|
Four views of the professional school
counselor-principal relationship: a Q-methodology
study.
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Type: | Report |
| Subject: |
Student counselors
(Practice) Student counselors (Social aspects) Student counselors (Vocational guidance) School principals (Beliefs, opinions and attitudes) School principals (Social aspects) Professional development (Methods) |
| Authors: |
Janson, Christopher Militello, Matthew Kosine, Natalie |
| Pub Date: | 08/01/2008 |
| Publication: | Name: Professional School Counseling Publisher: American School Counselor Association Audience: Academic; Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Family and marriage; Psychology and mental health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2008 American School Counselor Association ISSN: 1096-2409 |
| Issue: | Date: August, 2008 Source Volume: 11 Source Issue: 6 |
| Topic: | Event Code: 200 Management dynamics; 290 Public affairs |
| Geographic: | Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States |
|
|
|
| Accession Number: | 184131456 |
| Full Text: |
This study in this article investigated how school counselors and
principals perceive their professional relationship. Q methodology was
used to develop 45 opinion statements about the relationship between
school counselors and principals, and 39 professional school counselors
and principals then sorted the statements. Four factors emerged
representing different viewpoints of this relationship. Each contained
constructive attributes of the school counselor-principal relationship,
but one factor exhibited an appreciation of the context of interpersonal
collaboration along with the content of school improvement initiatives. ********** Now more than ever, the relationship between professional school counselors and principals is crucial. The high-stakes school accountability movement has affected both professional school counselors and educational administrators (Dahir & Stone, 2003; Elmore, 2003; Hughes & James, 2001; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). For example, new pre- and in-service standards are directing professional school counselors and principals to focus their practices on impacting student achievement (Dahir, 2001; Tucker & Codding, 2002). New models of collaborative school leadership have emerged in response to the emphasis on student achievement (e.g., Lambert, 2002; Marks & Printy, 2003; Spillane, 2006). A key aspect of collaborative school leadership is the relationships among key school professionals. Thus, we examined how professional school counselors and principals perceived their relationship. THE CHANGING ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELORS AND PRINCIPALS In order to respond to the pressures to advance student achievement, it has been suggested that professional school counseling needs to shift to explicitly include the functions of leadership, advocacy, and systemic change (American School Counselor Association, 2005; House & Hayes, 2002; Stone & Clark, 2001). Professional school counselors occupy key positions in schools because of their location at the epicenter of nearly all data flow concerning students (Stone & Dahir, 2006). This key position allows for school counselors to have a sizable role in creating and supporting systemic changes that benefit all students (House & Martin, 1998; Stone & Clark). However, the capacity for professional school counselors to impact student academic achievement is contingent on the ability and willingness of school counselors to function collaboratively as leaders in schools (DeVoss & Andrews, 2006). Consequently, Stone and Dahir have called for school counselors to develop not only leadership skills, but also leadership "mindset[s]" (p. 93). The emphasis on student achievement also has challenged the notion of principals being the sole leader in schools. Lambert (2002) noted that this conception of leadership underutilizes the talents and aptitudes of other professionals in the school. In contrast, leadership models that empower and utilize the skills and knowledge of all professionals in schools have been promoted as a catalyst to improve student achievement (e.g. Halverson, 2003; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELORS While there exists a need for school counselors and principals to work jointly, a number of potential barriers to that collaboration exist as well (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Shoffner & Williamson, 2000). Notably, there may be disagreement between professional school counselors and principals regarding the duties of the school counselor (Amatea & Clark; Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, & Marshall, 2001; Lampe, 1985; Murray, 1995; Shoffner & Williamson, 2000). Although there is increasing emphasis on professional school counselors focusing on whole school issues, some have found that principals do not always agree that this goal should be central to the role of the school counselor (Perusse, Goodnough, Donegan, & Jones, 2004). Furthermore, principals' perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of school counselors are often incongruent with the standards and benchmarks that have emerged from school counseling professional organizations and movements (Perusse et al.). School principals' perceptions of school counselors are important because principals often have significant influence on shaping the roles and responsibilities of school counselors (Ponec & Brock, 2000). For instance, many of the tasks that principals ask school counselors to perform, although important to the management of the school, take the school counselors away from the tasks and roles for which they were trained (Niebuhr, Niebuhr, & Cleveland, 1999). Principals often shape the roles and responsibilities of school counselors in other ways beyond the assignment of tasks (Ponec & Brock). Specifically, principals