University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Recognized American school counselor association model programs: a case study of school counselor leadership

(USC Thesis Other)

Recognized American school counselor association model programs: a case study of school counselor leadership

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content RECOGNIZED AMERICAN SCHOOL COUNSELOR ASSOCIATION MODEL
PROGRAMS: A CASE STUDY OF SCHOOL COUNSELOR LEADERSHIP

by
Keith Michael Fulthorp

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Keith Michael Fulthorp
ii
Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated in memory of my brother, David Allen Fulthorp (November
11, 1965-July 8, 2007). When I started this degree program, David was diagnosed with
brain cancer. Though I was determined to drop out to be at his side, he encouraged me to
continue. His life, and courageous battle with cancer, has taught me to live life fully, to
create fun, and to enjoy freedom.

iii
Acknowledgements

There is a special group of individuals that have contributed greatly to my
completion of this project, and to whom I am forever grateful. I would like to
acknowledge the chair of my committee, Dr. Adriana Kezar. Your guidance, mentoring,
and encouragement provided me the opportunity to successfully complete the program
and this dissertation. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the rest of my committee
members, Dr. Rose Marie Hoffman, Dr. Helena Seli, and Dr. David Balok. Your
dedicated commitment to helping me achieve success in this project, and in the graduate
program is greatly appreciated. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the school
counselors who participated in this study. Your efforts in successfully implementing the
ASCA national model, and being awarded RAMP status serves as a model for the
profession, and provides hope for the work of other school counselors attempting to
follow in your footsteps.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the patience, love and steadfast support of
my family. My parents, Richard and Nancie Fulthorp, my mother and father-in-law
Henry and Elisa Menard, my brother Brian Fulthorp and his family: Thank you for
supporting me over the time I was involved in this project, and in completing this degree.
I would especially like to thank my loving wife, Carol Ann Menard Fulthorp, for your
support, patience, love, and encouragement, and understanding of the time commitment
involved in completing this degree program, and this dissertation. I am assured that
without you I would not have had the strength to endure the program and life challenges
we faced over the past three years. You are my joy and inspiration, and I look forward to
our many adventures as new parents in August 2009.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Chapter One 1
Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Development of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs 4
Development of the ASCA National Standards 6
Development of the ASCA National Model 8
Development of the Recognized ASCA Model Program Designation (RAMP) 12
Purpose of present study 12
Research question 13
Significance 13

Chapter Two 15
Literature Review 15
Implementation of the National Model 16
Gaining Implementation Support 22
Summary of Implementation Literature 28
School Counselor Leadership 28
Recent School Counselor Leadership Studies 29
School Counselor Leadership and Specific Leadership Theory 31
Summary of School Counseling Leadership 37
Synthesis of Implementation and Leadership Evidence 38
Promising Leadership and Change Theory for School Counselors 42
Summary 48

Chapter Three 49
Research Methodology 49
Introduction 49
Methodology 49
Sample and Selection Criteria 52
Site Descriptions 56
Recruitment methods 61
Data collection procedures 61
Interview Strategy and Protocol 61
Document Analysis 63
v
Data Analysis 65
Verification/Trustorthiness 65
Ethical considerations 67
Limitations 67
Summary 69

Chapter Four 70
Results 70
Introduction 70
Site Pre-Conditions 70
School Counselor Leadership Strategies 81
Conclusion 94

Chapter Five 95
Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 95
Introduction 95
Review of Key Findings 96
Five Site Preconditions 96
Three Leadership Strategies 105
Limitations 108
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research 109
Conclusion 113

References 115

Appendices 121
Appendix A: The National Standards for School Counsleing Programs 121
Appendix B: 2007-2008 RAMP Application Demographics Page 127
Appendix C: School Counselor Interview Protocol 128
Appendix D: National Model Implementation Readiness Indicators 130
Appendix E: ASCA National Model Workbook Preconditions 134

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Strategies to gain support 25
Table 2: Integrated school counselor leadership model 31
Table 3: Leadership frames applied to school counseling practice 35
Table 4: Distribution of selection criteria 53
Table 5: Interview participant profiles 60
Table 6: Critical readiness indicators 99

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1: American School Counselor Association national model 10
Figure 2: Comparison of leadership frames, models and strategies to gain support 40
Figure 3: Addition of Meyerson’s (2008) tempered radical strategies 45

viii
Abstract
The present study examined how school counselors working at three Recognized
American School Counselor Association Model Program (RAMP) school sites were able
to fully implement the American School Counselor Association’s (ASCA) model
program and become RAMP certified. Through qualitative methods, results of the study
identified five preconditions that were evident at each site prior to becoming RAMP
certified, and three leadership strategies utilized by school counselors that directly
contributed to successfully implementing the ASCA national model and becoming
RAMP certified. The results are discussed, and implications are presented in an effort to
assist other school counselors who also seek to implement the ASCA national model and
become RAMP certified.
1

CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study
Introduction
Since the beginning of the school counseling profession in the 1900s, there have
been many paradigm shifts regarding the roles, responsibilities, and practices of school
counselors. Some of these shifts include transforming from early identities such as
“vocational guidance” with an emphasis on career counseling, to “guidance” with an
increased emphasis on both vocational and educational development, to “guidance
counseling” in the 1950s with the development of the American School Counselor
Association (ASCA) in 1952 (Lambie & Williamson, 2004). As decades passed, the
profession of school counseling continued to develop revised professional identities, re-
shape counselor roles, and increase accountability for counselor training and practice.
While the profession is still young, some of the most significant changes have occurred
over the past ten years. Specifically, these changes have included a renewed professional
identity as “professional school counseling,” an increased emphasis on connecting school
counselor practice to student achievement, the coordination of comprehensive counseling
programs, and a decreased emphasis on school counselors as sole providers of school
based mental health services (ASCA, 2003; Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Dimmitt, Carey &
Hatch, 2007; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Myrick, 2003b; Wittmer, 2000).
This latest professional paradigm shift has paralleled changes in the educational
system in the United States, as schools move to standards-based practice and increased
accountability for student learning outcomes (Dimmitt, Carey & Hatch, 2007). These
2
changes have culminated in the development of a set of national standards for school
counseling programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997), and a national model to assist
counselors in implementing the standards (ASCA, 2003). The intention of the ASCA
national model (reviewed in detail later in this chapter) was to strengthen the connection
of counseling practices to student achievement, create a common vision for the role of the
professional school counselor in K-12 settings, and position school counselors as leaders
in their schools. After the publication of the national standards in 1997 and the national
model in 2003 school counseling researchers, counselor educators, and practitioners
published books and journal articles relating to the implementation of the national model.
State and national school counseling association conferences featured continuing
education workshops encouraging implementation of the model, and counselor education
programs integrated the national model into their curricula. Additionally, in 2003, as a
measure of program implementation, ASCA developed a certification process designating
approved programs as a “Recognized American School Counselor Association Model
Program (RAMP)” (ASCA, 2007).
A major challenge for the school counseling profession however, is that while
school counselors are called to implement the national model there is a profound lack of
fully implemented model programs. In 2003-2004 only five schools nation wide received
the RAMP designation, and RAMP schools have been slow to increase. There were eight
schools in 2004-2005, 18 in 2005-2006, 81 schools in 2006-2007 and 62 schools in 2007-
2008 (ASCA, 2007). The large increase in RAMP certified schools since 2006 resulted
from a collaborative effort between ASCA and the Indiana School Counselor Association
(ISCA). ISCA developed its own comprehensive school counseling program that mirrors
3
the ASCA model. School counselors in Indiana who were able to fully implement the
ISCA model received a special award from ISCA named the “ISCA Gold Star Award”
(ISCA, 2008), which automatically made their programs eligible for RAMP certification
through ASCA (ISCA, 2008). Though RAMP schools appear to be on the rise, the fact
that only 62 schools out of 86,792 public K-12 schools nation wide (NCES, 2008)
received RAMP status in 2007-2008 (ASCA, 2007) indicates an urgent need to examine
how counselors at RAMP schools have been successful in fully implementing the
national model leading to RAMP certification.
School counseling researchers and counselor educators have suggested that the
implementation of the national model shifts the role of school counselors toward
educational leadership (ASCA, 2003; Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Dollarhide, 2003;
Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Schwallie-Giddis, ter Maat, & Pak, 2003; The Education
Trust, 1996). Research regarding school counselor leadership revolves mostly around
leadership as an outcome of a revised vision of school counseling practice. This new
vision of school counseling (Dahir, 2004; House & Hayes, 2002), positions school
counselors as advocates for the academic success of all students. Advocacy efforts have
been linked to closing the achievement gap of low income and minority students through
the identification and reduction of barriers to academic success (Dahir, 2004; Musheno &
Talbert, 2001; The Education Trust, 1996), and collaboration with professionals internal
to the school as well as external community agencies (House & Hayes, 2002). Though
there is research regarding leadership roles of school counselors, there appears to be a
gap in school counseling literature describing how school counselors as leaders have
managed to fully implement the national model. In order to set the stage for an
4
investigation into successful implementation efforts, it is important to understand the
development of the comprehensive counseling program paradigm, the development of the
national standards and national model, and the main indicator of successful program
implementation: the Recognized ASCA Model Program (RAMP) certification.
Development of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs
The development of a new vision and role paradigm for school counseling stems
from a turbulent time for school counselors that began in the 1970s and continued
through the late 1990s where budget cuts, inconsistencies in counselor preparation
programs, mixed opinions about appropriate roles for counselors from school
administrators, and changes in state and federal education policies prevented school
counselors from being present at the educational reform table (House & Hayes, 2002;
Lambie & Williamson, 2004). Several authors have been credited for initiating a shift
away from what has been identified as a “position” focus (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000)
where services provided at school sites were largely dependent on the individual in the
school counseling position, to a program focus, where school counselors develop and
manage a comprehensive counseling program aimed at serving all students. Three of the
most renowned advocates of the comprehensive program model are Gysbers &
Henderson (1997), and Myrick (1997).
Myrick (1997) defined a developmental approach to counseling programs, where
school counselors identify skills and experiences necessary for school success and create
a program designed to assist students in acquiring those skills through a planned
curriculum that augments the academic curriculum. This programmatic approach was
argued to include individual counseling services as in the traditional role of school
5
counselors, and also the integration of a counseling program into the school’s educational
process, providing classroom presentations and interventions designed to meet the
developmental needs of the students served at various educational levels (elementary,
middle, and high schools).
Gysbers & Henderson (1997) further developed a programmatic approach,
