School Counselor Leadership and Program Implementation Revisited: Findings From a National Sample

School Counselor Leadership

A considerable amount of literature has been published on school counselor leadership. These studies strengthen the importance of leadership to school counselors' professional identity and the implementation of a comprehensive school counseling program (Dollarhide et al., 2008). Furthermore, the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019) provides a framework for counselors to better understand their role, purpose, and goals as they relate to professional identity and implementing a comprehensive school counseling program (Chandler et al., 2018; Mason, 2010; Mason et al., 2013; Peters et al., 2018; Young et al., 2013).

To support school counselors' development as leaders, researchers have explored various leadership frameworks. Mason et al. (2013) emphasized that the school counselor’s identity as change agent, via the Change Agent for Equity (CAFE) model, is essential to a comprehensive school counseling program and implementation outcomes. If school counselors center their professional identity around being change agents, they can “aim to create change and address equity issues on multiple levels” (Mason et al., 2013, p. 8). Shields et al. (2017) and Young et al. (2013) also explored leadership frameworks that expand upon the ASCA components and social justice framework. Shields et al. (2017) studied the value of transformative leadership in school counseling and presented eight tenets that make up transformative leadership, which “extends the ASCA National Model in ways that explicitly focus on equity, inclusion, and social justice” (Shields et al., 2017, p. 13). Young et al. (2013) developed a leadership framework, implementing a collaborative framework to strengthen school counselor leadership and leadership development through professional learning communities. Taking a different approach from Shields et al. (2017), Young et al. (2013), and Mason et al. (2013), Peters et al. (2018) underlined a leadership framework that did not expand on the ASCA National Model. Instead, the authors contextualized counselor leadership principles to school counselor leadership by applying Chi Sigma Iota’s Principles and Practices of Leadership Excellence to school counseling (Peters et al., 2018).

These leadership investigations found that most leadership paradigms strongly align with the ASCA National Model and its components. As Strear et al. (2018) stated, “School counselor leadership is necessary for establishing more equitable, accessible, and emancipatory educational environments” (p. 2). The evidence reviewed suggested a pertinent relationship among school counselor leadership, the ASCA National Model, comprehensive school counseling programs, outcomes, and potentially other variables (i.e., age, experience, and setting).

Comprehensive Program Implementation

Procedure and Participants

Once we received institutional review board approval, we used Qualtrics to distribute an initial email to 34,759 ASCA members who were K–12^th-grade school counselors, explaining the purpose of the study and providing a link to the informed consent and survey. Two weeks after sending the initial email, we sent a follow-up email with the link to the online survey to all participants who did not complete the survey following the initial email. After 5 weeks, we sent a final email to any remaining non-respondents. The link to the online survey was closed 2 months after it opened.

We collected data from practicing school counselors at all school levels in the United States, with representation from all 50 states. Participants were given the option of not responding to any question they did not want to answer. To obtain demographic data, we asked a series of questions at the beginning of the electronic survey the participants received. A total of 34,759 school counselors were contacted to complete the survey, and 2481 responded (7.14% response rate). Of the 2481 respondents, 1255 were not included in the data analysis as a result of the data cleaning process. The age of participants ranged from 26 years to 78 years with a mean of 47.06 years (SD = 9.87). Of the sample, 86.5% (n = 1053) identified as female, 13.3% (n = 162) identified as male, and 0.2% (n = 3) identified as other (e.g., transgender and nonbinary). The majority of participants identified as White (79.2%, n = 904), followed by Black or African American (11.4%, n = 130), Hispanic or Latinx (4.4%, n = 50), multiracial (1.4%, n = 16), Asian (1.1%, n = 13), other (1.1%, n = 14), Native American (0.9%, n = 10), and Pacific Islander (0.4%, n = 4). Most of the sample (80.3%, n = 984) were ASCA members, although far fewer reported being members of their state school counseling associations (49.6%, n = 608). Only 15.6% (n = 191) were members of American Counseling Association. Participants represented mostly high school level (35.4%, n = 405), followed by elementary (27.9%, n = 319), middle (22.6%, n = 259), K–12 (11.1%, n = 127), and other (e.g., alternative, specialty settings; 3.0%, n = 34). Most of the sample (76.9%, n = 880) reported having more than 250 students on their caseload. Regarding professional training, 84.8% of participants (n = 864) reported that they graduated from a CACREP-accredited graduate program, 90.4% (n = 1013) reported having participated in training about the ASCA National Model, and 19.3% (n = 215) reported having experience working in a RAMP school counseling program. Finally, participants reported their accumulated years of experience serving as a school counselor: 16 participants (1.7%) reported 0–2 years of service, 353 participants (38.4%) reported 3–10 years of experience, 382 (41.6%) reported 11–20 years of service, and 168 (18.3%) reported more than 21 years of service. The average years of service for the entire sample was 13.70 years. Bivariate correlations for all study variables and descriptive statistics can be found in Tables 1 and 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations Between Leadership Practices and Demographic Variables.