influence the hiring of the school counselor (Beale & McCay, 2001) and often evaluate the school counselor (Dahir, 2000). PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY METHOD Q methodology was selected for this study because it provides a framework to identify as many views as possible around a given topic. Q methodology, which uses both qualitative and quantitative approaches, allows for the subjectivity of individuals' viewpoints while providing researchers with quantitative statistical techniques to analyze the data. Consequently, this method enabled us to elicit and examine a set of viewpoints held by school counselors and principals regarding their professional relationship. Instrumentation In Q methodology, the research instrument consists of a set of opinion statements, referred to as the Q sample (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). In developing the Q sample, the goal is to represent a given topic as comprehensively as possible. To begin developing the Q sample, opinion statements were collected from interviews with 16 professionals (8 principals and 8 professional school counselors) from three states (Ohio, Massachusetts, and Michigan) regarding the school counselor-principal relationship. In the parlance of Q methodology, this collection of opinion statements is called the concourse. For this study, the concourse consisted of 177 opinion statements (78 from the principals and 99 from the professional school counselors). Similar statements that represented central ideas were combined and statements that provided unique viewpoints were preserved. This systematic process of instrument development resulted in a final Q sample containing 45 opinion statements that were randomly numbered from 1 to 45 (see Appendix A). Participants In Q methodology, participants rather than the Q-sample statements have the status of variables (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Thus, Q methodology does not require a large participant sample or a randomly generated participant sample. The goal is to deliberately access a range and diversity of pertinent viewpoints on the topic being investigated (Stainton Rogers, 1995). Thus, we selected participants based on their ability to provide a variety of viewpoints. For instance, we included participants who worked both at elementary and secondary school settings, acknowledging that these different school settings might provide diverse perspectives on the relationships between professional school counselors and principals. Thirty-nine participants sorted the card statements. Twenty-two of the participants were school counselors and 17 were principals. The participants worked in five states (Ohio, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Michigan). Twenty-three worked in a high school, 10 in an elementary school, and 5 in a middle school. An additional participant did not identify a school setting. Twenty individuals were female and 19 were male. Thirty-three participants described themselves as White, 4 as African American, and 2 as Latino American. With regard to years of experience in their current position, 27 had 5 or fewer years of experience, 8 had between 6 and 10 years of experience, and 4 had between 11 and 15 years of experience. Procedures The participants sorted the 45 opinion statements, printed on 3-inch by 1-inch cards, into a forced distribution ranging from "least characteristic of your relationship" to "most characteristic of your relationship" with either their respective school counselor(s) or their principal (see Figure 1). Responses were recorded on an answer sheet containing a grid representing the forced distribution, with nine columns having headings ranging from -4 (least characteristic statements) on the left side to +4 (most characteristic statements) on the right. We also asked the participants a series of questions regarding their decision-making processes while sorting the cards (e.g., "Please list statements you had difficulty placing--list the number of the statement and describe your dilemma"). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Data Analysis After the sorts had been completed and collected, we analyzed them using MQ Method 2.06 freeware for Q analysis (Schmolck & Atkinson, 1997). Keeping with common practice in Q methodology, we used principle component analysis to find associations among the different Q sorts (Brown, 1980). In Q methodology, it is the Q sorts (or participants) that are factor analyzed for intercorrelations, rather than the individual opinion statements. The Q sorts, then, are the focus of analysis. Following factor analysis, we rotated the emergent factors to simple structure (varimax rotation). MQ Method produced defining statement "arrays" or model Q sorts for each factor. We then examined these model Q sorts (four of which emerged in this study) individually and in comparison to one another. RESULTS Our analysis of the factors resulted in four opinion groupings that represented four different principal and counselor viewpoints. We named the four factors (A) Working Alliance, (B) Impediments to Alliance, (C) Shared Leadership, and (D) Purposeful Collaboration. Together, these four factors account for 60% of the variance. More specifically, 32 of the 39 participant sorts (82%) were significantly represented in one of the four opinion groups. Factor A: Working Alliance Factor A accounted for the highest amount of explained variance in this study (32%). Nineteen of the 39 participants had a high level of agreement with the array of statements in this factor. The 19 participants represent both professional school counselors (12) and principals (7). Expressions of acknowledgment, trust, and open communication permeate this viewpoint. Statements that were most characteristic (+4) of this viewpoint were, "The principal acknowledges the expertise of the school counselor(s)" (statement 12), "The principal