through creating a framework to help clarify what comprehensive counseling programs
were to include. They identified specific components of a comprehensive program to
create a model for planning, designing, implementing, evaluating, and enhancing
counseling programs. Going beyond recommendations for creating school counseling
related curriculum, Gysbers & Henderson (1997, 2000, 2001) developed a model that set
the stage for creating a common vision for school counseling programs nationwide. This
model included an overarching framework that counselors could utilize to implement a
program tailored to the needs of students at their school sites.
Components of the Gysbers & Henderson (2000) model include content,
organizational framework, and resources. Content is defined as including core
competencies that students meet as a result of participation in the program. The
organizational framework includes a philosophical base, including a mission statement
and rationale for the program. According to their model, the mission of a school
counseling program should be accomplished through the delivery of services and
management of the program. Resources needed to sustain and grow the program were
identified as including personnel, financial and political components. While the dialogue
regarding comprehensive guidance and counseling programs increased in the late 1990s
and early 2000, (Gysbers & Henderson, 1997, 2000, 2001; Myrick 1997; Wittmer, 2000)
6
the American School Counselor Association was in the process of aligning school
counseling practice with both the standards based education movement, and the
comprehensive counseling program movement, and established a set of national
standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997).
Development of the ASCA National Standards
Several forces combined to move the school counseling profession into action to
create a more prominent role in educational reform. Increasingly, school counselors were
performing job functions that were dependent on their site administrator’s beliefs about
what was needed at a school site, including coordinating standardized testing, acting as
quasi-administrators, supervising campus activities, substituting for teachers, and
coordinating school discipline (Forster, Young, & Hermann, 2005; Walsh, Barrett, &
DePaul, 2007). At the same time that the profession was struggling with diverse roles,
national and state professional association leaders noticed that school counselors were
largely left out of school reform initiatives such as Goals 2000, the Educate America Act
of 1994 (Dahir, 200; US Department of Education, 1994). School counseling leaders,
along with the American School Counselor Association began a process to identify a set
of unifying standards aimed at providing vision and direction for practicing school
counselors nationwide.
Two such efforts include the Transforming School Counseling Initiative (TSCI)
by the Education Trust (Education Trust, 1996) and the development of the ASCA
National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). The
Education Trust through TSCI partnered with several leading school counselor
preparation programs in an effort to influence the training of school counselors to include
7
skills such as leadership, advocacy, use of data, collaboration, and effective use of
technology (House & Martin, 1998). The main goal of the TSCI was to reframe the
school counseling profession from the past perspective of solely the provision of mental
health services, to one where school counselors enacted leadership and advocacy efforts
to close the achievement gap and reduce barriers to learning for all students (Education
Trust).
While TSCI was focused on counselor education programs, ASCA surveyed its
membership to identify key competencies, standards, and outcomes of school counseling
practice. The result of this effort was the official creation of ASCA’s National Standards
for School Counseling Programs, (Cambpell & Dahir, 1997) developed to unify school
counseling practice, provide a common language for practicing school counselors, and to
serve as an official guide for school counseling program development. The main
competency areas identified were intended to legitimize the practice of school
counseling, while at the same time advocate for the creation of comprehensive,
developmental programs managed by school counselors. Three main domains of student
development were identified as academic development, career development, and
personal/social development (See Appendix A). Nine standards were developed, three
from each domain, with learning outcomes that serve as indicators of “what students
should know and be able to do as result of participating in a school counseling program”
(Campbell & Dahir, 1997, p. 1). The National Standards quickly became part of school
counseling preparation programs, training topics at state and national association
conferences, and focus of school articles in ASCA’s peer reviewed journal, Professional
School Counseling (Bauman et. al, 2003).
8
Development of the ASCA National Model
The ASCA National Standards for School Counseling programs (Campbell &
Dahir, 1997) promoted the development of counseling programs, aimed at accomplishing
specific student learning outcomes as a result of school counselors implementing the
standards in a comprehensive program. While the national standards were revolutionary
for the school counseling profession, what was lacking was a unified vision of what a
counseling program looked like if the national standards were implemented. In order to
further clarify the role of the National Standards, and align the school counseling
profession with trends including comprehensive school counseling programs, standards
based education, and demands for increased accountability for student academic
achievement, ASCA enlisted the help of school counseling leaders, researchers, and
counselor educators to create a guide for implementing the National Standards, resulting
in the publication of the ASCA National Model: A Framework For School Counseling
Programs (ASCA, 2003).
The National Model was designed to incorporate elements of the comprehensive
program movement (Gysbers & Henderson, 1997; Myrick 1997), as well as themes based
on the Education Trust TSCI (Education Trust, 1996). The four main components of the
model include the foundation, delivery system, management system, and an
accountability system. Figure 1 shows that interlaced throughout the model are the TSCI
themes of leadership, collaboration, systemic change and advocacy (ASCA, 2003)
The first component of the model is the foundation, which incorporates the ASCA
National Standards domains of academic, career, and personal/social development.
Additionally, the foundation of the model requires counselors to develop and
9
communicate a set of beliefs and philosophy of the program, as well as a program
mission statement that is tied to the overall mission of their local school sites. The
second component of the model is the delivery system, made up of guidance curriculum,
individual student planning, responsive services, and system support. Guidance
curriculum represents lessons presented by school counselors in classrooms or
large/small groups of students to accomplish academic, career, or personal/social
components of the national standards. An example would be a personal/social domain
presentation about seeking help for and understanding relationships, dating or dangers of
dating violence as students in an English class read the famous Shakespeare play Romeo
and Juilet. As part of the delivery system, counselors provide individual student planning
in the form of individual meetings with students to develop their course of study to meet
college entrance requirements or make up credits for a credit deficient student in high
school.
10

