School counselors' perceptions of their involvement in school-family-community partnerships.
Authors: Bryan, Julia
Holcomb-McCoy, Cheryl
Pub Date: 02/01/2004
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 2004 American School Counselor Association ISSN: 1096-2409
Issue: Date: Feb, 2004 Source Volume: 7 Source Issue: 3
Accession Number: 114784731
Full Text: This study investigated school counselors' perceptions about their involvement in nine school-family-community (SFC) partnership programs and barriers to their involvement in such partnerships. A random sample of 72 school counselors in South Carolina public schools were asked to rate the importance and degree of their involvement related to nine SFC partnerships. The study revealed that the participants perceived their involvement in SFC partnerships as very important and significant relationships were round between school counselors' perceptions of importance of their involvement in partnerships and barriers to that involvement. Counselors varied in some of their perceptions and practices in the nine partnership programs by school level (i.e., elementary, middle, high school).

**********

School-family-community (SFC) partnerships are collaborative initiatives or relationships that actively involve school personnel, parents, families, and community members and organizations as equal and mutual partners in the planning, coordinating, and implementing of programs and activities at home, at school, and in the community to help increase the academic, emotional, and social success of students (Davies, 1996; Epstein, 1992; Swap, 1993). This article describes a study that explored school counselors' perceptions about their involvement in SFC partnerships.

RELEVANT LITERATURE

In 1997, the United States Congress thought parent involvement and partnerships important enough to include them in a revised list of National Education Goals known as Goals 2000. This federal legislation called for the development of school partnerships with families and community groups. Goal 8 of the National Education Goals encouraged schools to promote "partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation" by the year 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 1997).

Many authors have suggested that SFC partnerships are one of the protective factors that foster educational resilience in at-risk children (Benard, 1995; Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Epstein, 1995; Walsh, Howard, & Buckley, 1999). Educational reform over the past decade has even focused on school-community connections, home-school collaboration, or school-family-community partnerships as a means to helping youngsters achieve (Christenson & Conoley, 1992; Davies, 1991; Epstein, 1992; Merz & Furman, 1997; Ritchie, & Partin, 1994; Swap, 1992). These SFC partnerships have been evidenced through local governance models which include parents and community members in school governance, (e.g., site-based management); through parent and community involvement and volunteer programs (e.g., parents and community members as teacher-aides, mentors, and volunteers in the school); and through school-linked services (or interagency collaboration), which involve a number of approaches to linking social services agencies with schools in order to improve services to children (Merz & Furman).

An extensive review of the literature revealed that there are nine SFC partnership programs frequently found in schools. These nine partnership programs include:

1. Mentoring programs (Benard, 1995; Christiansen, 1997)

2. Parent centers (Corner, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996)

3. Family/community members as teachers' aides (Epstein, 1995)

4. Parent and community volunteer programs (Gherke, 1998)

5. Home visit programs (Christiansen, 1997; Cole, Thomas, & Lee, 1988)

6. Parent education programs (Christiansen, 1997; Ritchie, & Partin, 1994)

7. School-business partnerships (Dedmond, 1991)

8. Parents and community members in site-based management (Walsh et al., 1999)

9. Tutoring programs (Merz & Furman, 1997).

The emergence of SFC partnerships has also redefined the role of many school professionals, including school counselors (Adelman, 2002; Bemak, 2000; Taylor & Adelman, 2000). School counselors are being called on to take active roles in partnerships and to be part of the efforts to find effective and innovative ways to develop them (Christiansen, 1997; Keys, Bemak, Carpenter, & King-Sears, 1998; Lockhart & Keys, 1998). Since school counselors are seen as having potential for leadership in educational reform and as advocates of student success, it is suggested that school counselors promote educational reform through leadership in partnerships between school, families, and communities (Bemak; Colbert, 1996; Dedmond, 1991; House & Hayes, 2002).

This study provides valuable information for counselor educators and school counseling professionals as they focus more on SFC partnerships. In spite of the growing literature written about SFC partnerships and the prescribed roles for school counselors in SFC partnerships, no primary research could be found addressing the perceptions, roles, or involvement of the school counselor in relation to these SFC partnerships. In providing empirical data to address these questions, this study fills a gap in the research.

