District-Level School Counseling Supervisors’ Experiences With and Perceptions of Hiring School Counselors

Comprehensive School Counseling Programs and Professional Identity

Since its inception, the school counselor’s role has ebbed and flowed with the tide of societal and professional trends, including school counselors as educators and counselors (DeKruyf et al., 2013; Levy & Lemberger-Truelove, 2021), with a shrinking number of states requiring school counselors to have previous teaching experience (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2020). In recent decades, school counselors across the country have been implementing comprehensive school counseling programs such as those adhering to the ASCA National Model (Martin & Carey, 2014; Martin et al., 2009), which situate school counselors as integral in both educational and counseling roles (ASCA, 2019a, 2019b). For instance, school counselors are often responsible for a variety of educationally focused tasks through their school counseling program implementation, such as planning and facilitating classroom lessons and classroom management; consulting and collaborating to promote data-driven, culturally responsive change at the school and student level; and serving on numerous educational committees such as Section 504 teams, leadership teams, and multitiered system of supports teams (ASCA, 2019a; Goodman-Scott, 2019; Goodman-Scott & Boulden, 2020; Goodman-Scott et al., 2019; Lopez & Mason, 2018). While school counselors implement a plethora of educationally focused responsibilities through facilitating a comprehensive program, they also conduct counseling activities. Counseling-geared tasks can include individual and group counseling; crisis response; consulting and collaborating with stakeholders, particularly around mental health and social/emotional concerns; and referring students to more intensive mental health services as needed (ASCA, 2019a; Cholewa et al., 2017; DeKruyf et al., 2013; Lambie et al., 2019). These educational and counseling roles are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are inexplicitly connected or intersecting. Overlap exists between educational and counseling roles, such as school counselors using their counseling and mental health expertise during an educational leadership team meeting or providing counseling to address students’ academic concerns. Thus, school counselors’ responsibilities in implementing comprehensive programs often include their intertwined roles as educator and counselor. Similarly, DeKruyf and colleagues (2013) recommended that in implementing a school counseling program, school counselors possess a conjoint identity comprising both educator and counselor.

District-Level School Counseling Supervisors

School counselors, in the roles of educator and counselor, are responsible for creating and facilitating comprehensive school counseling programs, which can be based on contextual variables including district-level support. According to ASCA (2019b), “The primary responsibility of the school counselor director/coordinator in a district or state is to support the development and implementation of school counseling programs” (p. 1). In a similar vein, Jackson (2014) reported that most of the district supervisors in their national study were aware of and implementing comprehensive programs at the district level (67%), with the majority of those utilizing the ASCA National Model (74%). Hence, district-level school counseling supervisors support comprehensive school counseling programs through providing school counselors with direct and indirect support.

In regard to direct support, supervisors provide mentoring, encouragement, consultation, and training while also providing resources and supervision (ASCA, 2019b; Cicero, 2009; Cook, 2008; Hurt, 2014; Somody et al., 2008; Walsh, 2018). For instance, ASCA (2019b) recommends that supervisors provide school counselors with individual and group supervision to assist in their program implementation. Similarly, from a sample of 11 school counselors using a grounded theory empirical framework, Cook (2008) found that school counselors appreciated both formal and impromptu meetings with their district supervisor, reporting that their supervisor helped strengthen their professional identity and roles.

In addition to direct services, supervisors engage in indirect supports to assist school counselors in facilitating comprehensive programs (ASCA, 2019b). Examples include guiding the school district’s vision and implementation of school counseling programs, facilitating school counseling policies and procedures at the district level, and professional advocacy (Cicero, 2009; Cook, 2008; Hurt, 2014; Walsh, 2018). Specifically, Hurt (2014) described supervisors advocating for lowering school counseling caseloads and educating district and building administrators on school counselors’ roles in facilitating comprehensive school counseling programs.

Next, supervisors can also provide indirect supports to school counselors by assisting with their transition from preparation to practice by collaborating and consulting at the preservice and hiring levels (ASCA, 2019b; Cicero, 2009; Cook, 2008). Specifically, supervisors can collaborate with school counselor educators and preparation programs to ensure that coursework is aligned with school counselors’ work facilitating a comprehensive school counseling program (ASCA, 2019b). Supervisors also are often responsible for hiring school counselors, selecting candidates who are best aligned with the districts’ needs and vision (ASCA, 2019b). Despite supervisors’ work in assisting with school counselors’ transition from preparation to practice, little research has explored the phenomenon. For instance, we found three articles discussing school counselor hiring practices (Beale & McCay, 2001; McGlothlin & Miller, 2008; Solmonson et al., 2011), with no mention of district supervisors. Specifically, Beale and McCay (2001) and McGlothlin and Miller (2008) published conceptual articles suggesting school counseling hiring practices for school principals. Solmonson and colleagues (2011) conducted a Delphi study in which school counselor educators (n = 21) and directors of guidance (n = 5) created a consensus of common concerns pertaining to hiring noncertified/nontrained staff for school counseling positions in Texas. Their study provided insight into concerns surrounding school counseling hiring practices, with a lack of information pertaining to actual hiring practices or district supervisors’ related roles or perceptions.