trusts the counselor(s) enough to make decisions and provide insight when needed" (statement 13), and "The school principal and the counselor(s) communicate openly with each other" (statement 18). Elements of antagonism, undermining of decisions, and fear are not relevant features of this factor's viewpoint. Statements that were least characteristic (-4) of this viewpoint were, "It is almost as if the school counselor role and the principal role are set up to be antagonistic" (statement 4), "Administrative decisions made by the principal are often undermined by the school counselor(s)" (statement 8), and "Given the administrative function of the principal, the relationship between the counselor(s) and the principal is characterized by an element of fear" (statement 44). The presence of acknowledgment, trust, and communication within this viewpoint paired with the absence of antagonism and fear represented a solid working alliance for this professional relationship. Factor B: Impediments to Alliance Factor B accounted for 9% of the explained variance in this study. Four of the 39 participants had a high level of agreement with the array of statements in this factor. All four of these participants were school counselors. In this viewpoint, communication, involvement, and an understanding of one another's professional goals were lacking. Characteristic statements included, "The principal is wary about consulting with school counselors on issues involving teachers" (statement 28), "The school counselors are not involved with the principal in instructional decisions or organizational practices to support effective instruction such as tracking or not tracking students, sequencing the curriculum, and so forth" (statement 24), and "If the parameters of the relationship between the principal and the counselor(s) were clearer in the first place, the relationship wouldn't be so difficult" (statement 38). This viewpoint also expressed an absence of specific engagement between school principals and professional school counselors. Statements that were not characteristic of this viewpoint included, "The counselor(s) and the principal engage in specific discussions relative to closing the achievement gaps for traditionally underserved groups of students" (statement 45), and "The school counselor(s) and the principal regularly discuss issues relative to the school improvement plan" (statement 17). The statements that best described this viewpoint reflected the perception that collaboration between professional school counselors and principals around instruction and academic policy issues is not occurring. In this viewpoint, the lack of understanding and communication between professional school counselors and principals seemed to impede a working alliance. Factor C: Shared Leadership Factor C accounted for 11% of the explained variance in this study. Four of the 39 participants had a high level of agreement with the array of statements in this factor. All four of these participants were school principals. The viewpoint represented by these principals indicated a belief that school leadership includes professional school counselors. Statements that were characteristic of this viewpoint included, "The principal supports the counselor(s) in developing a leadership role in the school" (statement 15), "The relationship between the principal and the school counselor(s) hinges on the belief that leadership should be distributed" (statement 29), and "There are many facets of the school counseling and principal jobs that cannot be easily accomplished without mutual support, advice, and understanding" (statement 41). This viewpoint also indicated that the current relationship between principals and professional school counselors is based on collaboration, trust, and open communication. Statements that were not characteristic of this viewpoint included, "The principal allows the counseling department to function autonomously" (statement 7), and "The principal and the counselor(s) have different goals--the counselor(s) seek(s) to remove barriers to the personal and academic success of kids; the principal seeks to protect the public perception of the school" (statement 36). This viewpoint expressed the perception that principals are supportive of counselors developing leadership roles in the school. It also highlighted the perception that professional school counselors and principals have shared goals and work toward them together. Factor D: Purposeful Collaboration Factor D accounted for 8% of the explained variance. Three of the 39 participants had a high level of agreement with the array of statements in this factor. These 3 participants were 2 professional school counselors and 1 principal. In this viewpoint, collaboration was focused and ongoing. Statements that were most characteristic (+4) of this viewpoint were, "The principal and the school counselor(s) work together to develop programs that can benefit struggling students" (statement 10), "The school counselor(s) and the principal regularly discuss issues relative to the school improvement plan" (statement 17), and "The counselor(s) and the principal engage in specific discussions relative to closing the achievement gaps for traditionally underserved groups of students" (statement 45). This viewpoint represented the perception that the school counselor-principal relationship is not inherently antagonistic and problematic. The statements that were least characteristic (-4) of this viewpoint were, "It is almost as if the school counselor role and the principal role are set up to be antagonistic" (statement 4), "The principal allows the counseling department to function autonomously" (statement 7), and "Administrative decisions made by the principal are often undermined by the school counselor(s)" (statement 8). This viewpoint of the professional school counselor-principal relationship underscored the importance of centering