Initial Development and Validation of the School Counselor 504 Activities Scale

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR, nd) defines Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as a federal law designed to safeguard the protection of inalienable rights for students with disabilities (this act is often referred to as Section 504). Any entity receiving federal funds (e.g., K–12 public schools, institutions of higher education, businesses) are beholden to this law and face strict federal consequences for noncompliance. Under Section 504, individuals with disabilities shall not face discrimination based on their disability. Further, to the fullest extent possible, individuals with disabilities should receive the same resources and access to resources as individuals without disabilities. Logically, these protections have been extended into school settings. To ensure compliance with federal guidelines, it is customary for public schools to create specialized plans for eligible students, often referred to as 504 Plans or 504s, that remove barriers to learning. Specifically, to be eligible under Section 504, students must “(1) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; or (2) have a record of such an impairment; or (3) be regarded as having such an impairment” (OCR, nd, “Students Protected Under Section 504” section). Students found eligible under Section 504 and who receive related services are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE; OCR, 2023a). Under FAPE, students’ accommodations (e.g., visual aids, assistive technology) must be free of charge, and the child’s educational program should be catered to the child’s unique assortment of needs. Moreover, FAPE mandates that students with disabilities must be educated in the same setting as their typically developing peers, to the fullest extent possible.

Overall, 504 Plans ensure equitable access to the general education curriculum for students with a range of needs and differing abilities (OCR, nd). Specifically, 504s may address physical and/or mental needs that adversely affect life functioning, such as dyslexia, diabetes, hearing differences, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and mental health concerns. They can also support students with temporary concerns, such as those with severe seasonal allergies or with broken limbs. Hence, 504 Plans provide accommodations to address each student’s unique needs. For instance, a student with depression might benefit from breaks during the school day, additional time on tests and quizzes, and a reduced workload. A student with anxiety could receive accommodations such as small-group testing and early transition reminders.

Developing a 504 Plan for eligible students is often a multistage process. Generally, once it is determined that a student meets one of the four aforementioned eligibility criteria, a meeting is convened comprising individuals with intimate knowledge of the student, such as school counselors, building administrators, teachers, and parents (OCR, nd). These individuals collaborate to discuss the student’s strengths and areas for growth, culminating in a list of accommodations the student will receive to ensure FAPE. Common accommodations include (a) extra time on tests, (b) small-group testing, and (c) preferential seating near the point of instruction. These plans often include granular information such as identifying the person(s) providing the accommodation, how often and for how long accommodations will be provided, and additional considerations. Unlike individualized education programs (IEPs), 504 Plans are not subject to triennial reevaluation; rather, reevaluations occur periodically to ensure adequate progress monitoring and FAPE (OCR, 2023a). According to the most recent 10 years of OCR data, 504 Plans have been increasing nationwide (OCR, 2018, 2023b; Zirkel & Weathers, 2016), underscoring their growing prevalence in K–12 education. Ultimately, 504 Plans and related accommodations aim to make achievement more attainable for students while mitigating barriers to learning. This focus is aligned with the role of the school counselor.

School Counselors and Section 504 Plans

Given that 504 Plans have increased in frequency and that school counselors’ work includes ensuring just and equitable schools for all students, ASCA (2019, 2022b, 2024) outlines specific school counseling recommended and non-recommended 504 activities, as part of a comprehensive school counseling program. Specifically, ASCA recommends that school counselors engage in the following 504 activities: (a) serving on schools’ multidisciplinary teams to share their expertise on and advocate for students’ needs and potential 504 accommodations, (b) helping identify students eligible for a 504 Plan, and (c) collaborating with school staff on 504 services, mainly accommodations and academic, career, and transition plans. At the same time, ASCA clearly lists 504 activities that school counselors should not be performing (i.e., non-recommended activities) due to role and interpersonal conflicts, such as “coordinating, writing or supervising a specific plan under Section 504 of Public Law 93-112” (ASCA, 2022a, para. 7) and serving as the school’s 504 coordinator/case manager (ASCA, 2024). The 504-specific activities discussed by ASCA are further reinforced by the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors (2022a). Mainly, school counselors “advocate for a school counseling program free of non school-counseling assignments identified by The ASCA National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Programs” (ASCA, 2022a, B.2.c) and “avoid inappropriate roles and relationships such as … accepting administrative duties in the absence of an administrator” (ASCA, 2022a, A.5.i). Thus, 504-specific activities suggested for school counselors are not only recommended across several key ASCA statements and documents, but also outlined as an ethical expectation.