This study investigated school counselors' perceptions about their involvement in nine school-family-community partnership programs (e.g., mentoring, volunteer programs, tutoring, parent education) and barriers to their involvement in those partnerships. The primary research questions were as follows:

1. Overall, what are school counselors' perceptions regarding school counselor involvement in SFC partnerships?

2. What are school counselors' perceptions regarding school counselors playing a major role in nine types of SFC partnerships?

3. What are school counselors' perceptions regarding the importance of nine types of SFC partnerships in their schools?

4. What are school counselors' perceptions regarding the importance of their role in nine types of SFC partnerships in their schools?

5. How willing are school counselors to be involved in nine types of SFC partnerships?

6. What barriers hinder school counselors' involvement in SFC partnerships?

METHOD

Participants

A sample of 300 school counselors was randomly drawn from South Carolina's State Department of Education's complete listing of school counselors in South Carolina's public schools by stratified sampling. There were a total of 1,641 school counselors in South Carolina: 542 high school counselors, 714 elementary school counselors, and 385 middle or junior high counselors. To enable the strata or subgroups to be compared and to ensure proportional representation, the researcher carried out proportional stratified sampling with sample sizes chosen so that the smallest was large enough to permit meaningful comparisons. Within each school level (elementary, middle, and high), the number of counselors chosen was proportional to the representation of each of these subgroups within the entire state sample pool. The sample was stratified by randomly selecting 33% or 99 high school counselors, 44% or 132 elementary school counselors, and 23% or 69 middle or junior high school counselors.

There was a response rate of 25% with 75 surveys being returned. Only 72 or 24% were usable. Of the 72 participants, 86% were females and 12.5% were male. The state director of guidance reported that this was representative of the school counselor population in the state. Compared to the population of South Carolina's school counselors, 37.5% of the respondents worked in elementary schools compared to 44% in the total population, 26.4% worked in middle schools compared to 23% in the total population, and 26.4% worked in high schools compared to 33% in the total population.

Instrumentation

Survey development. No survey currently exists to assess school counselors' perceptions about their partnership roles and practices. Therefore, a survey was designed (for additional information rgarding the survey's design, please contact the authors). After a thorough review of the literature, a focus group with three school counselors and two counselor educators was implemented. The focus group met to discuss issues related to school counselors' role in SFC partnerships. The survey was then constructed and piloted on ten master's level and doctoral level counseling students who were currently school counselors. Feedback was given regarding question clarity, comprehensiveness, and acceptability. The pilot study confirmed that the survey had face and content validity. After revisions were made, the final draft of the survey was used for this study.

The final survey consists of four parts: the first part elicits demographic data; the second part concerns school counselors' perceptions about the importance of SFC partnership programs in their schools and the importance of school counselor involvement in nine SFC partnership programs; the third part concerns school counselors' perceptions of the degree to which six barriers hinder their involvement in partnerships and of their willingness to be involved in partnership programs; and the final part was a section for feedback so that counselors could offer any additional comments. Below is a description of the first three parts of the survey.

Demographic data. This section of the survey consists of ten items that obtained information about years of school counselor experience, gender, highest degree earned, accreditation of graduate school program, counselor's ethnic background, school setting in which counselor works, type of school, community setting, percentage of students on free or reduced lunch, and percentages of each ethnic category of students. Years of experience was grouped into five categories: 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, and over 20 years. School setting had three levels: elementary, middle or junior high, and high school. Community type had three levels: urban, rural, and suburban.