Variable	MTW	ISV	CTP	EOA	ETH	IPI	SYC	RPS	PEF	SJA	SCTL	Age	Gen.	Case-load	CACREP	ASCA Nat’l Model	RAMP
ISV	.78**
CTP	.73**	.81**
EOA	.67**	.65**	.65**
ETH	.70**	.68**	.63**	.64**
IPI	.42**	.40**	.43**	.42**	.42**
SYC	.36**	.41**	.46**	.37**	.35**	.65**
RPS	.42**	.45**	.53**	.41**	.37**	.77**	.73**
PEF	.41**	.42**	.47**	.36**	.36**	.69**	.75**	.74**
SJA	.36**	.39**	.42**	.37**	.34**	.70**	.60**	.70**	.59**
SCTL	.54**	.59**	.61**	.49**	.49**	.45**	.55**	.48**	.49**	.43**
Age	.15**	.11**	.12**	.14**	.15**	.13**	.03	.13**	.06*	.12**	.07*
Gender	−.01	.00	.01	.00	.05	.06*	.01	.02	−.01	.05	−.01	.07*
Caseload	−.02	−.03	−.02	−.02	.00	.01	−.01	.01	.00	−.02	−.04	−.01	.00
CACREP	.03	−.01	−.01	.01	.01	−.02	−.02	−.01	−.04	.02	−.03	.01	.03	.09**
ASCA Nat’l Model	.09**	.06*	.07*	.06	.04	.05	.09**	.09**	.09**	.04	.10**	−.01	−.06*	.00	.06
RAMP	.08*	.09**	.13**	.05	.05	.05	.08**	.11**	.09**	.03	.19**	−01	−.04	−.05	−.03	.09**
Years of school counseling experience	.07*	.07*	.06	.06	.02	.07*	.05	.05	.04	.02	.06	.02	.02	.00	.01	.00	−.01

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Variable	N	Min	Max	M	SD
MTW	1164	4.67	10.00	8.58	0.92
ISV	1149	1.50	10.00	8.09	1.30
CTP	1152	3.83	10.00	8.30	1.07
EOA	1160	5.33	10.00	8.96	0.73
ETH	1160	4.17	10.00	8.57	1.10
IPI	1196	4.22	7.00	6.09	0.54
SYC	1206	2.33	7.00	6.11	0.89
RPS	1201	3.44	7.00	5.74	0.61
PEF	1214	3.20	7.00	5.87	0.79
SJA	1214	3.00	7.00	5.99	0.76
SCTL	1163	25.00	75.00	56.30	10.66

Measures

Data Cleaning

In an initial review of the raw data, we determined that simple deletion methods (e.g., listwise, stepwise) were too severe and would result in the loss of too much data. Therefore, we employed more complex data cleaning procedures in several phases. The preliminary sample of participants was N = 2481. We first used longstring analysis in STATA to identify univariate and multivariate outliers, those participants who repeatedly marked the same response for multiple items (Curran, 2016). This step resulted in deleting 498 cases. After calculating Mahalanobis’ distance in SPSS, we further eliminated 757 incomplete cases. Finally, we used MPlus to run full information maximum likelihood (FIML) to generate estimates and address missing data (Enders, 2010). The final sample was N = 1226, or 49% of the original sample.

Research Question 1

The focus of Research Question 1 was to determine if a relationship existed between specific demographic variables, such as age, gender, experience, professional training, and school setting, and comprehensive school counseling program implementation. Linear regression analyses suggested that age (β = .02, n.s.), gender (β = -.01, n.s), years of experience serving as a school counselor (β = .03, n.s.), and student caseload (β = −.04, n.s.) did not predict comprehensive school counselor program implementation. Regarding professional training, attending a CACREP-accredited graduate program did not predict comprehensive school counselor program implementation (β = .03, n.s.). However, receiving training on the ASCA National Model (β = .14, p < .01) and working within a RAMP program (β = .28, p < .01) were positively related to comprehensive school counselor program implementation.

