CASE STUDY IN SCHOOL COUNSELOR ADVOCACY

Transcription

1 CASE STUDY IN SCHOOL COUNSELOR ADVOCACY HB 4523 AN ACT TO ASSURE COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS THROUGH SIX YEAR CAREER PLANS: ADVOCACY TO ELEVATE THE SCHOOL COUNSELING PROFESSION Academic research across the last two decades has shown school counseling to be a significant factor in promoting student achievement and success. Yet it is still common for school counselors to be undervalued and overlooked in the creation of policy, curriculum, and school budgeting across the nation. As a consequence, important policies and school plans are often created without the expertise of school counselors, an omission that greatly impacts students. Massachusetts historically has been like many other states; education policy is often made by those who are not experts in education, without the inclusion of a school counseling perspective. The Massachusetts School Counselors Association (MASCA) works in Massachusetts for the promotion, improvement and expansion of guidance and counseling in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1 Bob Bardwell, the past president of MASCA and current Advocacy Chair, felt that in order to change this dynamic and give school counseling a voice in education reform MASCA needed to focus on policy changes. At the same time, the College Board was in the midst of several advocacy projects to improve student access to college, including advocating for the role of school counselors in school reform. When Bardwell and Arthur Doyle, the New England Region VP for the College Board, met at a conference, they realized they had common ground in their goals and desire to bring school counseling to the forefront. Bardwell then asked Jon Westover, Senior Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and government relations chair for the New England Association for College Admission Counseling (NEACAC), and Brad MacGowan, secondary school counselor and participant in government relations for both NEACAC and MASCA, to get involved. The College Board brought M+R Strategic Services on board to help plan and support an advocacy campaign, and MASCA, NEACAC and the College Board began to work out how to best advocate for school counselors in New England. The members of the fledgling coalition, which was eventually renamed the Massachusetts Coalition for School Counseling (MCSC), felt that in order to have an influence on school 1 About MASCA. MASCA website: 1

2 counseling, policy work must be done at the state level. As most of the coalition members were based in Massachusetts, they decided that the Commonwealth was the right place to start. Initially, the coalition met to discuss the goals of their advocacy work. From those meetings, they determined that their overarching goal was to elevate the school counseling profession. In order to do this, the coalition felt it was necessary to change current perception of school counselors and the work that they do, as well as ensure that school counselors become part of planning and executing educational reform. Lori Fresina of M+R Strategic Services worked closely with the group, and through the Power Prism model, helped the coalition create a plan to achieve their goals. 2 They determined that filing legislation would be the best way to move toward their coalition goal; legislation could help school counseling gain recognition among state legislators and provide a method for defining the new role of school counselors in student achievement. In addition, it would help the group gain experience in the legislative process. As a result, MCSC decided to create and file two pieces of legislation: one that would establish a school counseling leadership pilot project to accelerate college and career readiness in Massachusetts public schools; and, one that would require all public school districts to prepare students for college and/or a career with a six-year plan, coordinated by licensed school counselors. The group chose these legislative objectives for several reasons. First, the intended effects of the legislation were concrete and directly impacted students. Some schools in Massachusetts vocational schools already had six-year career planning in place due to stipulations of federal funding, which supported the idea that school counselor-implemented college and career planning would be good for all students. In addition, the legislation focused on an important role that school counselors should be playing in their schools. School counselors, because they do not have dedicated classroom time, are often asked to perform tasks such as cafeteria duty, bus duty and test monitoring. This legislation put into writing the critical work that counselors and only counselors could be doing for students to help promote academic and career success. In addition, both pieces of legislation were not self-serving, so would likely be better received by those outside the school counseling profession. At the time, the coalition members did not have any legislative contacts at Beacon Hill; however, an acquaintance who was a former director of guidance at Wellesley High School had formed a relationship with Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch (D-Wellesley) while her children attended Wellesley High. He was willing to call Rep. Peisch to ask for her support, and she agreed to help write and file the legislation in the Massachusetts House of Representatives as the legislative sponsor. In addition, Bardwell had contacts at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) through the MASCA Governing Board. This created a line of communication between the coalition and the state departments, which were helpful in reviewing the legislation and offering recommendations. 2 The Power Prism is a step-by-step model for recognizing and acting on opportunities in order to build momentum behind an advocacy campaign. Fresina and Meredith. 2