Perceptions about the importance of counselor involvement in partnerships. The questions in this section of the survey asked participants to rate (1) the importance of school counselor involvement in partnerships, (2) the importance of counselors involvement in nine SFC partnership programs, (3) the importance of these nine SFC partnership programs in their schools, and (4) the importance of their personal role in these nine SFC partnership programs. Question one, a measure of the overall importance of school counselor involvement in partnerships, consisted of no sub-items. This question asked, "In your opinion how important is it that school counselors be involved in school-family-community partnerships?" Questions two, three, and four each have nine sub-items related to the importance of nine partnership programs. These sub-items were measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 = not important, 2 = rarely important, 3 = important, 4 = very important, and 5 = exceptionally important. For example, question two asked, "In your opinion, how important is it that school counselors are involved in these SFC partnerships.," (a) mentoring programs, (b) parent center, (c) family/community members as teachers' aides, (d) volunteer program for family/community members, (e) home visitor programs, (f) parent education programs, (g) school-business partnerships, (h) parent/family member on management teams/councils, and (i) tutoring program." Similarly, the subitems were the same for questions three and four. Question three asked: In your opinion, how important are the following partnership activities in your school? Question four asked participants, "In your opinion, how important is your involvement in the SFC partnerships which exist in your school?

Perceptions about school counselors' involvement in partnerships. Two of the questions in this sections asked participants to rate (a) the extent to which six barriers hindered their involvement in school-family-community partnerships and (b) their willingness to be involved in nine partnership programs. These questions were measured on a 5 point Likert scale with 1 = not at all, 2 = infrequently, 3 = frequently, 4 = very frequently, and 5 = all of the time. Question one had six sub-items each corresponding to a barrier that hindered school counselor involvement in school-family-community partnerships. Counselors were asked to rate the degree of hindrance caused by each of the six barriers. For example, question one asked, "In your opinion, to what extent do these barriers keep you from being involved in school-family-community partnerships? (a) lack of rime, (b) lack of opportunity, (c) too many counselor responsibilities, (d) lack of school policy, (e) inadequate training, (f) not consistent with school counselor's role."

Question two measured the extent to which school counselors are willing to be involved in nine partnership programs. This question asked: "In your opinion, to what extent are you willing to get involved in these types of partnerships?" Similar to questions two, three, and four in the previous section of the survey, the nine partnership programs made up the sub-items for question 2 in this section. This study indicated that the internal consistency or Cronbach's coefficient alpha for the survey is .95 indicating satisfactory reliability.

Procedures

The survey was mailed to 300 (n = 300) school counselors in South Carolina along with a cover letter and a self-addressed stamped envelope. A definition of school-family-community partnerships was provided along with directions for completion of the survey. In the cover letter, participants were informed of the anonymity, volunteer nature of the study, and that returning the completed survey indicated their consent. No follow-up was done due to lack of funding. Seventy-two usable (24% return rate) surveys were returned. A power analysis revealed that this sample size resulted in a power of .70 and was sufficient to detect large effect sizes or differences or differences at the .05 level of significance.

DATA ANALYSIS

For the first part of survey, questions two through four, school counselors were compared across school level (between-subjects variable) and across nine partnership programs (within-subjects variable). The individual sub-items are the within-subject measures in the three split-plot analyses of variance (SPANOVA) used to compare school counselors' level of perceived importance for each of the nine partnership programs.

For the purpose of correlational analysis, the sub-items for each question were summed to provide total measures of importance. A Pearson's correlation was performed on summed scales to determine if there is a significant correlation between perceptions of the importance of counselor's personal role in partnerships and perceived importance of partnerships in the school.

Individual sub-items were the within subject measures in the two split-plot analyses of variance (SPANOVA) used to examine mean differences in school counselors' perceptions about barriers and their willingness to be involved in partnerships. School counselors were compared across school level (between-subjects variable) on each of the six barriers in question one and nine partnership programs in question two.

Pearson's correlations were conducted on summed scales of questions one and two along with the summed scale of question four in previous section of the survey. This was done to determine whether there is a significant inter correlation between counselors' perceptions of the degree of hindrance caused by barriers, perceptions of the importance of counselor's personal role in partnerships, and perceptions of the importance of partnerships in the school.