Reflexivity Statement

Reflexivity statements are commonly used in qualitative investigations to provide context and transparency by describing researchers’ backgrounds and beliefs in relation to the given study (Hays & Singh, 2012). Stating researchers’ positionality is especially important in qualitative research because researchers are instruments of their research.

To describe our beliefs, in alignment with qualitative research, we perceive the existence of multiple realities and prescribe to a social constructivist perspective (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Hays & Singh, 2012). Axiologically, we consider that each individual’s values and assumptions color their reality. Ontologically, we affirm a subjective reality and that context is important when understanding constructs. Regarding epistemology, we believe in an unlimited knowledge base.

To apply these concepts to our study, first, we conducted this study under the belief that we as researchers are impacted by our varied, subjective realities and experiences, which cannot be fully removed from any qualitative investigations. The first two researchers were previously practicing school counselors and now are counselor educators specializing in school counseling. The third researcher worked as a licensed professional counselor for 20 years and is presently a counselor educator, focusing on clinical mental health counseling. All three researchers completed doctorates in counselor education and supervision, and identify as White, cisgender, females of European descent, with experience in qualitative research. As a result, we used strategies to mitigate the impact of our experiences and biases (described further in the Trustworthiness section), acknowledging our positionality and background in this reflexivity statement.

Second, we designed this study to attempt to capture participants’ unique, subjective experiences. For instance, we conducted semistructured, individual interviews and asked open-ended interview questions. As such, we sought to create space for participants to share their constructed meaning on the given phenomenon. Further, we engaged in member checking on multiple levels to verify our understanding of participants’ experiences. We recruited several participants (N = 12) in order to capture multiple experiences or realities.

Participants

During the interviews, the supervisors in this study self-identified as women (83%, n = 10) and men (17%, n = 2), White (58%, n = 7), and Black/African American (33%, n = 4), with one nonresponse on race/ethnicity. The mean age of participants was 46 years (range: 31–55 years), and participants represented 12 school divisions within one state. Participants had a mean of 6 years of experience in their current supervisor position (range: 1–15 years), and some had previous experience as a school counselor (67%, n = 8). The educational level of participants included master’s (75%, n = 9) and doctoral (25%, n = 3) degrees, with some also holding administrative certificates (25%, n = 3).

Data Collection

Our university human subjects review committees approved this study prior to data collection. First, we intentionally collected data from those who met our inclusion criteria: individuals whose primary responsibility was the supervision of school counselors at the district level. We purposefully chose participants in one state only to decrease the influence of state-level policies and procedure (e.g., licensure requirements), which can vary by state. Because many small school districts in the state lacked district-level school counseling supervisors, and to maximize geographical diversity within the sample, we invited supervisors who were (a) at the largest districts in the state and (b) working in a range of geographic locations (i.e., northern, eastern, western, and centrally located). After reviewing school district websites and creating a list of such supervisors, the first researcher contacted individuals on the list to describe the study, confirm that supervisors met the inclusion criteria, and invite participation. All those invited agreed to participate and represented approximately five regions across the state.

The first and second researchers divided the participants and conducted individual semistructured interviews with each supervisor via phone or in person. Congruent with a social constructivist perspective, we chose a semistructured interview protocol to provide us the flexibility to glean each participant’s unique experience (Hays & Singh, 2012). Thus, during interviews, we asked probing questions based on supervisors’ responses, enabling us to further understand their experiences and perspectives. As a result, each interview started with the following prompt:

We are investigating district-level school counseling supervisors’ experiences and perceptions regarding school counselors’ transition from preservice to practice. What have you observed regarding school counselors’ transition from preservice to practice (including interns, interviewees, and new practitioners)?

Due to the lack of related literature and exploratory nature of the study, we asked an open-ended interview question, holding space for participants’ responses, in order to elicit their experiences and perceptions.

