Evidence-Based School Counseling: Expanding the Existing Paradigm

Challenges and Opportunities for EBSC

The term “evidence-based practice,” or EBP, comes from medicine, where it was originally defined as “conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions” (Sackett et al., 1996, p. 71). While perhaps not as life and death as medicine, school counseling nonetheless requires practitioners to think critically about what we are doing, to make sure we are serving our students as effectively as possible, and to take into consideration what is known about any given student situation we are trying to impact. Providing evidence-based programming has an ethical component as well, as it “implies being motivated to do the right thing and engage in the effort required to maximize the likelihood of a positive outcome” (Gambrill, 2018, p. 23). And while the practice is inherently empirical in that it is grounded in research and data, current conceptualizations of EBP suggest that because its ultimate aim is to most effectively help clients, it is both deeply client-centered and compassionate (Rubin & Bellamy, 2012).

The foundational tenets of EBSC involve using evidence to determine the needs of students, using research to identify the best possible interventions that meet those needs, and evaluating the impact of those interventions to demonstrate efficacy (Dimmitt et al., 2007; Zyromski & Mariani, 2016). In this section, we identify some of the challenges that have emerged for EBSC, and suggest how those challenges represent opportunities, as well as consider possible solutions—many of which are addressed in the articles in this special edition.

Going back to the original definition of EBP helps us to address the first challenge to EBSC, which is the perceived narrowness of the construct. In a keynote address at the 2018 EBSCC, an expanded version of the model was presented, with the inclusion of multiple contextual factors and the complexities of student intersectional social identities identified as critical components of our decision making, data use, choices of interventions, and methods for evaluation of student outcomes (Dimmitt, 2018). Relatedly, in this current journal, Lemberger-Truelove et al. suggest that a theory-based practice of EBSC should make sure to include qualities of students and school environments, empirical and professional endorsement, school counseling customs, and methodological relevance—a wonderfully expansive set of parameters for the work.

One key way that the EBSC construct is narrowed is when the student outcomes under consideration are limited. Mullen et al. (2019) recently suggested that the ultimate purpose of EBSC is to “select effective services that will enhance students’ educational outcomes” (p. 1). If educational outcomes encompass all that contributes to educational and life success, then we agree. However, too often, educational outcomes are narrowly defined according to scores on high stakes tests, which may not be the most beneficial focus for our efforts.

Relatedly, another example of too narrow a focus within EBSC is the lack of attention to the social-emotional and the mental health needs of students, or the suggestion that these needs are outside the scope of school counseling programs. Our children and adolescents are struggling with mental health issues—4.2 million students received a diagnosis of anxiety in 2016 and 3.2 million students reported experiencing a major depressive episode in 2017 (Ghandour et al., 2019). In a sample of 64,000 students across 11 states, 17.6% had participated in nonsuicidal self-injury and 15.2% reported having suicidal thoughts (Monto et al., 2018). Tragically, suicide is now the second leading cause of death for children and adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17, with the rate of suicide increasing by 76% for adolescents between 2007 and 2017, and by a staggering 300% for children between the ages of 10 and 14 in that same time period (Heron, 2019). We sincerely hope that school counselors use EBSC approaches to assess these types of needs and use EBP to meet the needs of students struggling with mental health issues. School counselors are in a prime position to implement informed Tier 1 delivery to support our students struggling with mental health issues, Tier 2 interventions (e.g., Coping Cat or The C.A.T. Project to address anxiety) to meet the needs of students that need more assistance, and Tier 3 interventions (e.g., case management) to facilitate outside services in support of students that need acute care (Goodman-Scott et al., 2019).

A limited focus of EBSC on academic outcomes for students may also possibly limit the conceptualization of contributing factors to educational success. In this special issue, Oliver and Berger describe the development of the Indiana Social-Emotional Learning Competencies. They argue that SEL is needed “to prepare all students to be equipped to manage the inevitable challenges, stress, and uncertainties that often arise in everyday life as well as to attain personal and postsecondary success.” The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning social-emotional competencies (2018) include the ability to identify and regulate emotions, create and work toward achieving goals, experience and demonstrate empathy, create healthy relationships, and apply a decision-making model. The benefits of SEL include improved attitudes toward self and others, decreased negative behaviors and emotional distress, increased prosocial skills, and increases in academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011). Participants in SEL programs are less likely to have a diagnosed clinical mental health disorder, be involved with the justice system, or to have a sexually transmitted disease, and are more likely to graduate high school and attend college (Taylor et al., 2017). As school counselors are engaging in the EBSC process, is the scope of attention inclusive of noncognitive aspects of student success? We certainly hope so, especially if we are to support the success of our most vulnerable populations.

A second challenge for EBSC is its perceived lack of explicit attention to student differences and social justice priorities. Last year, McMahon and Patel (2019) questioned who benefits when using EBP in school counseling. Indeed, when the focus of EBSC is on the intervention instead of the needs of students, the focus may become on whether the intervention works rather than on who benefits from the intervention and how we can truly meet the diverse needs of the populations we serve and create more equitable schools. For example, students who have experienced adverse childhood experiences are more likely to have academic and behavior issues in schools, as well as health problems that require care by a physician (Blodgett & Lanigan, 2018; Flaherty et al., 2013). Both experientially and empirically, we know that students do not all experience adverse experiences equally and that myriad protective factors are likely to have positive outcomes for many but not all students (Zyromski, Dollarhide et al., 2018). When school counselors are working to provide systemic protective factors such as ensuring that all students have positive relationships with one or more adults (Bethell et al., 2019; Sege et al., 2017), or teaching students how to manage emotions (Bethell et al., 2014) so that students experience a sense of belonging in school and feel supported by friends (Bethell et al., 2019), we can do a basic evaluation of these interventions to identify which students are not benefiting, so that we can provide them with additional support. Ultimately, the focus of EBSC has to be on the needs of students and the interventions that meet those needs rather than solely on the efficacy of any given intervention.

