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean difference	Standard error difference	Lower	Upper
Leadership practices	-2.113	637	.035	-.117	.0552	-.225	-.008
Perceived school climate	-1.174	637	.241	-.0369	.0315	-.099	.0249

Discussion

This study sought to investigate the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio (i.e., less than or equal to 250:1) as both a dependent and an independent variable. Specifically, we investigated the relationships between school counselors’ sociocultural identities (i.e., race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age) and their likelihood of having the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio. We then examined the associations between several critical school-level factors (i.e., percentages of students with disabilities, bi/multilingual students, White students, and White faculty within the school building) and the likelihood that school counselors had the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio of less than or equal to 250:1.

The extant school counseling literature offers mixed evidence that generally supports the positive impact of lower student-to-school-counselor ratios on student academic and academic-related outcomes (e.g., Brown & Knight, 2023; Carey et al., 2012; Donohue et al., 2022; Kearney et al., 2021; Lapan et al., 2012). Notwithstanding, less than 18% of school districts nationwide have reached the ASCA recommended ratio (Gagnon & Mattingly, 2016), and the national average of school counselor caseloads is far above the recommended ratio (ASCA, n.d.b). Thus, critically examining what factors may impede school counselors meeting the recommended ratio is imperative. To this end, our investigation of student-to-school-counselor ratio as an outcome variable (RQs 1 and 2) shed light on school counselor- and school-level factors related to achieving an ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio of less than or equal to 250:1. In considering this ratio as an independent variable (RQ3) per se, this study also expands the literature to illuminate how caseloads may be related to school counselors’ leadership practices (Bardhoshi et al., 2022; Mullen et al., 2021).

School Counselors’ Racial/Ethnic Identity

Information is lacking surrounding relationships between school counselors’ sociocultural identities and their caseloads and practice outcomes. This study found that the odds of having the ASCA recommended ratio of 250:1 for White school counselors was close to twice the odds for school counselors of color, while holding constant their childhood and current SES and age. We consider this finding powerful and troubling. We identified no research that investigated the relationship between school counselors’ race and ethnicities and their caseload sizes; however, paralleling our examination of race/ethnicity and school counselor workloads, McCarthy et al.’s (2010) results suggested that school counselors of color encountered more demands than their White colleagues. For example, school counselors of color tended to be sought out more by parents with children from diverse backgrounds; they were also expected to serve as representatives of their racial/cultural groups on different committees. These results suggested that even in the same school buildings, school counselors of color may encounter unequitable distribution of workloads compared to their White colleagues. Likewise, Savitz-Romer and Nicola (2022) illustrated the concept of school counselor equity, which captures access to school counselors across students and communities. Despite the wide acknowledgment of school counselors’ roles in closing achievement gaps, researchers have noted that schools and districts with lower SES and fewer resources tend to have higher student-to-school-counselor ratios (Education Trust, n.d.; Mulhern, 2020; Savitz-Romer & Nicola, 2022). Our speculation is that school counselors of color in the present study may be more likely to work in schools with higher demands and fewer resources, serving larger caseloads.

School-Level Factors

We investigated four school-level variables in relation to school counselors’ odds of having the recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio of 250:1: percentage of students with disabilities, percentage of bi/multilingual students, racial/ethnic composition of students, and racial/ethnic makeup of faculty. The logistic regression results suggested that higher percentages of students with disabilities and White students were associated with higher likelihood of school counselors meeting the recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio. In contrast, higher percentages of bi/multilingual students and higher numbers of White faculty were found to be related to lower odds of achieving the recommended ratio.

Our result regarding White student composition being associated with higher likelihood of meeting the ASCA recommended ratio was consistent with previous research (e.g., Donohue et al., 2022; Savitz-Romer & Nicola, 2022). The result indicated that schools with higher percentage of White students may be associated with overall higher family socioeconomic statuses and ample resources within the schools; the economic advantage can enable the schools to hire more school counselors, which may lead to smaller student-to-school-counselor ratios. Although school counseling services are considered particularly valuable for marginalized students—including students of color, those who live in poverty, and first-generation students—those students tend to experience more difficulty in accessing school counselors (Gagnon & Mattingly, 2016; Savitz-Romer & Nicola, 2022). On a similar note, Black and Latinx students were noted to be 1.2 and 1.4 times more likely than their White peers to attend schools with preference for hiring law enforcement officers rather than school counselors (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2016). National statistics like these manifest disparities in students’ access to comprehensive school counseling programs, constituting school counselor inequity.