Supervisors’ busy schedules often facilitate multiple roles (Cicero, 2009), so interviews for the current study ranged between 25 and 60 min (M = 35), which was supported by literature. Specifically, interview length should be based on participants and their unique context or setting. For instance, short, focused, and time-bound interviews (e.g., 30 min) can produce data rich in meaning (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012; Kvale, 2007; Patton, 2015). Each interview was audio recorded and then transcribed by a secure service. We then read the transcripts to check for accuracy.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data according to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) recommended six steps for conducting thematic analysis: (a) becoming familiar with the data; (b) systematically creating codes across the data set, then organizing the data by code; (c) grouping the codes into themes; (d) reviewing and confirming the themes and codes to create a thematic map; (e) naming and defining themes; and (f) confirming the findings and writing the final results. We also used an inductive approach to thematic analysis (i.e., deriving the themes from the data) and identified themes at the latent level (i.e., examining underlying meaning; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Finally, we utilized a contextualist method in thematic analysis, emphasizing how individuals make meaning of their experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

To further describe our implementation of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) steps, we first increased our familiarity with the data by individually reading through all transcripts, noting our independent reactions and ideas, which we shared at subsequent research meetings. After that, to systematically create codes across the data, we engaged in a pilot round of open coding as a group to increase consistency across the research team. To continue generating initial codes, the first researcher used open coding to code the first transcript, which the second researcher subsequently reviewed, noting any inconsistencies. The first two researchers then discussed all discrepant codes from the first transcript until reaching a consensus on all related codes. This process was repeated for all transcripts, with the first and second researcher alternating as a lead coder. After completing this coding process for all transcripts, we organized all codes and corresponding data in a codebook. To group the codes into themes, the first two researchers independently reviewed the codebook, organizing the codes into possible themes, then met to compare themes and determine a condensed common set of themes. Subsequently, we checked the themes for accuracy against the codes and data, creating a thematic map. Then, for the final steps of thematic analysis, we defined and named the themes and noted the results. The third researcher acted as an internal auditor during data analysis, reviewing the consensus-coded transcripts and providing feedback and alternative perspectives.

Establishing Trustworthiness

In correspondence with thematic analysis, we employed several trustworthiness strategies to increase the rigor of this study (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Hays & Singh, 2012; Nowell et al., 2017). We engaged in bracketing our biases and assumptions through reflexive journaling and in-depth discussions during research meetings. For instance, two of the researchers were impacted by their experiences as practicing school counselors; this was countered by research discussions in which the third researcher, who lacked school counseling experience, offered alternative explanations and insight drawn from a different area of specialty. As part of thematic analysis, we immersed ourselves in the data, reading transcripts several times throughout the data analysis. We conducted member checking during the interviews (e.g., reflecting participants’ content) and also sent blinded transcripts to each member to confirm accuracy and expansion. Investigator triangulation, or intercoder agreement, was present as we reached consensus on all data analysis (e.g., coding, themes, subtheme, and so forth). Generally, the first two researchers engaged in coding, while the third researcher was an internal auditor, providing rival explanations and feedback. We also engaged an external auditor to review and give feedback on the codebook, theme and subtheme development, field notes, and audit trail. Last, we strove to provide a thick, rich description of the data analysis and the findings.

Theme: ASCA National Model Guides Hiring Preferences

When discussing school counselors’ transition from preservice to practice, specifically hiring, the participants typically conveyed favoring comprehensive school counseling programs, specifically the ASCA National Model, and this preference guided supervisors’ and districts’ hiring practices. Also, in discussing their preferences for the ASCA National Model, several supervisors conveyed their belief in school counselors as educators. Participant 05 (PA05) communicated:

It’s one [bias] that I admittedly and biasedly subscribe to. It’s a bias that we’re very upfront about.…We’re looking for school counselors who are grounded in those basics: having a professional identity, having familiarity and understanding and workable opportunities in the ASCA Model; to have an understanding of our professional code of ethics, understand how they are educators as opposed to mental health therapists.

Similarly, when discussing their lens used for hiring, PA01 relayed:

The extent of things we [school counselors] deal with…when you look at the ASCA Model and you’re looking at those three domains of personal/social, academic, and career, that just covers so many different things that you could potentially be dealing with in the course of a day. I don’t know if there’s any other educators that are working in the school system that deal with such a broad range of issues.

In valuing the ASCA National Model, participants prioritized the two subthemes: (a) data and (b) advocacy.

Theme: The Importance of School Counselors’ Previous Teaching Experience

In conveying their experiences with and perceptions of hiring school counselors, supervisors highlighted the benefits of school counselors with previous teaching experiences. Often these conversations centered on professional identity and school culture, discussing school counselors as educators with instructional experience. At the same time, to a lesser degree, some participants expressed counternarratives, noting the professional evolution de-emphasizing previous teaching requirements of school counselors and even highlighting benefits for school counselors without teaching experience. As such, the following subthemes emerged in the second theme: (a) desiring previous teaching experience, (b) understanding school culture, (c) increased credibility with stakeholders, and (d) greater skills.