RESULTS

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and five split-plot analyses of variance (SPANOVA) were conducted to answer the questions concerning differences in school counselors' perceptions of importance and involvement by school level across nine partnership programs and six barriers. The Huynh-Feldt correction was used to determine the F-value for the within-subject variables. To examine significant main effects for school level, programs, and barriers, pairwise comparisons were conducted. Type I error was controlled for by using the Bonferroni method. No significant interaction effects were found for any of the SPANOVAs. Some Pearson's correlations were also conducted to determine the relationship between counselors' perceptions of the degree of hindrance caused by barriers, perceptions of the importance of counselor's personal role in partnerships, and perceptions of the importance of partnerships in the school.

Research Questions Results

Overall, what are school counselors' perceptions regarding school counselor involvement in SFC partnerships? Overall, the participants rated school counselor involvement as very important in school-family-community partnerships, M = 4.27, SD = .75, N = 72. A one-way ANOVA revealed that school counselors did not vary by school level in their perceived importance of school counselor involvement in partnerships, F = 3.07, p = .054.

What are school counselors' perceptions regarding school counselors playing a major role in nine SFC partnerships? School counselors did not differ by school level in the perceived importance of school counselors playing major roles in the nine school-family community partnerships, F (2, 62) = .322, p = .726. Therefore, counselors at all school levels perceived it as important that counselors should play major roles in partnerships. The means and standard errors for the between subjects variable and school level are found in Table 1.

However, there were significant differences in perceived importance of school counselor involvement among the nine partnership programs, F (8,492) = 14.982, p = .000. Means, standard deviations and results of post hoc comparisons for the nine partnership programs are given in Table 2.

What are school counselors' perceptions regarding the importance of nine SFC partnerships in their schools? School counselors differed significantly by school level in their perceptions of the importance of partnerships in their own school, F (2, 62) = 3.932, p = .025. Elementary school counselors perceived the nine school-family-community partnerships to be more important in their schools than did high school counselors (sec Table 1). There was also a significant effect for program, F (8, 466) = 13.794, p = .000. Perceived importance of the nine partnership programs varied significantly. Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and results of the pairwise comparisons for each program.

What are school counselors' perceptions regarding the importance of their role in nine SFC partnerships in their schools? School counselors differed by school level in their perceptions of the importance of their role in school-family-community partnerships, F (2, 62) = 4.321, p = .018. Elementary school counselors perceived their roles to be more important than high school counselors (see Table 1). There was also a significant effect for program (see Table 4). Counselors differed in the perceived importance of their role across the nine partnership programs.

As a post hoc analysis, the relationship between school counselors' perceived importance of their role in the nine partnership programs and their perceiving importance of the nine partnership programs in their schools was explored. The results indicated that there was a significant positive correlation between these two variables, r (72) = .752, p < .001.

How willing are school counselors to be involved in nine SFC partnerships? There were no significant differences by school level in willingness to be involved in partnerships (see Table 1). However, there was a significant within-subjects effect for program, F (8, 419) = 11.810, p = .000. Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations by program type and the results of the post hoc comparison of means.

What barriers hinder school counselors' involvement in SFC partnerships? There were significant differences found by school level in relation to school counselors' perceptions about the barriers that hinder their involvement in school-family-community partnerships, F (2, 62) = 5.423, p = .007. High school counselors perceived a significantly higher level of barriers than either middle school counselors or elementary school counselors (see Table 1). There were significant differences in the perceptions of the degree to which the six barriers hindered involvement in partnerships, F (5, 299) = 67.573, p = .000. School counselors across all school levels reported that too many counselor responsibilities and lack of time most frequently hindered their involvement in school-family-community partnerships. Means and standard deviations and results of pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni approach are reported in Table 5.

DISCUSSION

There are a number of limitations that one must pay attention to in interpreting the results of this study. The self-report nature of this study may be influenced by response bias caused by counselors wanting to appear competent and to be seen as engaging in professionally desirable behavior related to school-family-community partnerships. Response style and honesty of the respondents will affect the validity of the information received to some extent. Another limitation is that the participants in the study came from the state of South Carolina only. This limits the generalizability of the findings since results may be representative of the perspectives of school counselors in South Carolina only. Attempts to generalize results further a field should be done with caution since one cannot assume that the sample in this study is representative of other populations outside of South Carolina. In addition, non-response bias may have resulted from the extremely low return rate of 24%. It is possible that only school counselors with school family-community partnership programs in their schools may have responded to the survey.