leadership activity around specific school improvement tasks. DISCUSSION This study illuminated distinct ways that school counselors and principals view their relationship. More importantly, the findings provided insight into how particular aspects of this relationship across the distinct viewpoints support collaboration. Specifically, one viewpoint in this study was distinct in its focus on purposeful collaboration between professional school counselors and principals for schoolwide change. All four viewpoints in this study shared common characteristics that could provide a foundation for a collaborative relationship. For example, all of the viewpoints rejected the statement, "It is almost as if the school counselor role and the principal role are set up to be antagonistic" (statement 4), by placing it at or near the extreme left column in the distribution. Clearly, none of the factors represented a view in which there is a belief that the roles of counselors and principals are inherently structured to be in opposition with one another. Likewise, each of the four factors endorsed the statement, "There are many facets of the school counseling and principal jobs that cannot be easily accomplished without mutual support, advice, and understanding" (statement 41). The notion that school counselors and principals can perform more effectively with mutual support, advice, and understanding underscored a shared belief in the interdependency of the two roles. The rejection of a relatively pessimistic statement about the school counselor-principal relationship, along with the consensual embrace of a more optimistic statement, provided a glimpse of the opportunity to transform this relationship into one in which purposeful collaboration can occur. The Purposeful Collaboration viewpoint is distinct from the others in this study. This is the only viewpoint that placed great value on collaboration with the expressed purpose of engaging in initiatives often associated with school improvement efforts. The relationship between professional school counselors and principals in this viewpoint hinged on developing programs that benefit struggling students, school improvement planning, and closing the achievement gap for traditionally underserved students. Notably, this viewpoint seems to align very closely with the vision of school counseling as proposed by both the Education Trust's (n.d.) Transforming School Counseling Initiative and the ASCA National Model[R], which place emphasis on professional school counselors expanding their roles in schools to include school-wide leadership, collaboration, and advocacy for enhanced student academic performance, particularly for traditionally underserved groups of students. Moreover, this perspective is emblematic of leadership models that emphasize collaboration. Such leadership is not based on position or role, but rather "the activities engaged in by leaders, in interaction with others in particular contexts around specific tasks" (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004, p. 5). A key distinguishing element of the Purposeful Collaboration viewpoint may be value placed on the statement, "The counselor(s) educate(s) the principal as to the appropriate role of a school counselor based on the school counselor national model" (statement 1). The willingness of professional school counselors to talk to their principals about appropriate school counselor roles could have two powerful outcomes. First, principals may not know that professional school counselors have the training and ability to engage in purposeful collaboration around schoolwide issues. Second, such conversations may serve as catalysts for both professional school counselors and principals to begin ongoing discussions about initiatives that address those school-wide issues. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL COUNSELORS AND COUNSELOR EDUCATORS The four different viewpoints that emerged from this study provide a useful conceptual framework for facilitating reflection and discussion among school counselors and principals regarding their relationship. An area of particular focus for school counselors is the utility of educating principals as to the appropriate roles and functions of school counselors described by the ASCA National Model. This study suggests that when this element of the relationship is present, school counselors and principals perceive themselves to be working together to purposefully meet the needs of all students. Educating principals regarding more optimal roles of school counselors seems to represent a concrete and exciting example of where advocacy for the school counseling profession is powerfully linked to advocacy for students. As a result of the focus on greater academic accountability in schools, discussions with principals initiated by school counselors regarding their relationship and roles might provide a foundation for necessary discussions about the changing mission of schooling and how school counselors and principals can work together toward meeting this shared mission. Given the importance of school counselors educating their principals about their role and function, counselor educators should emphasize the power that school counselors have in shaping the perceptions of the principal. This practice might improve the job satisfaction of school counselors, while increasing the quality of services and support for students. When they engage the principal in discussions about their appropriate role and function, school counselors begin to move more fully toward leadership in schools. This is an important way to support principals by signaling their readiness to work collaboratively. Counselor educators can facilitate this move toward leadership by not only encouraging these dialogues, but also by implementing more explicit leadership training for school counselors. This might be done at the practicum and internship levels