ASCA National Model Guides Hiring Preferences

In discussing the results of the current study, district-level school counseling supervisors prioritized hiring school counseling candidates who had familiarity with comprehensive school counseling programs such as those adhering to the ASCA National Model. These results mirrored findings from Jackson’s (2014) dissertation; using survey design, Jackson found supervisors favored comprehensive programs including the ASCA National Model. Our results also echoed findings from other national studies that comprehensive school counseling programs/the ASCA National Model are widely used and well regarded across the school counseling profession (ASCA, 2019a; Martin & Carey, 2014; Martin et al., 2009). Thus, aligned with previous research across the profession, although new for this population, we learned that a sample of district-level school counseling supervisors preferred comprehensive programs/the ASCA National Model. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to show supervisors’ preferences for comprehensive school counseling programs and that these preferences guide the hiring of school counselors.

The Importance of School Counselors’ Previous Teaching Experiences

Many of the supervisors in this sample appreciated school counselors with previous teaching experience, describing benefits such as a better understanding of school culture, greater credibility with stakeholders (e.g., teachers), and increased skills. At the same time, these results do not necessarily align with the most recent literature or licensure requirements. For instance, Mulhern (2020) investigated student-level data in Massachusetts, examining high school student outcomes in relation to school counselor demographics and finding that school counselors with teaching licenses were related to students with lower educational outcomes. Stein and DeBerard (2010) compared school counseling interns with teaching experience (i.e., holding a teaching certificate and at least 2 years of teaching experience) to those without teaching experience. They found no significant difference in reported school counselor performance (i.e., evaluation on professional behavior, clinical skills, teaching skills, or hireability) based on teaching experience. In another study, Shufelt Moyer and Yu (2012) examined factors associated with school counselors’ perceived effectiveness, also finding no significant difference based on prior teaching experience. However, they did find differences in effectiveness based on the feelings of membership in the school counseling profession and years of school counseling experience. Thus, according to Shufelt Moyer and Yu, having practical school counseling experience and knowledge may be more important for school counselors than previous teaching experience. Last, in a qualitative study, Peterson et al. (2004) investigated the experiences of school counseling interns with and without teaching experience. Those with previous teaching experiences were more comfortable with the culture and climate of education compared to their counterparts without teaching experience. At the same time, Peterson and colleagues found that previous teachers struggled to navigate the change in role from teacher to school counselor. Hence, those with teaching experience may need greater support regarding school counselor’s role and identity.

Many of the supervisors in this sample appreciated school counselors with previous teaching experience, describing benefits such as a better understanding of school culture, greater credibility with stakeholders (e.g., teachers), and increased skills. At the same time, these results do not necessarily align with the most recent literature or licensure requirements.

Generally, according to the published literature, previous teaching experience does not necessarily equate to greater school counselor effectiveness or performance. And similar to the results in the present study, school counselors with previous teaching experience may initially be more comfortable with the climate and culture of education, but these school counselors may also struggle to transition into their new role of school counselor. Hence, the findings of present study—overall preferring hiring of school counselors with previous teaching experience—are not supported by the existing literature. Relatedly, the findings of the current study are also not backed by licensure requirements. In examining ASCA’s directory of licensure requirements and state Department of Education websites, we found that only one state in the United States (Texas) still requires all school counselors to have teaching experience; several other states list previous teaching experience as one of the multiple options for licensure (ASCA, 2020). Thus, the results of the current study offer insight into supervisors prioritizing preservice teaching experience, although largely in contradiction to existing literature and state licensure requirements.

School Counselors’ Professional Identity as Educators

In examining the two themes in the current study pertaining to hiring school counseling candidates (i.e., valuing the ASCA National Model and previous teaching experience), a common strand throughout was the emphasis on school counselors’ professional identity as an educator. Some supervisors specifically labeled school counselors as educators, while others described school counselors’ educational roles such as prioritizing K–12 students’ educational achievement, school culture, classroom management, designing and implementing classroom lessons, awareness of educational benchmarks, and being members of educational teams. As previously discussed, although the school counselor identity has morphed over time, DeKruyf and colleagues (2013) suggested in recent years, a conjoint school counselor identity comprising both educator and counselor. Therefore, despite professional calls to view school counselor as both counselor and educator, supervisors in the present study appeared to favor an identity largely grounded in education. In prioritizing an educational identity, supervisors often desired hiring school counselors who had an understanding of and potential for positively impacting student academic outcomes compared to social/emotional or career development.