Nevertheless, this study is the first attempt to provide empirical data to address questions regarding the perspectives and practices of school counselors regarding school-family-community partnerships. Therefore, it will provide a basis for future research on the topic. This study revealed that school counselors regardless of school level consider it very important that they be involved in school-family community partnerships and that they play major roles in such partnerships. On the other hand, elementary school counselors perceive partnership programs as being more important in their schools than high school counselors and perceive their present roles in school-family-community partnerships as more important than high school counselors. Additionally, school counselors perceive the importance of their roles in some partnership programs as more important than in others. Overall, the highest mean levels of importance were attributed to mentoring and parent education programs regardless of counselor's work setting.

School counselors also differ by school level in their perceptions of hindrance caused by barriers to their involvement. High school counselors perceive a higher level of hindrance than both elementary and middle school counselors. However, counselors at all levels perceive too many counselor responsibilities and lack of time as being major hindrances to their involvement in school-family-community partnerships. On average, school counselors at every school level were frequently willing to be involved in partnership programs. However, they were more willing to be involved in some types of programs than others. They expressed the highest mean levels of willingness To be involved in parent education and mentoring programs.

It is valuable to know that school counselors believe their involvement in school-family-community partnerships to be very important given the focus on school-family-community partnerships in educational reform (Colbert, 1996; Holcomb-McCoy, 2001). Since school counselors are being called on to play major roles in school-family-community partnerships, it is important that they endorse these partnerships as their perceptions will likely influence their behavior.

The finding that elementary school counselors perceive their personal roles in partnership programs as more important than middle or high school counselors is supported by previous research. Teachers and school psychologists in elementary schools have been found to have higher levels of involvement in school-family-community partnership activities (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Pelco, Ries, Jacobson, & Melka, 2000). While overall there is more parent involvement in elementary schools, research studies have highlighted the importance of school family community partnerships in meeting the developmental needs of students at the middle and high school levels (Epstein & Sanders, 2000).

Additionally, it is important to note that the significant relationship between the perceived importance of counselor's personal role in the partnership programs and the perceived importance of these partnership programs in their school is also supported by prior research in which elementary school teachers reported stronger involvement of their schools in school-family-community partnerships (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). The higher level of importance accorded to their roles in partnerships by elementary school counselors when compared to high school counselors in this study may be because there is a higher level of involvement in these partnerships at the elementary school level. The more their school is involved in partnerships, the more the counselor may be involved in partnership programs, thus viewing their roles in partnerships as more important. Thus, school counselor involvement in partnerships appears to be influenced by institutional culture and parent involvement practices related to school-family-community partnerships.

Differences in reported levels of importance of counselors' partnership roles among elementary and high school counselors did not result from differences in perceived importance of counselor involvement in partnerships. School counselors across all levels consider counselor involvement in partnership programs to be important. Additionally, it is clear that high school counselors in this study are equally willing to be involved in partnership programs when compared to elementary and middle school counselors. It is noteworthy that high school counselors perceive a higher level of barriers to their involvement in partnerships than elementary school counselors. It is also notable that counselors who perceive partnerships to be less important in their schools and perceive their role in partnerships as less important, also perceive a higher degree of barriers to their involvement in school-family-community partnerships. One reason that high school counselors may accord less importance to their roles in partnership programs is that they may be too overwhelmed by their administrative and clerical duties to become involved in partnerships to the extent that they think school counselors should.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL COUNSELORS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Given the barriers that school counselors face to their involvement in partnership programs, it is not enough simply to train counselors in how to build partnerships. Rather, in order to increase school counselor involvement in school-family-community partnerships, school counselor education programs will need to also train counselors to advocate for partnership programs, to devise strategies to overcome barriers, and to be catalyst for change in the school system. This means that counselors will have to be more proactive in defining their roles in the school. This is important since the school's culture related to partnerships appears to influence counselors' perceptions of the importance of their roles in these partnerships. Counselors must be trained to be proactive in defining their own roles within the institutions so that they are not forced to abnegate important functions such as collaboration in school-family-community partnerships.