Similarly, a higher percentage of students with disabilities in a school’s population was found to be related to higher odds of meeting the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio. An abundance of conceptual knowledge underscores the pivotal role of school counseling services on the learning and development of students with disabilities (e.g., ASCA, 2019; Milsom, 2002); however, little empirical evidence is available regarding the association between school counselor caseloads and their practice of serving students with disabilities. In a recent study, Foxx and colleagues (2022) found that higher caseload sizes predicted lower perceived abilities in school counselors to provide transition practices for students with disabilities. The present study’s result offers support for the existing body of literature that suggests schools have increased efforts to ensure access to school counselors in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. Over the past few decades, federal laws and legislatures (e.g., Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) have been enforced to ensure rights for students with disabilities to receive equitable education and participation in educational programs. School counselors, as an integral part of the education system, have been charged with providing intentional curriculum and services for students with disabilities through clearly delineated roles in student support teams involving students’ 504 and IEP plans (e.g., Hall, 2015; Milsom, 2002). That said, mandatory policies coupled with multilevel supports, which the current study did not examine, may have cultivated a more manageable ratio.

The study’s finding of a negative association between percentage of bi/multilingual students and school counselors’ odds of meeting the recommended ratio was troublesome and deserves critical attention. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2022), higher percentage of bi/multilingual students was associated with more urbanized locales; moreover, Spanish-speaking students accounted for over 75% of the total number of bi/multilingual students. The statistics seem to echo this study’s finding that caseloads comprising predominately White students appeared related to higher odds of meeting the recommended ratio. Similar to our prior interpretation, we speculate that this result is likely linked to the shortage of school counselors and high demands in urban schools with considerably larger numbers of students of color and bi/multilingual students.

Higher percentage of White faculty was found to be associated with lower odds of reaching the recommended ratio. This result seemed to suggest that racial/ethnic identities of school personnel (other than school counselors) was not a contributing factor in school counselors’ large caseload sizes. Relatedly, this result may be associated with the lack of school personnel racial diversity in schools. Despite the significance this study found about school counselors’ own racial/ethnic identities, approximately 80% of teachers in U.S. public schools identified as non-Hispanic White, while only 47% of all US public school students reported being White (Pew Research Center, 2021).

Leadership Practices and School Counselor Caseloads

Our study yielded a small but statistically significant difference in school counselors’ leadership practices between the recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio and non-recommended ratio groups. Namely, school counselors who reported having ratios higher than 250:1 scored higher in their leadership practices. This finding was inconsistent with some previous studies (e.g., Foxx et al., 2022; Lewis & Borunda, 2006). For example, Foxx et al.’s (2022) results indicated that lower student-to-school-counselor ratios were associated with school counselors’ abilities to provide transition services for students with disabilities. According to Bridgeland and Bruce’s (2011) national survey, school counselors with larger caseloads reported less time allocated for prevention activities, including leadership practices, due to resource constraints; school counselors with lower caseloads were more likely to have more resources and administrative support for program-level management and delivery. On the contrary, this study’s results seemed to corroborate Fairchild and Zins’s (1986) result that school counselors with larger caseload sizes were more likely to be involved in accountability efforts. Leadership makes up one of the four central themes of the ASCA National Model, which requires school counselors to be actively involved in team efforts such as coordination, consultation, and collaboration (ASCA, 2019). As consistently supported by the literature, larger caseloads pose challenges for school counselors to perform school counseling activities (e.g., individual and group counseling; Lewis & Borunda, 2006). As such, school counselors may shift to focus on proactive efforts and deliver program and services that entail collaboration with other constituent stakeholders to ensure that all students benefit from the comprehensive school counseling programs.