In prioritizing an educational identity, supervisors often desired hiring school counselors who had an understanding of and potential for positively impacting student academic outcomes compared to social/emotional or career development.

In sum, the results of the current study highlight district-level school counseling supervisors’ preferences for hiring practicing school counselors based on the perceptions of one sample. Only limited literature exists on hiring school counselors, and to our knowledge, this is the first published study to examine supervisors’ related perceptions and experiences. Hence, these results provide the profession with unique findings on a population and a topic about which little research has previously been conducted and may act as a springboard for future research to better understand multiple constructs: (a) the experiences of district supervisors, (b) the hiring of school counselors, and (c) school counselors as educators.

Implications for Practice and Research

Given the exploratory nature of this study and the qualitative research design, the results are not necessarily intended for generalizability to a larger population. Further, participants were asked to share their own experiences and perceptions rather than evidence-based outcomes. Therefore, implications for both practice and research must be considered accordingly.

To first consider implications for practice, this study shows that district supervisors’ preferences shape their hiring. Because supervisors are influential not only in hiring but also in training and supervising school counselors and shaping district-level school counseling initiatives, their preferences may have a significant impact on the practicing school counselors and school district, including the delivery of school counseling services to students. As a result, school counseling candidates and school counselor educators may consider seeking information from local school districts in order to learn more about the district hiring practices and preferences and about the culture of school counseling. Specifically, school counseling candidates and faculty may consider the alignment of their own professional values, identity, and preferences with those of the district, including the emphasis on and the delivery of comprehensive school counseling programs, previous teaching preferences, and professional identity (educator vs. counselor or both). Information may be gathered directly, through conversations with district supervisors, or indirectly, through learning a districts’ culture and climate over time, including internship experiences, interactions at conferences and professional development events, information on district websites, and so forth.

Next, building administrators, who can often be instrumental in school counseling hiring, may also benefit from the awareness of school counseling culture and priorities at the district level and in the profession. For instance, building administrators may consider collaborating with the district supervisor for information on school counseling identity and roles and reading school counseling literature regarding evidence-based best practices and trends in school counseling. They may also want to spend time with practicing school counselors running model data-driven comprehensive programs. Administrators can use this gleaned information when interviewing and hiring school counselors.

Several implications remain for district supervisors. Specifically, supervisors must weigh their preferences for hiring school counselors compared with district policies and professional research and recommendations. For instance, supervisors can consider how their hiring preferences and their district’s culture align with school counseling research and licensure recommendations. Specifically, supervisors can examine research on comprehensive school counseling program implementation, teaching requirements for school counselors, and the school counselor identity—educator versus counselor. In examining this research, supervisors may determine whether their own practices and the practices of their district are driven by the professional data and consider whether there are areas for change.

Last, preparation and certification programs for district-level school counseling supervisors must also consider how they train and supervise district supervisors. As such, we suggest that preparation/certification programs include school counseling research and professional trends, including using data to drive decisions at the district level.

Regarding future research, there is a need for more investigations on district-level supervisors, school counseling hiring practices, and school counselors’ professional identity as educators. For instance, researchers could examine district-level supervisors’ perceptions and experiences with different and larger samples, providing more robust investigation of supervisors’ hiring preferences and their professional identity and roles. Relatedly, researchers could determine whether a relationship exists between supervisors’ professional identity, hiring practices, and outcomes (e.g., school counseling program outcomes, school outcomes, student outcomes). In other words, just as school counselors’ behaviors are data-driven, a need remains to examine whether supervisors’ preferences and behaviors are also supported by data. Do supervisors’ hiring and supervision practices lead to improved school counseling program implementation, greater school counseling advocacy, student academic and behaviors, and so forth? In a similar vein, an important topic is district-level school counseling supervisors who possess a range of past professional experiences—school counseling, teaching, and administrative—to uncover the relationship between previous professional experiences, preferences, and identity. Next, due to the dearth of research on the practices of hiring school counselors, we suggest examining the school counseling hiring processes from not only supervisors’ perspectives but those of district and building administrators and of school counselors themselves. As part of this research, we also recommend systematically reviewing documents used in the hiring process, such as job announcements, interview protocol, rubrics, and other available documentation. Last, although articles have discussed school counselors’ dual identity as counselor and educator, they are often conceptual and geared toward school counseling practice (e.g., DeKruyf et al., 2013) and school counselor education (Warren et al., 2020). Thus, there is a need for researchers to examine school counselor identity as educators compared to counselors according to practitioners, supervisors, counselor educators, and other leaders in the school counseling profession.