SD16 - Report of the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Feasibility of Requiring Developmental Guidance and Counseling Programs in the Public Elementary Schools

  • Published: 1983
  • Author: Joint Subcommittee Studying the Feasibility of Requiring Developmental Guidance and Counseling Programs in the Public Elementary Schools
  • Enabling Authority: Senate Joint Resolution 69 (Regular Session, 1982)

Executive Summary:
Senate Joint Resolution No. 69, agreed to by the Senate and House of Delegates during the 1982 Session of the General Assembly, requested the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Feasibility of Requiring Developmental Guidance and Counseling in the Public Schools to reconvene once during each year of the 1982-83 biennium to determine the status and needs of elementary school guidance and counseling programs in the Commonwealth.

The 1982 General Assembly also agreed to two other joint resolutions that were recommended by the joint subcommittee: Senate Joint Resolution No. 66, which expressed the sense of the General Assembly regarding the joint subcommittee's recommendations; and Senate Joint Resolution No. 70, which requested the Board of Education to consider revising the priorities of education and reallocate resources between the elementary and secondary levels to provide more money for counseling in elementary schools. The resolutions are appended to this report.

The membership of the joint subcommittee and the task force remained as appointed pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution No. 132, 1981.

Senator Stanley C. Walker and Delegate George W. Grayson served as Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively.

Activities of the Joint Subcommittee

The joint subcommittee reconvened in November, 1982 to assess (1) the status and needs of elementary school guidance and counseling programs and (2) the progress of the implementation of its recommendations cited in Senate Joint Resolution No. 66 and Senate Joint Resolution No. 70.

They also received comments from the Secretary of Education on elementary school guidance and counseling programs, and testimony from the Department of Education on the implementation of the joint subcommittee's recommendations.

Mr. Cecil Carter, Deputy Secretary of Education, representing Dr. John T. Casteen, Ill. Secretary of Education, commented that the Secretary supported the Department of Education's position that local school divisions should be given the option of employing elementary school guidance counselors within existing resources.

The Department of Education reviewed the Preliminary Report on the Evaluation of Elementary School Guidance Programs in Three Virginia School Divisions. The report is based upon a study conducted by the Department to obtain objective information on the effectiveness and implementation of guidance programs in the State.

The preliminary report addressed in detail the responses from parents, teachers, principals, counselors, special education teachers, school psychologists, and school nurses. The results of interviews with principals, counselors, and students in 29 schools in the school divisions selected for the study established clearly the level of acceptance of the programs by such persons. Of the 200 elementary schools with either full- or part-time guidance counselors, three school divisions were selected for study: Richmond City (urban), Williamsburg-James City County (primarily suburban), and Augusta County (primarily rural). Questionnaires for administrators and staff were sent to 30 schools. Principals were asked to rate six major goals of elementary guidance programs on a five-point scale, five being highest and one being lowest. Their highest rated goal was "fostering healthy social and emotional development of children." Their lowest rated goal was "improving the school program." They were also asked to rate eight factors frequently cited as leading to successful programs relative to their perceptions of the importance of each in the success of their own elementary guidance programs. They were asked to rate each factor on a four-point scale, four being highest and one being lowest. The highest rated factor was "counselor dedication to program tasks." The means ranged from 3.37 to 3.85 out of 4.0, indicating that principals saw all of the factors as relatively important. Other administrative and instructional staff members were asked to respond to a series of questions regarding the frequency, importance and effectiveness of the tasks performed by elementary school guidance counselors, and the improvement in student attitudes as a result of the elementary guidance programs. Responses from the persons surveyed all indicated enthusiastic support of the program.

The final report, which will include an extensive analysis of the study and establish the acceptance level of elementary school guidance programs by representatives of community organizations, visiting teachers and paraprofessionals, will be presented to the joint subcommittee when it reconvenes in 1983.

Dr. S. John Davis, Superintendent of Public Instruction, discussed with the joint subcommittee the proposed revision of the Standards of Accreditation for Schools. He stated that the proposed Standards include, for the first time, a provision which would allow local school divisions the option of providing elementary school guidance programs within existing resources. This provision was included in the proposed accreditation standards in response to the joint subcommittee's recommendation. This option allows local school divisions to select an alternate staffing plan which would continue to ensure that the administrative, library and guidance responsibilities set forth in the accreditation standards are met. Should a locality choose this alternative, it must develop a written policy that must be approved by the division superintendent and local school board. The alternate staffing plan must be submitted also to the Department of Education for approval prior to implementation of the program. The proposed standards also require that guidance programs at the appropriate grades, K-12, adhere to the specific criteria established in the accreditation standards.

In response to the joint subcommittee's query concerning its recommendation that pupil personnel services and resources be reallocated in a manner to provide equalization of guidance and counseling services between the elementary and secondary levels, Dr. Davis stated that the Department had considered the recommendation and concluded that a redistribution of secondary school guidance counselors to provide elementary schools with guidance counselors would result in an insufficient number of guidance counselors at the secondary level.

In the Department of Education's written response (Appendix B) on the status of the implementation of each of the joint subcommittee's recommendations, it indicated that (1) a model for guidance for grades K-12, which includes a developmental guidance and counseling component for the elementary schools, has been developed and scheduled for field testing in a rural school division; (2) curriculum materials on elementary school guidance counseling for use by elementary classroom teachers will be developed; (3) in-service training for elementary school teachers and technical assistance at the request of local school divisions will be provided; and (4) school divisions will be encouraged to utilize state college and university personnel who have expertise in this area as resource persons. The response noted that to date no action has been taken by the Board of Education to equalize the distribution of pupil personnel services and resources throughout the elementary and secondary grades.