Figure 1. American School Counseling Program National Model. Adapted from ASCA
(2003)

Responsive services relate to meeting students’ immediate needs and include
individual counseling, mediation, consultation, and provision of information and
referrals. The delivery system also includes system support, which defines activities that
sustain and enhance the program. Activities such as data analysis, attending professional
development workshops, collaborating with community agencies, and detailing program
11
policies and procedures all contribute to the continuous improvement of the school
counseling program.
The third component of the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2003) incorporates a
management system, that identifies management agreements between school counselors
and school administrators who supervise the counseling department regarding roles, job
functions, and use of counselors’ time. Additionally, the model calls for the development
of an advisory council, made up of stakeholders committed to reviewing results of the
program and making program improvement recommendations. Another significant part
of the management component includes the development of a master calendar identifying
program components that occur throughout the school year as a tool for marketing the
program, and communicating the services and activities coordinated by school
counselors. Finally, the management component identifies the significant use of data by
school counselors to make program decisions, advocate for students, and ensure that the
program serves all students through action plans for guidance lessons and the
identification and reduction of barriers to learning.
The fourth component of the national model incorporates the national trend
toward accountability for results. The model was designed to include templates for
reporting results of the counseling program. Forms were developed for planning and
evaluating guidance lessons, responsive services, and outcomes of interventions designed
to increase student achievement related indicators such as attendance and behavior. Built
in to the accountability system are recommendations for how school counselors can
communicate the outcomes of their program, and yearly audits to ensure that the program
remains in alignment with the needs of the school. Recommendations for marketing
12
program outcomes include presentations at staff meetings, school board meetings, school
site commissions, parent-teacher-student association meetings, and to any other
stakeholders within the community.
ASCA marketed the national model through the development of manuals,
compact disks containing the model and supporting documents, and workshops at state
and national counseling conferences. In an effort to encourage practicing school
counselors to implement the model, ASCA developed a certification process for school
sites that have embraced the implementation of the model.
Development of the Recognized ASCA Model Program Designation (RAMP)
ASCA has established an accreditation process for school sites that have
successfully implemented the National Model. Through a yearly application process,
school counselors can submit documentation that outlines how their school site has
implemented the model, along with evidence that the model has been implemented.
Upon successfully meeting the accreditation criteria, school sites can become Recognized
ASCA Model Programs (RAMP). RAMP status for successful programs is granted in
three-year terms. Awards include a unique plaque, letters sent from ASCA to district
administrators celebrating the distinction, press releases, use of the ASCA RAMP logo
for websites, letterheads and business cards, and special recognition at the annual ASCA
conference and on the ASCA website. The RAMP process is not mandatory, but serves
as the only official national measure of a fully implemented model program.
Purpose of present study
Together, the ASCA National Standards and National Model Program have
helped provide a unified focus for the school counseling profession in the United States.
13
While the benefits of implementing the national model have untold potential in
legitimizing the school counseling profession and ensuring school counselors continue to
hold strategic positions at school sites, one would think that school counselors would be
quick to implement the model. As stated previously, in 2003-2004 only five schools
nationwide received the RAMP designation. This increased to eight schools in 2004-
2005, 18 in 2005-2006, 81 schools in 2006-2007, and 62 schools in 2007-2008 (ASCA,
2007, 2008). It is imperative therefore, that an understanding of how these school
counseling leaders have been able to achieve RAMP status be developed, so their efforts
to implement the national model can be shared with others attempting to do the same.
Research question
With that purpose in mind, the present study seeks to answer the following question:
• How have school counselors been able to implement that ASCA National Model
and become RAMP certified?
Significance
Though the national model provided a framework for the practice of school
counselors, and a unified vision of the new role for the profession, school counselors
have still struggled with fully implementing the model. State and national professional
associations advocate for implementation of the model in all schools, yet the degree to
which this is happening has varied within individual school districts, at different levels
(elementary, middle and high schools) and across local districts, cities, states, and the
nation in general. There is a continued dialogue within the school counseling literature
regarding challenges school counselors face in implementing the national model.
Identifying how school counselors at RAMP schools have enacted leadership strategies to
14
implement the national model will add to the existing literature regarding the
implementation of comprehensive school counseling programs and school counselor
leadership.