by requiring school counseling students to extend their skills, aptitudes, and training in order to work collaboratively with principals and school leadership teams around issues of academic and school reform initiatives. This change in school counselor preparation might be supported by counselor educators emphasizing the instruction of systems change models and ways in which school counselors might serve as change agents in schools. Finally, given the growing emphasis on the importance of school counselors collaborating with other educators for the benefit of students, counselor educators should take the opportunity to model such interprofessional collaboration themselves. Counselor educators might model this collaboration by engaging their colleagues in educational administration programs in joint research, teaching, and service projects. Through such collaboration, counselor educators and school administration educators can gain greater understanding of each other's preparation programs and students. This greater understanding can help inform the training of future school counselors and principals in order for them not only to better understand each other's roles, but more importantly, to engage in collaborative leadership. LIMITATIONS This study was an initial effort to better understand the important relationship between the school counselor and the principal. Standard procedure for Q methodology does not require formal sampling of participants (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). However, Brown (1993) also emphasized the importance of breadth and diversity of the participant sample. For this study, the sample size was comparable to other Q methodology studies, and efforts were made to ensure the inclusion of a diverse participant sample. During the instrument development, the concourse of opinion statements may have benefited from the inclusion of interviews with elementary principals given the differing nature of elementary and secondary schools. An additional limitation was the attitudinal nature of this study. Research into individuals' subjective responses to a subject depends on the frankness of the participants' responses. Participants may attempt to fake responses or lapse into "uncertain responses" (Oppenheim, 1992, p. 210). The number of uncertain responses in this study was limited by the forced distribution of the statements during the sorting, but the participants still may have used the research instrument to provide responses they felt were preferred or more acceptable to the researchers, or that reflected a more enhanced self-image. Despite these limitations, this study achieved our goal of illuminating various ways that professional school counselors and principals view their professional relationship. Additionally, this study demonstrated the usefulness and appropriateness of using Q methodology to obtain views of professional school counselors and principals. This study did not generalize as to how many individuals hold these views within a population, but it did unearth a range of viewpoints held about the school counselor and principal relationship. Future research might rely less on subjective perceptions and self-reports and more on the observations of others who are close to the relationship between school counselors and principals. Also, qualitative studies might create deeper understandings in regard to the variables that promote and maintain effective professional partnering between professional school counselors and principals. CONCLUSION This Q methodological study of 39 school counselors' and principals' perceptions of their relationship generated four viewpoints each expressing a unique perspective on this relationship: (A) Working Alliance, (B) Impediments to Alliance, (C) Shared Leadership, and (D) Purposeful Collaboration. While each factor contained constructive attributes of the school counselor-principal relationship that could facilitate effective professional relationships, only the Purposeful Collaboration viewpoint contained characteristics that closely approximated the conceptual frameworks of the Transforming School Counseling Initiative and the ASCA National Model. Additionally, this viewpoint was congruent with more of the professional school counselor and school leadership literature than were the other viewpoints in this study. Specifically, the Purposeful Collaboration viewpoint highlighted the context of interpersonal collaboration in conjunction with the content of specific school improvement initiatives. Moreover, this viewpoint illuminated a connection between professional advocacy efforts of the school counselor and collaboration with the principal on those school improvement initiatives. It may be that educating the principal regarding more optimal roles of school counselors and counseling represents a concrete example of where advocacy for the school profession is powerfully linked to advocacy for students. School principals and professional school counselors matter. Examples of successful school improvement efforts most often include collaborative school leadership practices. Consequently, professional school counselors must be able to engage in school leadership. This implies that professional school counselors and counselor educators must focus their training and preparation on the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed to assume this role. The development of such skills, knowledge, and dispositions will enable professional school counselors to work collaboratively with principals and other professionals in their buildings in order to improve schooling for all students. The findings of this study suggest that professional school counselors and principals need to act together if systemic change is to be implemented and sustained in schools. Moreover, this study identified specific indicators that may promote this type of engaging, purposeful collaborative relationship. The road to transforming the relationship between professional school counselors and principals will not be paved by the good intentions of collaboration alone. Rather, meaningful and effective efforts for school improvement require purposeful collaboration between professional school counselors and principals. This study reinvigorated our hope that professional school counselors and principals can develop purposeful collaboration. References Amatea, E. S., & Clark, M. A. (2005). Changing schools, changing counselors: A qualitative study of school administrators' conceptions of the school counselor role. Professional School Counseling, 9, 16-27. American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Beale, A. V., & McCay, E. (2001). Selecting school counselors: What administrators should look for in prospective counselors. The Clearing House, 74(5), 257-260. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91-138. Dahir, C. A. (2000). Principals as partners in school counseling. The ASCA Counselor, 38(2), 13. Dahir, C. A. (2001). The national standards for school counseling programs: Development and implementation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 320-327. Dahir, C., & Stone, C. (2003). Accountability: A M.E.A.S.U.R.E. of the impact school counselors have on student achievement. Professional School Counseling, 6, 214-221. DeVoss, J. A., & Andrews, M. F. (2006). School counselors as educational leaders. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Educational Trust. (n.d.). National Center for Transforming School Counseling at the Educational Trust. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from http://www.edtrust.org Elmore, R. (2003). Accountability and capacity. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, & L. S. Siskin (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 195-209). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Fitch, T., Newby, E., Ballestero, V., & Marshall, J. L. (2001). Future school administrators' perceptions of the school counselor's role. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 89-99. Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (37), 1-35. House, R. M., & Hayes, R. L. (2002). School counselors: Becoming key players in school reform. Professional School Counseling, 5, 249-256. House, R., & Martin, P. (1998). Advocating for better futures for all students: A new vision for school counselors. Education, 119, 284-291. Hughes, D., & James, S. H. (2001). Using accountability data to protect a school counseling program: One counselor's experience. Professional School Counseling, 4, 306-310. Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 37-40. Lampe, R. E. (1985). Principals' training in counselor development: A national survey. Counselor Education and Supervision, 25, 44-47. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2005). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformations and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397. Marzano, R., Waters, T, & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. London: Sage Publications. Murray, B. A. (1995). Principals: Proponents of high school graduation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 79, 64-68. Niebuhr, K. E., Niebuhr, R. E., & Cleveland, W. T. (1999). Principal and counselor collaboration. Education, 119, 674-678. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Continuum. Perusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of school counselors and school principals about the National Standards for School Counseling Programs and the Transforming School Counseling Initiative. Professional School Counseling, 7, 152-161. Ponec, D. L., & Brock, B. L. (2000). Relationships among elementary school counselors and principals: A unique bond. Professional School Counseling, 3, 208-217. Schmolck, P., & Atkinson, J. (1997). MQMethod (2.06). Retrieved June 1,2005, from http://www.qmethod.org Shoffner, M. F., & Williamson, R. D. (2000). Engaging preservice school counselors and principals in dialogue and collaboration. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40, 128-140. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Toward a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3-34. Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. London: Sage. Stone, C. & Clark, M. A. (2001). School counselors and principals: Partners in support of academic achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 85(624), 46-53. Stone, C., & Dahir, C. (2006). The transformed school counselor. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Tucker, M. S., & Codding, J. B. (Eds.). (2002). The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Whiston, S. C., & Sexton, T. L. (1998). A review of school counseling outcome research: Implications for practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 4(76), 412-426. Christopher Janson, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville. E-mail: c.janson@unf.edu Matthew Militello, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Natalie Kosine, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the University of Louisville, ICY. APPENDIX A
Q-Sample Statements and Factor Arrays:
Perceptions of the School Counselor-Principal Relationship
Factor
Q Statement A B C D
1. The counselor(s) educate(s) the principal as to
the appropriate role of a school counselor based
on the school counselor national model. -1 -2 -2 3
2. The principal makes sure that the counselor(s)
has/have time to address the most important needs
of students. 2 1 0 2
3. The school counselor(s) and the principal are
in agreement as to what are appropriate school
counseling responsibilities and tasks. 2 0 0 1
4. It is almost as if the school counselor role
and the principal role are set up to be
antagonistic. -4 -2 -4 -4
5. The principal's understanding of the national
model for school counseling programs facilitates