With the recent increase in 504 Plans in K–12 education, and school counselors’ recommended and non-recommended roles, scholars have published preliminary research pertaining to school counselors and the Section 504 process (Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020; Kolodinsky et al., 2009; Madaus & Shaw, 2008; Romano et al., 2009). Two of these studies were broad, with elements tangentially related to 504s and school counseling: a state-level survey on school counseling job satisfaction (Kolodinsky et al., 2009) and a state-level survey on 504 involvement according to a range of K–12 educational professionals (Madaus & Shaw, 2008). Specifically focused on school counseling and the 504 process, Romano and colleagues (2009) facilitated a regional survey of school counselors to understand their attitudes and preparation for providing 504 services. Most recently, Goodman-Scott and Boulden (2020) completed a phenomenological investigation of school counselors’ lived experiences with the Section 504 process.

Across these studies (Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020; Kolodinsky et al., 2009; Madaus & Shaw, 2008; Romano et al., 2009), school counselors largely communicated overseeing/coordinating the 504 process at their schools despite expressing wishes to not be in this role. In fact, school counselors in Goodman-Scott and Boulden’s (2020) study found that their role caused relational strain with teachers, students, and families. School counselors throughout these studies also shared that their involvement with 504 Plans was taxing and time consuming; school counselors specific to Goodman-Scott and Boulden’s (2020) study also found their role to be in contradiction to the school counselor roles recommended by ASCA. Examining findings across these four studies revealed that school counselors echoed a lack of 504-specific training, more recently describing limited support, isolation, and fear of liability (Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020). Last, although school counselors reported many struggles and strains with their 504 involvement, a limited number of school counselors reported that, aligned with best practices, they appreciated being a member of the multidisciplinary 504 team, and utilized that opportunity to advocate for students (Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020).

Overall, Goodman-Scott and Boulden (2020) recommended that school counselors engage in 504 activities aligned with best practices (ASCA, 2019, 2020, 2022b) and refrain from 504 coordination or the supervision of 504 plans. Further, scholars repeatedly stated the need for increased research and advocacy on this topic, to support school counselors implementing ASCA-recommended 504 activities, rather than 504-specific tasks that detract from their work implementing school counseling programs (Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020; Kolodinsky et al., 2009; Madaus & Shaw, 2008; Romano et al., 2009).

Instrumentation

The School Counselor 504 Activities Scale is a brief, valid instrument that measures how often school counselors implement various Section-504-related duties. The instrument can serve as a helpful advocacy tool for school counselors to assess and quantify their duties related to Section 504 for greater self-awareness, and to share findings with key constituents (e.g., their direct supervisors, such as school building administrators). Ideally, these efforts will support greater school counseling role congruence and remove roles detracting from implementing comprehensive school counseling. In creating and developing this tool, we followed empirically grounded steps for instrument development and validation (Kalkbrenner, 2021; Mvududu & Sink, 2013): item creation, expert review and feedback integration, participant recruitment, factor extraction, factor retention, factor rotation, and factor naming. In alignment with the first step, we completed a thorough review of the extant school counseling literature on Section 504, students with diverse abilities/disabilities, and school counselors’ recommended role (e.g., ASCA, 2019, 2022a, 2022b; Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020; Kolodinsky et al., 2009; Madaus & Shaw, 2008; Romano et al., 2009), solidifying the need for this instrument, the empirical framework, and theoretical blueprint. After identifying and defining these key constructs, the first author used this information to draft potential items. Then, the second author reviewed the list of items and provided feedback; the two authors engaged in a dialogue until reaching consensus on all drafted items. To support content validity, we then consulted four individuals with expertise in both school counseling and students with diverse abilities/disabilities (e.g., researchers, practicing school counselors), requesting detailed feedback regarding the preliminary 26 items, mechanics (e.g., flow, readability, clarity), and practicality (Dimitrov, 2012). This process resulted in the addition of two items, for a total of 28 items; the added items were “Assist in the transition planning process for students with Section 504 plans (e.g., transferring school districts, postsecondary planning)” and “Advocate to ensure students receive appropriate Section 504 accommodations.” Following the first round of feedback and revisions from expert reviewers, we obtained feedback from four additional practicing school counselors to ensure the instrument’s practicality and usability. In response to their feedback, we made a few minor mechanical revisions, such as providing examples for clarity and restating items for concision. For practicality, the four practicing school counselors suggested organizing the items into two sections: recommended 504 activities and non-recommended 504 activities, and offered input on these categories. We then cross-referenced these expert reviewers’ suggestions with the ASCA (2022a) position statement regarding students with diverse abilities/disabilities and the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019) guidance on recommended and non-recommended school counseling activities. We discuss participant recruitment in the subsequent sections.