15

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
As introduced in the previous chapter, few counselors have been able to fully
implement the national model, and receive RAMP certification. Developing an
understanding of how counselors have been able to fully implement the national model
would benefit the entire school counseling profession, and serve as a guide for other
counselors attempting to do the same. School counselor educators, researchers and
professional associations have indicated that the implementation of the national model
shifts the role of school counselors towards educational leadership. Though school
counselor leadership has been examined as an outcome of implementing comprehensive
guidance and counseling programs (Dahir, 2004; Dahir & Stone, 2003; Dimmitt, Carey,
& Hatch, 2007; House & Hayes, 2002; Musheno & Talbert, 2002; Myrick, 2003a;
Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Walsh, Barrett, & DePaul, 2007), specific research
examining leadership required to implement the national model has been largely absent.
The purpose of this review of literature is to identify existing evidence related to
answering this study’s main research question “how have school counselors been able to
fully implement the national model and receive a RAMP designation?” As of 2008, there
has not been literature that examines school counselors at RAMP designated schools, nor
has there been an investigation into how school counseling programs have become
RAMP certified. Based on existing literature regarding counselor leadership and
implementation of the national standards, this review is presented in three sections.
Section one identifies factors relating to the implementation of the national model and
16
identifies implementation barriers and challenges. Section two reviews the limited
research regarding leadership strategies school counselors have utilized in overcoming
implementation barriers, and identifies research related to school counseling leadership.
Section three builds on the first two sections, and synthesizes the first two sections by
identifying a promising leadership framework for school counselors attempting to
implement the national model and become RAMP certified. As of this present study, no
study has yet examined school counselor leadership required to implement the ASCA
national model and become RAMP certified. The present study identifies existing
evidence that is related to implementing the ASCA national standards, and reviews useful
leadership models that have been examined within a school counseling context, and
builds on this evidence through identifying a promising leadership paradigm for
practicing school counselors.
Implementation of the National Model
In answering this study’s main research question regarding how school counselors
have been able to fully implement the national model and become RAMP certified,
several themes have been identified within the school counseling literature. Several
authors have examined work activities of school counselors relating to the national
standards and national model. Others have examined administrative support for
implementation of the model. This section provides a brief overview of implementation
literature and identifies barriers and challenges relating to implementation of the national
model.