Regarding further research in this area, it would be important to replicate this study with a national representative study and a larger sample size to determine if the differences and relationships found in this study still hold. Qualitative research is needed to do an in-depth study of attitudes, beliefs, events, and policies that influence school counselor involvement in school-family-community partnerships. Such a study would provide valuable information for operationalizing measures that appear to influence school counselor involvement in partnerships. These measures may then be used to further investigate the relationships between perceptions, training, and practice found in this study and to determine the factors that influence school counselor collaboration in school-family-community partnerships.

References

Adelman, H. 5. (2002). School counselors and school reform: New directions. Professional School Counseling, 5, 235-248.

Bemak, K (2000).Transforming the role of the counselor to provide leadership in educational reform through collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 3, 323-331.

Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resilience in children. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED386327).

Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children's academic and social competence. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Association of School Psychologists.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York: The Guilford.

Christiansen, J. (1997). Helping teachers meet the needs of students at risk for school failure. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 204-210.

Colbert, R. D. (1996). The counselor's role in advancing school and family partnerships. The School Counselor, 44, 100-104.

Cole, S. M., Thomas, A. R., & Lee, C. C. (1988). School counselor and school psychologist: Partners in minority family outreach. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 110-116.

Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E.T., & Ben-Avie, M. (Eds.). (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Corner process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College.

Davies, D. (1991). 5chools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships for student success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 376-382.

Davies, D. (1996). Partnerships for student success: What we hove learned about policies to increase student achievement through school partnerships with families and communities. Baltimore: Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children's Learning. John Hopkins University.

Dedmond, R. M. (1991). Establishing, coordinating school-community partnerships. NASSP Bulletin, 75(534), 28-35.

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships: Leadership roles for school psychologists. In S. L. Christenson, & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children's academic and social competence (pp. 19-52). Colesville, MD: National Association of 5chool Psychologists.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teachers practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-305.

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school and community: New directions for social research. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of education. New York: Plenum.

Gherke, M. E. (1998). Home, school, community partnerships. In J. M. Allen (Ed.), School counseling: New perspectives and practices (pp. 121-125). Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2001). Examining urban school counseling professionals perceptions of school restructuring activities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452451).

House, R. M., & Hayes, R. L. (2002). School counselors: Becoming key players in school reform. Professional School Counseling, 5, 249-256.

Keys, S., & Bemak, F., Carpenter, S. L., & King-Sears, M. E. (1998). Collaborative consultant: A new role for counselors serving at-risk youths. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 123-134.

Lockhart, E.J., & Keys, S. G. (1998). The mental health counseling role of school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 1(4), 3-6.

Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. New York: Teachers College.

Pelco, L. E., Ries, R. R., Jacobson, L., & Melka, S. (2000). Perspectives and practices in family-school partnerships: A national survey of school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 29, 235-250.

Ritchie, M. H., & Partin, R. L. (1994). Parent education and consultation activities of school counselors. The School Counselor, 41, 165-170.

Swap, S. M. (1992). Parent involvement and success for all children: What we know now. In S. L. Christenson, & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children's academic and social competence (pp. 19-52). Colesville, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Swap, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships. New York: Teacher's College.

Taylor, L, & Adelman, H. S. (2000). Connecting schools, families, and communities. Professional School Counseling, 3, 298-307.

U. S. Department of Education. (1997). Achieving the goals. Goal 8: Parent involvement and participation. Washington, DC: Author.

Walsh, M. E., Howard, K. A., & Buckley, M. A. (1999). School counselors in school-community partnerships: Opportunities and challenges. Professional School Counseling, 2, 349-356.