3 In January of 2009, HB 470 and 471 were filed by Rep. Peisch in the House Clerk s office. Once the bills were filed, the coalition began work to organize an advocacy day at the State House in Boston. Scheduled for National School Counseling Week in February 2009, the goal of the day was to educate House members about HB 470 and 471 and about school counseling in general in order to gain support for both the profession and the legislation. The coalition called this event a Leadership Forum to promote the idea that the day was about more than lobbying; it was an educational and professional development opportunity for school counselors. To make their case to legislators, coalition leaders assembled pertinent research and recruited supporters to come to Beacon Hill. Both MASCA and NEACAC had access to research describing the benefits that students derive from school counseling resources. In addition, the coalition had brought a faculty member at the University of Massachusetts Amherst into the project; her area of expertise was in school counseling research as part of UMass s Center for School Counseling Outcome Research & Evaluation (CSCORE), and therefore the group had access to CSCORE research. The compiled research described the positive outcomes of school counseling on students college and career attainment, with several studies concluding that When counselors are available to begin actively supporting students and their families in middle school in preparing for college, students chances of enrolling in a four-year college increase. 3 The coalition hoped the research would not only help convince legislators that HB 470 and 471 were important pieces of education legislation, but that school counselors were uniquely positioned to support the goals of Massachusetts education reform, as outlined in Governor Deval Patrick s Ready for 21 st Century Success report. 4 To gather supporters to attend the Leadership Forum and present these compelling arguments to legislators, MASCA and NEACAC reached out to their memberships. We re good at advocating for our students, the appeals read. Now we need to advocate for our profession. In addition, the coalition enlisted representatives from several different constituencies to speak at the event, including three state representatives, a school superintendent, a college director of admissions, a high school principal, and a college director of student financial services. Further, Bardwell worked to engage other organizations that would benefit from the legislation, asking them to offer support through attendance at the Leadership Forum or through inclusion of their organization in communications to legislators. Bardwell knew that there were many organizations such as the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents that would benefit if school counselors were better able to help students; he felt that it was not difficult to convince these kinds of organizations to lend their support as the gains to schools, teachers and students were clear. The Forum was an all-day event, with a morning session to educate lawmakers and staffers about how school counseling could advance college and career readiness, and afternoon meetings that 3 Hutchinson and Reagan, 1989; Hossler et al., 1999; McDonough, 1997, 1999; Plank and Jordan, 2001; Powell, 1996; Rowe, Ready for 21 st Century Success: The New Promise of Public Education. 3

4 advocates scheduled with their legislators. The coalition helped prepare advocates for their meetings with legislators through a mini-training the day of the Forum and talking points and research that advocates could discuss or leave with the legislator or staffer. The day was wellattended, with approximately 100 advocates turning out in support of the bills. As a result of the Leadership Forum, 15 co-sponsors signed onto HB 470 and 471. In the late spring, MCSC received the good news that the bills had been sent to the Joint Education Committee, which would hold a hearing in October This gave the coalition time to plan their next advocacy steps. At this time, MCSC was warned that HB 470, which asked for state funding for a pilot program, would likely not make it out of Joint Committee due the state budget crisis in Massachusetts. In addition, HB 471, which required schools to create six-year plans for all students, could also face opposition as it might be perceived as an unfunded mandate ; schools would be required to implement a program but would receive no financial support to do so. However, the coalition did not want to back down on its requests; they felt these concrete statements of what school counselors should be doing in Massachusetts were more meaningful than a symbolic bill that did not achieve any specific end. The coalition felt that school counselors needed to show they were a vital part of achieving the goals of education reform that Governor Patrick had set out in Massachusetts. The coalition prepared their testimony and support for the hearing, enlisting champions of the bills to submit written testimony, provide oral testimony, and show up in support of the bills. At the hearing, there were approximately 30 attendees. Two panels addressed the Joint Committee, including a student, a parent, a school superintendent, a school counselor, an academic, a college admissions dean, and leaders of two education-related organizations. In addition, the coalition asked bill supporters who lived in the districts of the Joint Education Committee members to call their legislators in support of HB 470 and 471. To counter opposition about funding the bills, the testimony focused on how school counselors can dramatically improve student outcomes, and how the counseling profession is changing delivery of services to become more proactive, based on state and national models of comprehensive school counseling programs. For example, counselors could deliver college and career planning services to all students through group and classroom sessions, as opposed to only offering it to individual students seeking guidance. After the hearing in October 2009, the two bills were rewritten and consolidated by the Joint Education Committee. The rewritten bill, which was reported favorably out of committee, was called HB HB 4523 eliminated the provision for the state-funded pilot program and removed the mandate for six-year career planning. Instead, it called for the formation of an advisory committee to study the development and implementation of six-year career plans to be coordinated by licensed school counselors. The committee would provide recommendations on implementation of this program for the school year. The coalition was happy with this outcome. HB 4523 defined and clearly stated a critical role of school counselors in student achievement. Should the bill become law, it would be the first time that state statutes included the words school counselors. While the bill was not a top priority 4

