School counseling now and in the future: a reaction

Abstract

Here, at the beginning of the 21st Century, the focus in the December 2001 issue of Professional School Counseling provided an opportunity for counselors and counselor educators to stop and reflect on the status of the profession. The articles by Baker (2001) and Gysbers (2001) reminded us of how far the profession has come and how many people have influenced counseling and worked tirelessly on its behalf. Nevertheless, all four articles reminded readers of how much work remains if counseling is to meet the needs of all students in an increasingly diverse country. Common Themes While decidedly different in their focus and tone, the four articles on counseling past, present, and future had several common themes, each appearing in at least three of the four articles. The themes that we identified focused primarily on the belief that counselors (a) struggle with role definition, (b) face increasingly diverse student populations, (c) should serve all students, (d) need to utilize technology to improve their counseling programs, and (e) must engage in ongoing professional development. Two final themes centered around the nature and impact of counseling programs and visions of the future of counseling. We reflect on these articles as counselor educators at a large, Midwestern university, deeply invested in and involved in counseling reform. It is from this perspective we first comment on and then give our perspectives regarding file common themes we noted in the four articles. Next, we present our own vision of the future of counseling and counselor preparation, which is vested heavily in the national initiative of The Education Trust (1997). School Counselor Role As hard as it is to believe, counselors are still struggling with role definition. Paisley and McMahon (2001) argued that the ongoing debate over role definition is probably the most significant challenge facing counselors. Although the current national focus is on counseling programs rather than counseling services, the authors noted that individual counselors are still struggling with priorities. The national agenda for counseling changes its focus as it reacts to national agendas and events, moving from an emphasis on at-risk students, to violence, and more recently to academic achievement. As a result, counselors are pulled in different directions. Baker (2001) also commented on the many and varied demands on counselors, noting more than a dozen different student populations that have been identified in the literature as needing special assistance. Gysbers (2001), although not addressing role definition as directly as the others, noted that there have been and continues to be a wide variety of purposes advanced for counseling. He argued that these multiple purposes could result in unfulfilled expectations, role conflict for counselors as they try to respond to different demands, and fragmentation among the specialty as some counselors respond to mental health concerns while others respond to career or educational issues. Gysbers argued it is rime for the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) to assume a leadership role in defining a clear purpose/mission for counselors. Certainly ASCA's development of the National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) is the kind of leadership to which he was referring. Paisley and McMahon (2001) suggested that a stable yet flexible idea of counseling actually does exist. They believe school counseling programs are increasingly anchored in proactive interventions associated with comprehensive, developmental, and collaborative approaches (p. 110). Additionally, they maintained counselors can define their role better by recognizing they cannot do their work alone and need to collaborate with other stakeholders. …