Implications

A burgeoning body of scholarship has provided insights into the vital role of caseloads on school counselors’ well-being and student outcomes (e.g., Carey et al., 2012; Donohue et al., 2022; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018; Kearney et al., 2021). This study provides multifaceted implications that may require school counselors’ and administrators’ critical awareness and argue for potential structural/policy changes in schools and beyond.

First, the results regarding White student percentage, school counselors’ racial/ethnic identity, and bi/multilingual student percentage seemed to illustrate inequitable access to school counselors across student groups and schools. Although we examined the school counselor and school-level factors separately in relation to the odds of meeting the ASCA recommended ratio, examining these results from an intersectionality lens may make more sense. For instance, larger percentages of school counselors of color, students of color, and bi/multilingual students all seemed to be linked to schools in more urban locales, with lower SES and fewer resources. We see potential to advocate for school counseling-specific resources (e.g., increased positions and intentional school counseling programs) in schools and districts featuring high ratios of students and school counselors of color in urban settings. For example, although various funding opportunities exist that aim to enhance learning among underrepresented students, few are targeted for delivery of comprehensive school counseling programs. Researchers have underscored discrepancy between the fast evolvement of the school counseling profession (as evidenced through the up-to-date ASCA National Model and relevant standards) and the lag of the school systems and broader ecological systems (Savitz-Romer & Nicola, 2022). Per ASCA (n.d.b), roughly 40% of the states require school counseling services to be available to all students, and only 16 states document a caseload policy (mostly above the recommended ratio). ASCA (2019) provides clear delineation of appropriate school counselor roles, responsibilities, and standards; however, school counselors may continue to struggle with advocating for themselves and for the profession due to the systemic lagging of understanding, resources, and supports. School counseling practitioners and training programs may benefit from advocacy guidelines by professional organizations such as ASCA.

In line with advocacy, this study suggests that bi/multilingual students may risk lower odds of accessing school counseling services. More than five million students in public schools identified as bi/multilingual in 2019 (NCES, 2022). In particular, the percentages of bi/multilingual students increased significantly from 2010 to 2019 for 42 states; 12 of the states had more than 10% of bi/multilingual representation (NCES, 2022). In parallel with mandates supporting students with disabilities, legislation such as No Child Left Behind and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ensured bilingual education funding and supports for bi/multilingual students (Perez & Morrison, 2016). Nevertheless, these regulations feature a heavy emphasis on helping students meet academic assessment benchmarks, and accountability indicators seem to primarily fall within instructional aspects. National statistics further demonstrate trajectories as bi/multilingual students move from elementary to middle to high schools, featuring 15% of bi/multilingual students in kindergarten, less than 8% in eighth grade, then less than 6% in 12th grade (NCES, 2022). The trajectories may indicate high dropout levels among bi/multilingual students, which could be attributed to both individual and systemic barriers. Receiving support is critical for these students at all academic, career/college, and social/emotional levels. For instance, school counselors may advocate for the students to receive language training support and opportunities to enroll in advanced classes when ready (Perez & Morrison, 2016). Similar to operationalization of school counselor roles in support of students with disabilities (e.g., roles in the 504 and IEP teams), we recommend that school counselors (and ASCA) offer clarity on capacity of programs/services for bi/multilingual students; likewise, desirable changes include structural-level support to add school counselor access and intentional programs to support these students.

Last, the recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio of 250:1 was originally proposed in 1965, now more than 50 years ago. Since this time, various ecological factors have emerged (e.g., COVID-19 and racial unrest) that have changed the landscape of school counseling and needs of pre-K–12 students in the 21st century. This seems to beget the question of whether the ASCA recommended ratio is antiquated or still applicable to meet the needs of today’s students, especially considering that the type and amount of support may vary greatly from district to district. Future research could examine optimal caseload size across school- and student-level factors.