Participant Characteristics

Participants’ (N = 379) ages ranged from 25 to 68 (M = 41.64, SD = 9.92). Most participants (74.4%; n = 282) identified as female; the remainder of the sample either identified as male (5.0%; n = 28) or did not provide a response (20.6%; n = 78). For race/ethnicity, 67.7% of participants (n = 234) identified as White, 8.7% (n = 33) as Black, 3.2% (n = 12) as Latinx, 1.3% (n = 5) as more than one race, 0.8% (n = 3) as another race, and 23.7% (n = 90) did not respond to the item. The sample averaged 10.38 years of school counseling experience (SD = 7.92). Participant caseloads averaged 432.13 students per school counselor, exceeding ASCA’s 250:1 recommendation, and participants reported an average of 32 students with 504 Plans on their caseloads. Next, regarding urbanicity, 12.1% (n = 46) worked in urban settings, 1.1% (n = 4) worked in rural settings, 62.8% (n = 238) worked in suburban settings, 3.7% (n = 14) selected “other,” and 20.3% (n = 77) did not provide a response. Participants reported an average of 33.98% students of color in their school buildings. In terms of school level, 28.8% (n = 109) of participants worked in elementary schools, 20.3% (n = 77) worked in middle schools, 24.8% (n = 94) worked in high schools, 5.8% (n = 22) worked in an alternate setting (e.g., alternative school, K–12 school), and 20.3% (n = 77) did not provide a response. Last, when asked about the percentage of time spent completing 504-related tasks, 57.3% (n = 217) of participants reported spending 1%–25% of their time, 12.9% (n = 49) reported 26%–50% of their time, 1.3% (n = 5) reported 51%–75% of their time, 0.8% (n = 3) reported at least 76% of their time, and 27.7% of participants (n = 105) did not provide a response.

Data Collection Procedures

Following university institutional review board approval, we entered the 28 items into a Qualtrics survey housed by the primary researcher’s institution. The survey contained three parts. First, upon clicking the recruitment link, participants were directed to a Qualtrics survey. After reviewing and acknowledging the informed consent, participants responded to 28 items, indicating how frequently they provide various Section-504-related tasks as a part of their school counselor role, using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The options were: 1 = I never perform this task; 2 = I rarely perform this task; 3 = I sometimes perform this task; 4 = I often perform this task; 5 = I very often perform this task. Last, following these items, participants provided demographic information, such as age, gender, years of school counseling experience, and urbanicity.

Participant recruitment transpired through multiple methods simultaneously. These included recruitment through word of mouth, informing people of this research opportunity and asking individuals to share widely to individuals who may fall within the inclusion criteria. We also utilized ASCA’s online ASCA Member Community, informing school counselors nationwide of the opportunity to participate in Section-504-related research. Social media was another recruitment mechanism; we used social media platforms (e.g., X, Facebook) to expand the pool of potential participants, drawing a more diverse sample to include ASCA members and nonmembers. Combined, these recruitment strategies resulted in 391 raw completions.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Following data collection cessation, we exported all data into SPSS 26.0. Aligned with Kalkbrenner’s (2021) steps for instrument development, and following the steps outlined by Mvududu and Sink (2013), we executed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the factor structure of the School Counselor 504 Activities Scale. Specifically, as a first step, we utilized the following cut-offs to determine the number of factors to retain: factor loadings greater than .30, communalities greater than .80, and cross-loadings less than .30. To confirm the number of factors to retain and rotate, we both visually inspected the scree plot and utilized Horn’s (1965) parallel analysis. Last, given the propensity for correlation in counseling and educational settings, we utilized the direct oblimin factor rotation method (Mvududu & Sink, 2013).

Factor Retention

We utilized principal factor analysis, a type of EFA, to investigate the scale’s dimensionality. The following criteria were used to determine factor retention: the Kaiser criterion, removing factors explaining less than 5% of the variance in the model, scree plot inspection, and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965; Mvududu & Sink, 2013). As a first step, we examined the communalities of the initial 28 items. All 28 items had suitable communalities with values ranging from .35 to .88; hence, we removed no items. Following extraction, the factors were rotated by way of the direct oblimin method (Δ = 0), appropriate for educational research (Mvududu & Sink, 2013).

This process resulted in a two-factor solution. The first factor, Collaboration, Advocacy, and Development, contains 16 items that explain 51.7% of the variance in the total model. Sample items include: “Assist in transition planning process for students with Section 504 plans (e.g., transferring school districts, postsecondary planning),” “Collaborate with students with Section 504 plans to encourage active involvement in Section 504 processes,” and “Attend professional development regarding Section 504 content and processes.” The second factor, Consultation, Clerical, and Administrative Tasks, contains 12 items that explain 7.2% of the variance in the model. Sample items include “Lead Section 504 annual review meetings,” “Complete paperwork pertaining to Section 504 plans/meetings,” and “Distribute 504 plans to school staff.” The scale contains a whole-scale alpha coefficient of .97. The first and second factors contain alpha coefficients of .93 and .95, respectively. Thus, this instrument has sound reliability (Beavers et al., 2013; Cortina, 1993).