17
Work activities of school counselors. Recent research has focused on the work
activities of school counselors and whether changes in reported work activities reflect the
new vision for school counseling practice. For example, two studies have examined self-
reported work activities of school counselors in relation to the national model and
national standards (Foster, Young, & Herman, 2005; Walsh, Barrett, & DePaul, 2007).
Foster, Young, & Herman (2005) surveyed 526 National Certified Counselors (NCC)
working as school counselors about their daily job tasks, and compared results to the
work activities as suggested by the national model. In addition to the credential and
certification required by their state, the school counselors in this study had earned an
additional national certification. Though requirements for school counselors vary from
state to state, the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) provides an additional
certification for school counselors titled the National Certified School Counselor
credential. In 2002, the NBCC updated requirements for the certification based on a
national survey developed to examine school counselors job duties and functions. The
survey, titled the Job Analysis Survey [JAS] (Foster, Young & Herman, 2005) was
designed to “report on the frequency and perceived importance of work behaviors
performed by school counselors (p. 314).” Foster, Young & Herman utilized this survey
from 2002 to examine counselors’ work activities in 2005. Results indicated that for
those who responded to the survey, work activities were closely related to the ASCA
national standards, which is a part of the national model. Though these results indicated
that counselors who responded believed the standards to be important, and that work
activities performed were related to the national standards, all of the respondents were
school counselors who were National Certified Counselors, a certification that is not
18
required for practice as a school counselor. Because these counselors acquired an
additional counseling certification, it is likely that this sample of school counselors may
not reflect the perception of the majority of school counselors nation wide, as NCC
school counselors make up a small minority of total population of school counselors.
Additionally, while work activities were reported to be in alignment with the national
standards, the extent to which counselors had implemented the national model was not
addressed. Therefore, though counselors reported that they believed the national
standards and national model to be important in their daily work, there still appears to be
a large gap in RAMP certified schools. The present study intends to examine schools that
have implemented the national model and have become RAMP certified, in an effort to
address both the lack of literature regarding the national model and RAMP certified
schools.
In a more recent example, Walsh, Barrett, & DePaul (2007) attempted to examine
day to day activities of elementary school counselors. The authors attempted to identify
the extent to which newly hired elementary school counselors in four schools in Boston
were implementing components of the ASCA national model. As introduced in chapter
one, the ASCA model consists of four distinct sections (foundation, delivery system,
management system, and accountability system). Walsh, Barrett & Depaul (2007) had
school counselors keep a daily log of activities they perceived to be connected to the
delivery system of the national model, which consists of guidance curriculum, individual
student planning, responsive services and support systems. Support was found relating
counselors’ daily work activities to the delivery system components of the national
model, though the study did not specifically examine RAMP certified schools, or identify
19
how counselors’ were able to implement activities that mirrored the national model
components. The article was one of the most recently published articles attempting to
identify changes in counselors work activities because of the national model, though the
authors focused on only one section of the model. RAMP designated schools have
demonstrated that they have fully implemented the model, though as of 2008, no
published study has specifically examined how counselors at RAMP schools have been
successful. The present study intends to add to the literature by examining how
counselors at RAMP certified schools have been able to fully implement the national
model and become RAMP certified. In addition to identifying work activities of school
counselors relating to the national model, recent research has focused largely on the need
for school counselors to gain the support of site and district level administration to
support implementation efforts. The next section provides an overview of administrative
support, including recent doctoral dissertations and journal articles.
Site Administrator Support for Implementing the National Model. Within the first
section of the ASCA (2003) national model’s chapter on implementation, the authors
reference the significant support required from site administrators, and indicate
leadership is required from school counselors to implement the model. Though
administrative support and leadership is mentioned, there is a lack of specific strategies
presented that demonstrate effectiveness in enacting leadership and gaining
administrative support within that publication.
Administrator Perceptions of the National Standards and Model. Within the
school counseling literature, great attention has been paid to the role of administrators in
supporting the implementation of the national model. Evidence suggests that school site
20
administrators largely determine the role and function of school counselors at their sties
(Henderson, 1999; Studer & Alton, 1996; Stone & Clark, 2001; Dahir, 2000). Since
implementation of the national model and national standards may change some counselor
job tasks as identified at the beginning of this chapter, administrative support is crucial.
However, administrators have been found to endorse counselor roles and job tasks that
may inhibit counselors’ ability to implement the national model. Perusse, Goodnough,
Donegan, & Jones (2004) identified perceptions of school principals and school
counselors of the national standards. Perusse, et al. surveyed 636 school counselors and
475 school principals identifying beliefs about the importance of the national standards,
appropriate job tasks, and components of the Transforming School Counseling Initiative
(TSCI, 1996) (both of which were later incorporated in to ASCA’s National Model and
were discussed in chapter one). Findings suggested that school principals and school
counselors consistently differed in the importance placed on TSCI components of
leadership, advocacy, and systemic change. In their study, principals rated advocacy and
systemic change as less vital to the school counselors’ role. Counselors and principals
also differed in their perception of job tasks identified as appropriate or inappropriate to
the role of school counselors. Principals were more likely to identify inappropriate
(according to role statements supported by ASCA and the National Model) job tasks as
more important than school counselors who identified roles more in alignment with
ASCA.
The findings of the Perusse et al (2004) study have also been confirmed through
additional studies examining administrator and counselor perceptions of roles, and