Limitations

We note several limitations regarding the current study. First, the study design is cross-sectional in nature and all measures were self-report, which may have introduced bias in participant responses. Second, participants were asked to report the extent to which they agreed that the racial/ethnic demographic makeup for their school’s student body and the school’s faculty were predominately White; this provides limited insight into other racial/ethnic groups that may inhabit schools in which participants worked. Likewise, given the concentration on the monocultural influence of student and school counselor demographic variables rather than intersectionality of identities, this study provides a mere snapshot rather than a more complex understanding of the ways in which inequities in caseload size interacts with the identities of both students and school personnel. Another potential issue is that caseload size was measured dichotomously (i.e., ≤ 250:1 ratio vs. > 250:1 ratio); this may limit our understanding of possible nuances within and outside these ranges. Consideration may also be given to potential discrepancies between the appropriateness of responsibilities and roles assumed by school counselors in their respective schools (Hilts et al., 2019, 2022), and that caseload sizes may not equate with increased quantity and quality of services delivered to students. Last, other unobserved or extraneous variables may have influenced the study results, such as school funding and counseling mandates (Kratsa et al., in press; Savitz-Romer et al., 2023). Given these limitations, any conclusions drawn about the relationships between school counselor caseload and variables examined in the present study should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

This study investigated the relationships between school counselors’ sociocultural factors (i.e., race/ethnicity, SES, and age) and school-level factors (i.e., percentage of students with disabilities; percentage of bi/multilingual students; racial/ethnic makeup of students and faculty). School counselors who reported as White and those serving higher percentages of White students and students with disabilities were associated with higher odds of meeting the ASCA recommended student-to-school-counselor ratio of 250:1. In contrast, higher percentages of bi/multilingual students and White faculty composition were associated with school counselors’ lower odds of meeting the recommended ratio. We discussed implications of these results and recommended advocacy at various levels.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the New York State School Counselor Association.

ORCID iDs

Derron Hilts

Yanhong Liu

Author Biographies

Derron Hilts, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and school counseling program coordinator at Niagara University in Niagara University, NY. Email: dhilts@niagara.edu

Yanhong Liu, Ph.D., is an associated professor and doctoral program coordinator with Syracuse University in Syracuse, NY.

Xiuyan Guo, Ph.D., is a psychometrician at Pearson VUE in Bloomington, MN.

References

American School Counselor Association . (n.d.a). National student to school counselor ratio 1986-2020. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/6fee3243-2d8b-4efa-82e5-4f7b01049e7c/National-Ratios-1986-2021.pdf

American School Counselor Association . (n.d.b). Student-to-school-counselor ratio 2021–2022. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/b9d453e7-7c45-4ef7-bf90-16f1f3cbab94/Ratios-21-22-Alpha.pdf

American School Counselor Association (2019). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).

American School Counselor Association (2021). ASCA research report: State of the profession 2020. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/bb23299b-678d-4bce-8863-cfcb55f7df87/2020-State-of-the-Profession.pdf

American School Counselor Association (n.d.c). Member demographics. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/9c1d81ab-2484-4615-9dd7-d788a241beaf/member-demographics.pdf

Balkin

R. S.

Kleist

D. M.

(2016). Counseling research: A practitioner-scholar approach. American Counseling Association.

Bardhoshi

Niles

Han

Brown

(2022). Novice school counselors’ burnout profiles and professional experiences: A mixed-methods study. Professional School Counseling, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221126686

Bridgeland

Bruce

(2011). 2011 national survey of school counselors: Counseling at a crossroads. The College Board Advocacy and Policy Center.

Brown

C. H.

Knight

(2023). Staffing schools to support the classroom: Examining student-to-school-counselor ratios and academic student outcomes in Texas. Professional School Counseling, 27(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X231165497

10.

Bryan

J. A.

Young

Griffin

Holcomb-McCoy

(2017). Leadership practices linked to involvement in school–family–community partnerships: A national study. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18761897

11.

Carey

Harrington

Martin

Hoffman

(2012). A statewide evaluation of the outcomes of the implementation of asca national model school counseling programs in rural and suburban Nebraska high schools. Professional School Counseling, 16(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001600202

12.

Daily

S. M.

Mann

M. J.

Kristjansson

A. L.

Smith

M. L.

Zullig

K. J.

(2019). School climate and academic achievement in middle and high school students. The Journal of school health, 89(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12726

13.