5 issue for the legislature, it was also one that would not generate opposition; it was not difficult to implement, it required no funding, and its goal was to create better higher education and career outcomes for students across the state. While some school counselors did express concern that HB 4523 would create additional requirements without decreasing workload, the majority did support MCSC work. To address any concerns with its constituency, Bardwell wrote several articles for MASCA members that discussed how the legislation would help clarify the role of school counselors, thereby reducing work that wasn t essential. In addition, he argued, six-year career plans would benefit students, and the legislation would help put school counseling in the spotlight at the state level. Once the rewritten HB 4523 was reported out of the Joint Education Committee, the bill ended up in review by House Ways and Means Committee. Though there was no explicit funding attached to the legislation, Ways and Means wanted to evaluate any potential cost to the State associated with convening a committee and potential mandate for six-year plans. The coalition knew that the bill could get stuck in Ways and Means, and relied on the bill s legislative champions to petition their colleagues to move the bill through. In addition, the coalition targeted Ways and Means Committee members, asking supporters who lived in the districts of key members to call and their representatives in support of the bill. The coalition provided talking points and a sample to advocates to help facilitate this action. In August 2010, the bill moved out of the House Committee on Ways and Means and moved through the House Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling. Now called HB 4933, as of this writing, the bill is waiting for approval from the House Committee on Bills in the Third Reading, at which point it will be sent to the House floor for debate. As the House is currently in informal session, if any one legislator opposes the bill, HB 4933 will have to be re-filed in the next formal legislative session. However, as the bill is not controversial and does not seek state funds, it is likely to pass during informal session, at which point it will begin its journey through the Senate. Conclusion While HB 4933 has not yet passed, MCSC has begun to achieve some of its goals in Massachusetts through this endeavor. Perhaps the most significant may be the steps that have brought school counselors closer to getting a seat at the table in policy matters. The MCSC has been able to work with DESE on Massachusetts successful bid for Race to the Top funding, helping superintendents determine best uses for the federal grants within school counseling. 5 In addition, through their advocacy work, MCSC members, as well as MASCA and NEACAC, have become more well-known to legislators and staffers on Beacon Hill. This recognition helps pave the road for future advocacy endeavors, as well as increasing the likelihood that school counseling representatives will become key players in issues regarding education policy. While MCSC knows that changes like these aren t instantaneous, the coalition is making inroads in its 5 Massachusetts received funding through the Race to the Top federal grants in its second application. The second application included school counselors as part of its plan; the first did not. 5

6 quest for professional recognition and is setting the groundwork to act as a resource to legislators on education-related issues. Further, MCSC s advocacy efforts have engaged more school counselors in Massachusetts in advocating for their profession than ever before. While this number is still small, and MCSC hopes to increase the number of school counselors taking leadership roles in advocacy work, it is an improvement. MCSC has also begun to advocate on other issues that engage school counselors, such as bullying prevention. However, it is still challenging for the coalition to find school counseling advocates willing to do the heavy lifting of advocacy work, as most have full-time jobs. This issue of resources has impacted some aspects of the coalition s advocacy work, as the group has not been able to dedicate time to engaging coalition members who have just been logo supporters of the legislation in the nuts and bolts of coalition work. Similarly, it has been challenging for the group to advocate for their work in the media; although they have submitted some op-eds and articles for local papers, they have not sought much media attention for their work. However, the advocacy work that MCSC has done has created key funding opportunities. While initially M+R s support in the endeavor was funded by the College Board, by the time this funding agreement ended, MASCA and NEACAC could see the tangible benefits of this policy work and each organization has created a pool of funding to retain M+R s services in support of school counseling advocacy. Overall, MCSC has achieved excellent results through the dedicated work of its members. The coalition is hopeful that if the legislation does pass in the House and Senate, MASCA and NEACAC will be able to represent school counselors and college admissions counselors as part of the committee researching the six-year career plan, ultimately creating a new program to promote the success of all Massachusetts students, as well as a defined and valued role for school counselors. This case study was largely based on informative interviews with MCSC advocates themselves: Bob Bardwell, Jon Westover and Brad MacGowan. Thank you to these advocates for sharing their time and valuable experience. 6