importance of the national standards and national model. For example, Ameta & Clark,
21
(2005) and Rambo-Igney & Grimes-Smith (2005) separately examined school
administrators’ perception of school counselor roles and job tasks. Ameta & Clark
(2005) examined school administrators’ preferences for defining school counselor roles.
Though the sample size of this study was limited, (26 principals from elementary, middle
and high school levels) 23 of the 26 individuals in the study identified preferences for
traditional counselor roles, not for the renewed vision of the school counselor role
advocated for by the ASCA national model. Rambo-Igney & Grimes-Smith (2005)
surveyed pre-service school administrators and counselors enrolled in a graduate program
regarding appropriate school counselor roles. Results of this survey indicated that pre-
service school administrators often identified roles that were not aligned with the ASCA
national model. The authors then provided a collaborative workshop focusing on
educating both administrators and counselors of the implications of roles ascribed by the
national model. Both groups were surveyed again regarding counselor roles, and findings
indicated that preservice administrators’ views of appropriate roles relating to the
implementation of the national model changed to support the national model as a result of
participating in the workshop.
In another example, preservice school administrators’ views of school counselor
roles was examined by Chata & Loesch (2007). They surveyed 244 preservice principals
enrolled in masters degree administrative programs. Findings indicated that preservice
principals responded with varied perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate school
counselor roles, however, more principals supported appropriate roles in alignment with
the national model than those who supported roles not aligned. The findings suggest that
there are still many preservice principals who may not buy into the revised role and
22
function of school counselors as articulated by the school counseling national standards
and national model, but that support from preservice administrators is increasing, in
contrast with the findings of Ameta & Clark (2005), Perusse, et. al. (2004) and Rambo-
Igney & Grimes-Smith (2005). Since many preservice principals and many current
administrators may not support the new roles of school counselors, it is likely that
counselors who have been successful in implementing the national model and receiving
RAMP certification must have been successful in changing their site administrators’
perceptions and level of support for national model implementation.
Gaining Implementation Support
Since support from administration appears to be a key factor in implementing the
national standards there has been research that has attempted to identify how
administrative support was gained. Two studies have been identified that present
findings related to increasing administrative support. Dollarhide, Smith, & Lemberger
(2007) and Grant (2005) have separately examined developing supportive administrators.
In one of the few (if not the only) studies published that includes an examination of
RAMP certified schools, Dollarhide, Smith, & Lemberger (2007) interviewed principals
that were identified as supporting comprehensive school counseling programs. The
sample for the study was developed through identifying school principals who have been
recognized by state counseling associations as being supportive of the national model,
principals identified by ASCA listserve members as being supportive, and principals of
eight RAMP certified schools. Though the total sample size was small (19 principals) it
did include responses from two principals at two different RAMP certified schools.
Dollarhide, Smith, & Lemberger’s study interviewed these supportive principals with the
23
intention of identifying what the principals credited as being a critical incident in their
supporting school counselors, the national model, and the ASCA national standards.
Findings indicated that “the critical incidents that appear to be the most determinant of a
principal’s support for school counseling seemed to derive from the relationships that the
school counselor has built with the principal and with the school community” (p. 365-
366). The efforts that school counselors made to develop positive relationships with
school principals appeared to be the most influential factor in building administrative
support by respondents of this study. Though a positive relationship was credited as
having the most impact, the authors of this study did not specifically define what a
positive relationship was. References were made to responses of principals that led the
authors to identify the theme of positive relationships, and included “keep the principal
informed,” “work together (p. 365),” and being assertive enough to positively advocate
for students, even when in disagreement with the principal. Still, this finding leaves
vacant specific definitions of a positive relationship and what specifically counselors can
do to ensure that their assertiveness and communication will create and maintain a
positive as opposed to a strained, counselor-administrator relationship. The second study
that examined administrative support found more specific strategies that could provide a
clear frame for developing positive relationships and gaining support for implementing
the national model.
Grant (2005) examined how counselors gained support for implementing
comprehensive counseling and guidance programs. Though the study did not specifically
examine RAMP certified schools, counselors who attended national model workshops
provided in Southern California, were recent graduates of counseling programs, and were
24
working in California were identified as having gained administrative support for
implementing programs like the national model. Grant’s (2005) study did not
specifically address fully implemented RAMP certified schools, however efforts were
made to connect counselor’s success in gaining administrative support for implementing
the ASCA national standards, and in creating a Support Personnel Accountability Report
Card (SPARC). The Support Personnel Accountability Report Card framework was
established in 2001 through the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the
California Department of Education (California Association of School Counselors
[CASC], 2006). Modeled after California’s mandatory (through the passage of
Proposition 98 in 1988) School Accountability Report Card, the SPARC document is
voluntarily created by school counselors to market the effects of counseling programs on
student achievement. This document is submitted to CASC for review, and is also used
by counselors to increase communication and awareness of counseling program
effectiveness. Development of a SPARC assists school counselors in implementing the
national standards (CASC, 2006), but does not indicate that a school has fully
implemented the ASCA national model.
In Grant’s (2005) study, 16 counselors participated in individual interviews, focus
groups, and provided documents to be analyzed in an attempt to identify how these
counselors were successful in gaining administrative support. Five themes were
identified as strategies counselors utilized in gaining support for implementing the
national standards and creating SPARC documents and are listed in Table 1.