Dollarhide

C. T.

Bowen

N. V.

Baker

C. A.

Kassoy

F. R.

Mayes

R. D.

Baughman

A. V.

(2013). Exploring the work experiences of school counselors of color. Professional School Counseling, 17(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.5330/psc.n.2013-17.52

14.

Donohue

Parzych

J. L.

Chiu

M. M.

Goldberg

Nguyen

(2022). The impacts of school counselor ratios on student outcomes: A multistate study. Professional School Counseling, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221137283

15.

EdBuild (2019). $23 billion. https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion

16.

Education , (n.d.). Trust. The state of funding equity data tool. https://stateofeducationfunding.org

17.

Fairchild

T. N.

Zins

J. E.

(1986). Accountability practices of school counselors: A national survey. Journal of Counseling & Development, 65(4), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01313.x

18.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

19.

Foxx

Saunders

Test

D. W.

Flowers

(2022). School counselors’ perceptions regarding importance of and ability to implement transition services for students with disabilities. Professional School Counseling, 26(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221090524

20.

Gage

N. A.

Kaplan

Ellis

Kramer

(2019). Student- and school-level predictors of high school students’ perceptions of school climate: Implications for school counselors. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 5(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/23727810.2019.1670511

21.

Gagnon

Mattingly

M. J.

(2016). Most US school districts have low access to school counselors: Poor, diverse, and city school districts exhibit particularly high student-to- counselor ratios. National issue Brief No. 106). The Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire. https://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/286/

22.

Goodman-Scott

Sink

C. A.

Cholewa

B. E.

Burgess

(2018). An ecological view of school counselor ratios and student academic outcomes: A national investigation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 96(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12221

23.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Delton

A. W.

Robertson

T. E.

(2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022403

24.

Hall

(2015). The school counselor and special education: Aligning training with practice. The Professional Counselor, 5(2), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.15241/jgh.5.2.217

25.

Hilts

Kratsa

Joseph

Kolbert

J. B.

Crothers

L. M.

Nice

M. L.

(2019). School counselors’ perceptions of barriers to implementing a RAMP-designated school counseling program. Professional School Counseling, 23(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X19882646

26.

Hilts

Liu

(2023). School counselors’ perceived school climate, leadership practice, psychological empowerment, and multicultural competence before and during COVID-19. Journal of Counseling and Development, 101(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12464

27.

Hilts

Liu

Luke

(2022). Examining ecological factors that predict school counselors’ engagement in leadership practices. Professional School Counseling, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221118042

28.

Hilts

Liu

Luke

(2022). School counselors’ emotional intelligence and comprehensive school counseling program implementation: The mediating role of transformational leadership. The Professional Counselor, 12(3), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.15241/dh.12.3.232

29.

Hoy

W. K.

Smith

P. A.

Sweetland

S. R.

(2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2002.0023

30.

B. Y.

Wang

Reynolds

B. L.

Wang

(2019). The relation between school climate and preschool teacher stress: The mediating role of teachers’ self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 748–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2018-0146

31.

Institute of Education Sciences . (n.d.). School pulse panel. https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/spp/

32.

Kearney

Akos

Domina

Young

(2021). Student-to-school counselor ratios: A meta-analytic review of the evidence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99(4), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12394

33.

Kratsa

Hilts

Kolbert

Joseph

Nice

Crothers

(in press). Ecological barriers to comprehensive school counseling program implementation. School-Based Counseling Policy and Evaluation.

34.

Lapan

R. T.

Gysbers

N. C.

Stanley

Pierce

M. E.

(2012). Missouri professional school counselors: Ratios matter, especially in high-poverty schools. Professional School Counseling, 16(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001600207

35.

Lenz

A. S.

Bledsoe

K. G.

Placeres

(2021). Positive psychology characteristics as predictors of school climate among Hispanic/Latinx students. Professional School Counseling, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X211018659

36.

Lewis

R. E.

Borunda

(2006). Lived stories: Participatory leadership in school counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84(4), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00424.x

37.