Research Question 2

The focus of Research Question 2 was to identify any relationship between school counselor leadership behaviors and comprehensive school counseling program implementation when controlling for demographic variables. Specifically, did higher scores for school counselor leadership relate to more fully implemented comprehensive school counseling programs? Following Mason (2008), we included pertinent demographic variables as controls in a simultaneous multiple regression analysis with each leadership behavior: school counselor age, years of experience as a school counselor, gender, student caseload, attending a CACREP-accredited graduate program, having received training on the ASCA National Model, and RAMP status. Accordingly, our regression equation sought to predict program implementation (i.e., dependent variable) by considering school counselor leadership behavior (e.g., MTW, ISV) as the independent variable and demographic variables as control variables.

Leadership Practices Inventory

As depicted in Table 3, each of the five leadership practices predicted comprehensive school counseling program implementation when accounting for school counselor demographic variables. Specifically, the five LPI practices independently predicted 17%–23% of the variance in comprehensive school counseling program implementation, with MTW accounting for the most variance (23%) and ETH accounting for the least (17%). Standardized beta weights ranged from .26 to .36 across the five practices, suggesting that greater usage of leadership behavior led to increased program implementation. Two demographic variables, exposure to the ASCA National Model and RAMP, were the only demographic predictors of comprehensive school counseling program implementation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Summary of Regression Analysis for Leadership Practice Inventory Dimensions and Covariates Predicting Comprehensive Program Implementation.

Subscale	Demographic variable	R 2	Adj R2	F	df	B	SE B	β	t
MTW		0.23	0.22	37.73	894	4.30	0.36	.36**	11.87
	RAMP					7.03	0.81	.26**	8.72
	Trained on ASCA National Model					3.94	1.16	.10**	3.40
ISV		0.19	0.19	30.33	882	2.69	0.27	.31**	10.02
	RAMP					6.72	0.84	.24**	7.97
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.89	1.20	.12**	4.08
CTP		0.20	0.20	31.91	882	3.36	0.32	.32**	10.55
	RAMP					6.24	0.84	.23**	7.42
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.48	1.21	.11**	3.71
EOA		0.19	0.19	30.47	893	4.42	0.45	.30**	9.73
	RAMP					7.26	0.83	.27**	8.77
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.66	1.18	.12**	3.94
ETH		0.17	0.17	26.34	892	2.57	0.31	.26**	8.42
	RAMP					7.36	0.84	.27**	8.72
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.86	1.20	.12**	4.06

School Counselor Leadership Scale.

Like the results for the LPI, each of the five dimensions of school counselor leadership behavior predicted comprehensive school counseling program implementation when accounting for school counselor demographic variables (Table 4). Specifically, the five school counselor leadership behaviors independently predicted 16%–21% of the variance in comprehensive school counseling program implementation, with SYC accounting for the most variance (21%) and SJA accounting for the least (16%). Standardized beta weights ranged from .24 to .32 across the five practices, suggesting that greater usage of school counselor leadership behavior led to increased program implementation. Two demographic variables, exposure to the ASCA National Model and RAMP, were the only demographic predictors of program implementation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Summary of Regression Analysis for School Counseling Leadership Dimensions and Covariates Predicting Comprehensive Program Implementation.

Subscale	Demographic Variable	R 2	Adj R 2	F	df	B	SE B	β	t
PEF		0.20	0.19	31.22	899	4.21	0.42	.30**	10.00
	RAMP					6.89	0.83	.25**	8.32
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.33	1.18	.11**	3.66
IPI		0.18	0.17	27.60	881	5.69	0.64	.28**	8.97
	RAMP					7.26	0.84	.27**	8.65
	Trained on ASCA National Model					5.06	1.21	.13**	4.19
SYC		0.21	0.20	33.04	895	3.92	0.37	.32**	10.53
	RAMP					7.01	0.82	.26**	8.51
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.41	1.19	.11**	3.71
SJA		0.16	0.15	24.62	901	3.38	0.44	.24**	7.66
	RAMP					7.52	0.84	.28**	8.94
	Trained on ASCA National Model					5.08	1.21	.13**	4.18
RPS		0.19	0.18	29.64	890	5.22	0.54	.29**	9.60
	RAMP					6.73	0.83	.25**	8.06
	Trained on ASCA National Model					4.81	1.19	.12**	4.04

School Counselor Transformational Leadership

Like the results for both the LPI and SCLS, school counselor transformational leadership strongly predicted (β = .51, p < .01) comprehensive program implementation when accounting for school counselor demographic variables, suggesting that greater usage of transformational leadership behavior led to increased program implementation (Table 5). SCTL predicted 35% of the variance in comprehensive school counseling program implementation. Two demographic variables, exposure to the ASCA National Model and RAMP, were the only demographic predictors of program implementation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Summary of Regression Analysis for School Counselor Transformational Leadership and Covariates Predicting Comprehensive Program Implementation.