Julia Bryan, Ph.D., is an assistant professor Department of School Psychology and Counselor Education, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, Ph.D., is an assistant professor, Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, University of Maryland at College Park. E-mail: Jbryan@umd.edu, Ch193@umail.umd.edu
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors and Analysis of
Variance Results of Between-Subjects Effect for School Level on Eight
Dependent Measures

                                  Total       Elementary
Measure                           (N = 65)    (n = 27)

Perceived importance        M     4.27        0.75
by school counselors of     SD    0.75        0.50
their involvement in
school-family-community
partnerships overall
Perceived importance        M     3.40        3.50
of counselor involvement    SE    0.10        0.15
in school-family-
community partnerships
Perceived importance        M     3.26        [3.23.sub.a]
of partnerships in the      SE    0.11        0.16
school
perceived importance        M     2.92        [3.63.sub.a]
of counselor's role in      SE    0.10        0.16
school-family-community
partnership programs
Perceived degree of         M     2.99        [2.83.sub.a]
hindrance by barriers       SE    0.08        0.12
to involvement in
partnerships
Willingness to be           M     3.25        3.30
involved in                 SE    0.10        0.16
partnerships

                                  Middle          High
Measure                           (n = 19)        (n = 19)

Perceived importance        M     4.49            0.50
by school counselors of     SD    0.73            0.95
their involvement in
school-family-community
partnerships overall
Perceived importance        M     3.33            3.37
of counselor involvement    SE    0.18            0.18
in school-family-
community partnerships
Perceived importance        M     3.21            [2.93.sub.a]
of partnerships in the      SE    0.19            0.19
school
perceived importance        M     3.02            [2.52.sub.a]
of counselor's role in      SE    0.19            0.19
school-family-community
partnership programs
Perceived degree of         M     [2.78.sub.b]    [3.34.sub.a,b]
hindrance by barriers       SE    0.14            0.14
to involvement in
partnerships
Willingness to be           M     3.33            3.12
involved in                 SE    0.19            0.19
partnerships

                                  ANOVA
Measure                           F(2,62) (a)

Perceived importance        M     4.26
by school counselors of     SD
their involvement in
school-family-community
partnerships overall
Perceived importance        M      .322
of counselor involvement    SE
in school-family-
community partnerships
Perceived importance        M     3.932 *
of partnerships in the      SE
school
perceived importance        M     4.321 *
of counselor's role in      SE
school-family-community
partnership programs
Perceived degree of         M     5.423 **
hindrance by barriers       SE
to involvement in
partnerships
Willingness to be           M     0.360
involved in                 SE
partnerships

Note. Means in a row sharing subscripts are significantly different.
For all measures, higher means indicate higher scores.

(a) This is the F statistic for the between-subject variable in the
split-plot analysis of variance (SPANOVA) conducted for each measure.
Results for the within-subject effects are presented in other tables.

*** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05.

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations and SPANOVA Results for
Within-Subjects Effect of Importance Ratings of Counselor Involvement
in Nine Partnership Programs

Program                             M       SD

SPANOVA F(8, 492) = 14.982 ***

1. Mentoring programs               3.99    0.80
2. Parent centers                   3.52    0.99
3. Family/community members as      3.02    1.02
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs               3.28    1.00
5. Home visitor programs            3.05    0.96
6. Parent education programs        3.88    0.93
7. School-business partnerships     3.32    1.16
8. Parent/family members on         3.51    0.95
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                3.15    1.12

Program                             Post hoc

SPANOVA F(8, 492) = 14.982 ***

1. Mentoring programs               1 > 3, 4, 5, 7, 9
2. Parent centers
3. Family/community members as      3 < 1, 6
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs               4 < 1, 6
5. Home visitor programs            5 < 1, 6
6. Parent education programs        6 > 3, 4, 5, 9
7. School-business partnerships     7 < 1
8. Parent/family members on
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                9 < 1, 6

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects
variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of
the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of
significance used was p = .001.