the relationship between the school counselor(s)
and the principal. -1 -3 -1 0
6. School counselor(s) do not have the skill set
or training to make decisions in and around the
curriculum and instruction. 2 -1 -1 0
7. The principal allows the counseling department
to function autonomously. 2 0 -3 -4
8. Administrative decisions made by the principal
are often undermined by the school counselor(s). -4 -1 -2 -4
9. The counselor(s) and the principal both
understand that administrative tasks hinder the
counselor's ability to work with students. 1 -1 0 1
10. The principal and the school counselor(s) work
together to develop programs that can benefit
struggling students. 1 0 1 4
11. If forced to it, the principal would rather
cut a teacher and increase class sizes in order to
maintain an appropriately sized school counseling
department. 0 -4 -3 2
12. The principal acknowledges the expertise of
the school counselor(s). 4 0 0 -1
13. The principal trusts the counselor(s) enough
to make decisions and provide insight when needed. 4 2 2 2
14. The principal and counseling roles are pretty
defined, but the principal and counselor(s) are
not afraid to pitch in with each other's jobs. 3 -3 0 -3
15. The principal supports the counselor(s) in
developing a leadership role in the school. 2 -2 4 1
16. Communication between the principal and the
counselor(s) is usually informal unless it is an
important issue that requires documentation. 1 1 0 3
17. The school counselor(s) and the principal
regularly discuss issues relative to the school
improvement plan. 0 -3 1 4
18. The school principal and the counselor(s)
communicate openly with each other. 4 0 4 0
19. The school counselor(s) and the principal
collaborate on issues both of professional
development and of assessing instructional needs,
but the school counselor(s) have not been involved
in any types of discussions regarding
instructional evaluation. -1 -1 1 1
20. Consultation between the counselor(s) and the
principal does not occur on a whole lot of issues. -3 1 -1 -3
21. Counselors speak with teachers about
administrative matters, but as colleagues, not as
an administrator. 0 2 0 2
22. The school counselor(s) collect data on the
ground and then let the principal know about the
smaller operational things the principal isn't
able to track on a daily basis. -2 -1 1 1
23. The principal and the school counselor(s)
focus on analyzing appropriate interventions to
better align action to the desired outcome and
evaluating the degree to which this has been
accomplished. 0 -1 2 -1
24. The school counselors are not involved with
the principal in instructional decisions or
organizational practices to support effective
instruction such as tracking or not tracking
students, sequencing the curriculum, and so forth. -1 4 -1 -1
25. The school counselor(s) consult(s) with the
principal in order to better understand how school
systems operate. 0 1 1 1
26. The counselor(s) and principal both understand
the importance of confidentiality. 3 2 1 2
27. The counselor(s) and the principal consult
regarding the teaching that they observed in the
classrooms. -2 -2 -2 1
28. The principal is wary about consulting with
school counselors on issues involving teachers. -2 4 -1 -2
29. The relationship between the principal and the
school counselor(s) hinges on the belief that
leadership should be distributed. 1 -4 3 -2
30. The counselor(s) and the principal each value
the other's tasks and responsibilities. 3 1 2 0
31. The principal is sometimes frustrated with how
little the school counselor(s) share(s) regarding
student issues. -3 -2 -3 -1
32. The counselor(s) do(es) not consult with the
principal in regard to decisions involving
students unless it is an obvious administrative
decision that must occur. -1 2 -1 -2
33. The school counselor operates at the nexus of
where administrative and instructional duties
converge. -1 -3 -2 -3
34. The principal views the school counselor(s) as
providing ancillary services that only indirectly
support student learning. -3 3 -2 -3
35. The principal and the counselor(s) agree that
counseling services should include classroom
guidance lessons. 1 0 0 2
36. The principal and the counselor(s) have
different goals-the counselor(s) seek(s) to remove
barriers to the personal and academic success of
kids; the principal seeks to protect the public
perception of the school. -2 3 -4 -1
37. The relationship between the principal and the
counselor(s) is one of interdependency. 2 1 2 1
38. If the parameters of the relationship between
the principal and the counselor(s) were clearer in
the first place, the relationship wouldn't be so
difficult. -3 3 1 0
39. Principal collaboration with the counselor(s)
is integral to developing home-school
relations-especially with challenging students and
parents. 2 4 4 -1
40. The principal understands that he or she is
not a school counselor and the counselors
understand that they are not principals. 1 2 3 0
41. There are many facets of the school counseling
and principal jobs that cannot be easily
accomplished without mutual support, advice,
and understanding. 3 3 3 3
42. The principal and the counselor(s) are in
agreement not to involve the counselor(s) in
discipline. 0 -1 -3 0
43. The relationship between the school
counselor(s) and the principal is more friendly
than collegial. -1 1 -1 -2
44. Given the administrative function of the
principal, the relationship between the
counselor(s) and the principal is characterized by
an element of fear. -4 1 -4 -2
45. The counselor(s) and the principal engage in
specific discussions relative to closing the
achievement gaps for traditionally underserved
groups of students. 0 -4 3 4 |
| Gale Copyright: | Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. |
Previous Article: Correction.
Next Article: Managing the quagmire of counseling in a school: bringing the parents onboard.
Next Article: Managing the quagmire of counseling in a school: bringing the parents onboard.