Leadership variable	Demographic variable	R 2	Adj R2	F	df	B	SE B	β	t
SCTL		0.35	0.34	69.02	903	0.52	0.03	.51**	18.22
	RAMP					4.93	0.76	.18**	6.50
	Trained on ASCA National Model					3.63	1.07	.09**	3.41

Implications for Training, Practice, and Future Research

The proliferation of the ASCA National Model through training and RAMP has brought a common language and understanding of what a comprehensive school counseling program can be and what leadership might look like in the context of implementing such a program. This study suggests a common understanding that school counselor leadership is necessary for comprehensive program implementation. Thus, school counselors in training must be taught how to integrate leadership models and practices into school counseling curriculum (Michel et al., 2018). This is particularly relevant given the increased mental health needs of K–12 students (Lebrun-Harris et al., 2022; Savitz-Romer et al., 2021; Sheftall et al., 2022; Trevor Project, 2022) and the impact that access to comprehensive school counseling programs can have on students (Carey et al., 2012; Dimmitt & Wilkerson, 2012; Mayes et al., 2018). The next question may be, how do both evolve to meet needs presented during and since the pandemic?

As a response to the events of recent years, a growing body of literature since the original Mason (2008) study points to the need for increased focus on antiracist frameworks and practice in school counseling (Edirmanasinghe et al., 2022; Holcomb-McCoy, 2021, 2022; Ieva et al., 2021; Mason et al., 2021; Mayes & Byrd, 2022; Mayes et al., 2022; Stickl Haugen et al., 2022). Therefore, school counselor leadership and program implementation must be centered in antiracism and anti-oppression, not just infused with these ideas. Thus, leadership and program implementation translate to school counselors actively doubling down on policies (e.g., discipline and grading) that were already harmful before the pandemic but are even more so now (Roberts, 2021). Counselor educators, ASCA, and state and district coordinators can provide training that aids school counselors in these transactional and negotiation skills, because schools are likely to push an existing agenda of “business as usual.” These negotiation skills are a reference back to activities like “persuasion” (p. 306) of Dollarhide’s (2003) interpretation of Bolman and Deal’s (1997) political leadership context. In this way, school counselors view and use their leadership and programs as vehicles for persuasion.

Program implementation itself may shift to include broader implementation of programs that change systems instead of students, thereby reducing the deficit model. In other words, school counselors may use their leadership to implement more community-based programming (e.g., innovative career apprenticeships), staff development (e.g., trauma-informed classroom management), and family outreach (e.g., weekend fair for mental health, legal, immigration, and other resources). Furthermore, data collection methods need to go beyond the typical sources, which are often also deficit based, (e.g., test scores, attendance, and discipline), to seek greater inclusion of student voice and tell a bigger story (e.g., universal screening and focus groups, youth participatory action research; Donohue et al., 2015; Edirmanasinghe et al., 2022; Ieva et al., 2021).

Consider that results from the LPI leadership practice Model the Way accounted for most of the variance in program implementation. According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), Model the Way is about establishing credibility as a visible leader by being congruent in one’s words and actions; alternatively, this can be called leading by example. For the SCLS, the behavior of Systematic Collaboration accounted for most of the variance in program implementation. Comprehensive school counseling program implementation requires collaboration and school counselors who take initiative, lead by example, and are credible in the eyes of their collaborators. At a time when many educators are leaving the profession (see Marshall et al., 2022) and student-to-school-counselor ratios often far exceed the ASCA recommended 250:1 (National Association for College Admission Counseling & ASCA, 2018), school counselors may need additional support from their local and district administrators in order to maintain the energy necessary to engage in initiative taking and collaboration.

Future studies that examine how school counselors’ leadership behaviors and program implementation change over time in response to the pandemic and the events of the last few years will be valuable. As researchers, we suggest additional studies that utilize these leadership measures, especially the SCLS and SCTLI. Understanding how school counselors leverage their leadership for antiracist advocacy on behalf of marginalized student groups as part of a comprehensive school counseling program would be beneficial. Future studies could examine the leadership behaviors of school counselors in RAMP and non-RAMP schools and the relationship to outcomes for marginalized student populations, such as enrollment into gifted and talented programs, course enrollment patterns, college-going rates, and school-based disciplinary actions. Other studies could examine the leadership behaviors of school counselors with or without comprehensive programs and outcomes related to student mental health, such as screenings and assessments completed, outside referrals and services provided, and rates of hospitalization.