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for
Within-Subjects Effect of Importance Ratings of Nine Partnership
Programs in the School

Program                             M        SD

SPANOVA F (8, 466) = 13.794 ***

1. Mentoring programs                3.54    1.24
2. Parent centers                   94       1.38
3. Family/community members as       2.84    1.13
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs                3.32    1.21
5. Home visitor programs             2.72    1.16
6. Parent education programs         3.51    1.09
7. School-business partnerships      3.64    1.12
8. Parent/family members on          3.60    0.98
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                 3.60    1.09

Program                             Post hoc

SPANOVA F (8, 466) = 13.794 ***

1. Mentoring programs               1 > 3, 5 .
2. Parent centers                   2 < 6, 7, 9
3. Family/community members as      3 < 1, 6, 7, 8, 9
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs
5. Home visitor programs            5 < 1, 6, 7, 8, 9
6. Parent education programs        6 > 2, 3, 5
7. School-business partnerships     7 > 2, 3, 5
8. Parent/family members on         8 > 3, 5
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                9 > 2, 3, 5

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects
variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of
the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of
significance used was p = .001.

Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for
Within-Subjects Effect of Importance Ratings of Counselor's Personal
Role in Nine Partnership Programs

Program                             M        SD

SPANOVA F (8, 432) = 10.106 ***

1. Mentoring programs               3.40     1.24
2. Parent centers                   2.75     1.24
3. Family/community members as      2.45     1.06
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs               2.96     1.16
5. Home visitor programs            2.50     1.18
6. Parent education programs        3.41     1.18
7. School-business partnerships     3.00     1.15
8. Parent/family members on         3.16     1.15
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                2.98     1.29

Program                             Post hoc

SPANOVA F (8, 432) = 10.106 ***

1. Mentoring programs               1 > 2, 3, 5
2. Parent centers                   2 < 1, 6,
3. Family/community members as      3 < 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs               4 > 3
5. Home visitor programs            5 < 1, 6, 8,
6. Parent education programs        6 > 2, 3, 5
7. School-business partnerships     7 > 3
8. Parent/family members on         8 > 3, 5
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                9 > 3

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects
variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of
the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of
significance used was p = .001.

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for
Within-Subjects Effect of Degree of Willingness to be Involved in Nine
Partnership Programs

Program                             M        SD

SPANOVA F (8, 419) = 11.810 ***

1. Mentoring programs               3.75     1.00
2. Parent centers                   3.34     1.06
3. Family/community members as      2.57     1.16
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs               3.15     1.13
5. Home visitor programs            3.00     1.24
6. Parent education programs        3.80     0.99
7. School-business partnerships     3.17     1.24
8. Parent/family members on         3.32     1.16
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs                3.22     1.29

Program                             Post hoc

SPANOVA F (8, 419) = 11.810 ***

1. Mentoring programs               1 > 3, 5
2. Parent centers                   2 < 6
3. Family/community members as      3 < 1, 2, 4, 6, 8
   teachers' aides
4. Volunteer programs               4 > 3
5. Home visitor programs            5 < 1, 6
6. Parent education programs        6 > 3, 5
7. School-business partnerships
8. Parent/family members on         8 > 3
   management teams
9. Tutoring programs

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects
variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of
the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of
significance used was p = .001.

Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for
Within-Subjects Effect of Degree of Hindrance Caused by Six Barriers to
Counselor Involvement in Partnerships

Barrier                                    M       SD

SPANOVA F (5, 299) = 67.573 ***

1. Lack of time                            3.98    0.84
2. Lack of opportunity                     2.67    1.09
3. Too many counselor responsibilities     4.26    0.82
4. Lack of school policy                   2.49    1.22
5. Inadequate training                     2.05    1.02
6. Not consistent with school              2.33    1.12
   counselor's role

Barrier                                    Post hoc

SPANOVA F (5, 299) = 67.573 ***

1. Lack of time                            1 > 2, 4, 5, 6
2. Lack of opportunity                     2 < 1, 3
3. Too many counselor responsibilities     3 > 2, 4, 5, 6
4. Lack of school policy                   4 < 1, 3
5. Inadequate training                     5 < 1, 3
6. Not consistent with school              6 < 1, 3
   counselor's role

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects
variable and program as the with-in-subjects variable. The results of
the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of
significance used was p = .002.
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.