As our ideas about social justice advocacy and EBSC continue to evolve, we increasingly see how they can serve each other. In this special issue, Novakovic et al. build upon previously identified models for training future school counselors in EBP (Zyromski, Dimmitt et al., 2018) and provide a method for integrating EBSC and social justice advocacy that infuses social justice training within the EBP preparation throughout students’ internship. These school counselor educators took advantage of the opportunity to train future school counselors in EBP by expanding the focus from providing them with the knowledge and skills to use data (Michel, Lorelle & Atkins, 2018; Savitz-Romer et al., 2019; Young et al., 2014) to using an EBP approach to advocate for social justice. The use of EBSC to increase equity and access for underrepresented populations is a critical focus for our field.

A third challenge for EBSC is the lack of education most school counselors have about using data—to make decisions, to see data as a door through which to walk, to investigate the needs of students, and to evaluate the efficacy of interventions. If school counselor training focuses only on the data process without considering the implications of the ecological environments and the intersectionality of systems and people, then the EBSC approach is not likely to meet the actual needs of students. The process will be driven by adult priorities instead of student needs.

Several articles in this journal provide ideas about new and creative ways to use data. Shi and Brown used the High School Longitudinal Study national data set to study counselor caseloads and time use, providing a seldom seen big-picture look at some key professional concerns. Christian et al. considered the accuracy of student self-report in surveys done with graduating seniors—a commonly used program and student outcome evaluation method. Sowell et al. detailed how to use single case research design to demonstrate intervention efficacy. All three articles effectively expand our conception of how school counselors and the school counseling profession can use data to measure student outcomes related to school counseling efforts.

While there has been some progress, an ongoing fourth challenge in EBSC is the need for more interventions with research supporting their efficacy (see Griffith et al., 2019; McMahon et al., 2017; Whiston et al., 2017 for recent research summaries and meta-analyses). Fortunately, there are interventions with evidence of efficacy in every domain of school counseling work and an increased call to identify other aspects of the counseling dynamic as evidence-based. For example, Parrow et al. (2019) suggested eight evidence-based relationship factors (EBRFs) in counseling that have strong research support for positive outcomes for clients. The eight EBRFs include “(1) congruence, (2) unconditional positive regard, (3) empathic understanding, (4) cultural humility, (5) the working alliance (i.e., the tripartite dimensions of positive emotional bond, goal consensus, and task collaboration), (6) rupture and repair, (7) countertransference, and (8) progress monitoring” (Parrow et al., 2019, p. 330). An expanded EBSC paradigm suggests that school counseling research needs to include continued exploration of relationship factors and other variables that contribute to successful outcomes for students in individual counseling, as well as small group counseling, and classroom interventions. We need all of it—the intervention evaluation to determine what works with students at the school level, the classroom level, the small group level, and the individual level. Also, once evidence-based interventions or evidence-based factors are identified, it is vital that we close the research to practice gap by creating streamlined processes for getting the information to practitioners and counselor educators so that effective school counseling practices can be used and taught (Mullen et al., 2019).

In addition to increasing the number of evidence-based interventions, Warren and Mauk (2020) point out that school counselor scholars and practitioners would benefit from turning attention to the factors impeding or supporting the success of their interventions. The authors suggest a clear set of guidelines for applying intervention science in school counseling to ensure the schools have the systems in place to support successful implementation of evidence-based interventions and that school counselors should be sensitive to the readiness of stakeholders to change as well as, in particular, whether the evidence-based intervention meets the needs of the school or the needs of the students for which it is intended (Warren & Mauk, 2020). The evolving focus on intervention science provides school counseling educators and practitioners with guidelines for strengthening the implementation of interventions in school settings.

A fifth and final challenge of EBSC to consider is the difficulty of creating systemic change in schools. Schools are complex social institutions that operate under historical models that don’t always serve their students or the adult professionals in the building (Goldstein, 2014). While school counselors are often charged with supporting—if not generating—school-wide interventions, doing so requires wide-scale collaboration and extensive understanding of the school context. Two articles here address this challenge. Kiper Riechel et al. used a qualitative interview method to find out how experienced school counselors engaged in EBSC, with a focus on evaluating school counseling program outcomes. The themes that emerged in their research mirror several of the themes identified in this article—the critical need for understanding the school contexts and student populations being served, the hindrances to analyzing data (data collection was less of a concern—time and skills for analysis were the main challenge) and the need for additional training and mentoring in the use of data and intervention research.

Geiger and Oehrtman—whose experiences collaborating with their leadership team was the topic of one of the conference keynote addresses—write about how they created a school-based leadership team that used EBSC to create powerful positive outcomes for their students. In many ways, the Geiger and Oehrtman article is a wonderful way to end this summary, as it thoughtfully addresses most of the challenges identified here, providing a clear narrative model for what effective EBSC can look like and what it can accomplish for students—indeed, for everyone in the school—when it’s done well. Their story powerfully demonstrates why we believe in EBSC, why we continue to put in the hours of work to make this conference happen, and why we believe in the incredible difference that effective school counseling can make. Ultimately, it’s all about creating a better world for our next generation of young people—and we can and will do so.