Martinez

M. A.

Cortez

L. J.

Saenz

V. B.

(2013). Latino parents’ perceptions of the role of schools in college readiness. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12(2), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2012.745402

38.

Maru

(2017). Advocacy for and with LGBT students: An examination of high school counselor experiences. Professional School Counseling, 20(1a), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1a.38

39.

McCarthy

Van Horn Kerne

Calfa

N. A.

Lambert

R. G.

Guzman

(2010). An exploration of school counselors’ demands and resources: Relationship to stress, biographic, and caseload characteristics. Professional School Counseling, 13(3), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001300302

40.

McLean

Abry

Taylor

Jimenez

Granger

(2017). Teachers’ mental health and perceptions of school climate across the transition from training to teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.018

41.

McMahon

H. G.

Mason

E. C. M.

Daluga-Guenther

Ruiz

(2014). An ecological model of professional school counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92(4), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00172.x

42.

Milsom

(2002). Students with disabilities: School counselor involvement and preparation. Professional School Counseling, 5(5), 331–338.

43.

Mulhern

(2020). Better school counselors, better outcomes. Education Next, 20(3). https://www.educationnext.org/better-school-counselors-better-outcomes-quality-varies-can-matter-as-much-as-with-teachers/

44.

Mullen

P. R.

Chae

Backer

Niles

(2021). School counselor burnout, job stress, and job satisfaction by student caseload. NASSP Bulletin, 105(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636521999828

45.

National Center for Education Statistics (2022). English learners in public schools. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners

46.

National Office for SchoolAdvocacy, C. (2012). The College Board 2012 national survey of school counselors and administrators: Report on survey findings: Barriers and supports to school counselor success. https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/nosca/Barriers-Supports_TechReport_Final.pdf

47.

Perez

Morrison

S. S.

(2016). Understanding the challenges of English language learners and increasing college-going culture: Suggestions for school counselors. VISTAS Online, 18, 1–12. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/article_81_2016.pdf?sfvrsn=abe2482c_4

48.

Pew Research Center (2021). America’s public school teachers are far less racially and ethnically diverse than their students. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/12/10/americas-public-school-teachers-are-far-less-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-than-their-students

49.

Reback

(2010). Noninstructional spending improves noncognitive outcomes: Discontinuity evidence from a unique elementary school counselor financing system. Education Finance and Policy, 5(2), 105–137. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2010.5.2.5201

50.

Rock

W. D.

Remley

T. P.

Range

L. M.

(2017). Principal-counselor collaboration and school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 101(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636517698037

51.

Savitz-Romer

Nicola

T. P.

(2022). An ecological examination of school counseling equity. The Urban Review, 54(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-021-00618-x

52.

Savitz-Romer

Nicola

T. P.

Rowan-Kenyon

H. T.

Carroll

(2023). A landscape analysis of state-level school counseling policy: Perspectives from state officials. Educational Policy, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048231163803

53.

Savitz-Romer

Rowan-Kenyon

H. T.

Nicola

T. P.

Alexander

Carroll

(2021). When the kids are not alright: School counseling in the time of COVID-19. Aera Open, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211033600

54.

Scarborough

J. L.

Culbreth

J. R.

(2008). Examining discrepancies between actual and preferred practice of school counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86(4), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00533.x

55.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147

56.

Shi

Brown

M. H.

(2020). School counselors’ impact on school-level academic outcomes: Caseload and use of time. Professional School Counseling, 23(1_part_3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X20904489

57.

Shillingford

M. A.

Lambie

G. W.

(2010). Contribution of professional school counselors’ values and leadership practices to their programmatic service delivery. Professional School Counseling, 13(4), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001300401

58.

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2016). A first look: Key data highlights on equity and opportunity gaps in our nation’s public schools. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf

59.

Young

Bryan

(2015). The school counselor leadership survey: Instrument development and exploratory factor analysis. Professional School Counseling, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.1

60.

Young

Bryan

(2018). The school counselor leadership survey: Confirmatory factor analysis and validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 51(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2018.1435190