25
Table 1
Strategies to Gain Support
Strategy Description
Counselors
leadership role
One or more school counselors at each site were found to enact
leadership strategies to create departmental buy-in; display
enthusiasm and excitement for change, negotiate duties with
administrators, and establish trusting relationships with
administrators.
Increase
visibility
Support was gained through marketing the counseling program to
students, parents, and staff; utilizing data to report program
effectiveness; and coordinated school activities that brought
recognition to the program.
Work
collaboratively
Implementation support was gained through developing
collaborative relationships with the counseling team,
administrators, teachers and parents.
Strengthen
support from
district office
Implementation support efforts directed at district level
administrators and school board members through brief
presentations regarding the national model and national standards
Overcome
resistance to
change
Gaining support for implementing programs through incremental
change efforts and the use of data to demonstrate positive results.
Also creating buy-in of counselors by individual relationship
building.
Note. Adapted from “How school counselors gain support to implement comprehensive
guidance and counseling programs.” By Grant, J, 2005, University of San Diego,
California. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database.
(Publication No. AAT 3169425).

These themes were found to be supported by interview data of the study participants, and
have promising connections to the current study and research question. Specifically,
counselors stepping into a leadership role, and overcoming resistance to change are two
themes from Grant’s study that could prove helpful in explaining how counselors at
RAMP certified schools were able to fully implement the national model and become
RAMP certified.
Counselors Stepping Into Leadership Roles. Counselors who participated in
Grant’s (2005) study, reported that at least one counselor from the counseling team
26
stepped into a leadership role to help gain support for implementing the national
standards and creating a SPARC document. Grant reported that within the theme of
counselors stepping into a leadership role, counselor leaders worked to create buy-in
from fellow counselors at their work sites and within their districts to gain support for
implementing the national standards. Specifically, counselors enacted collaborative
leadership strategies to ensure that implementation efforts were fully supported by the
entire counseling department.
Secondly, it was reported that counselor leaders negotiated duties and
responsibilities with school site administrators in order to gain implementation support.
Negotiating duties, roles and responsibilities with administrators to gain support has some
direct connections to the literature previously mentioned regarding administrator
perceptions and support for implementing the national model i.e., Ameta & Clark (2005),
Chata & Loesch (2007), Perusse, et. al. (2004), and Rambo-Igney & Grimes-Smith
(2005). These connections are that some administrators may support non-counseling
roles and responsibilities and that school counselors can influence perceptions of
administrators regarding the implementation of the national model and for supporting
changes in roles and job functions that may need to occur in order to fully implement the
national model.
Overcoming Resistance to Change. The second main finding from Grant’s (2005)
study that is helpful for this current study was that counselors reported gaining
implementation support through overcoming resistance to change by fellow counselors
and teachers. Counselors in Grant’s study reported that the largest barrier to
implementing the ASCA national standards and creating a SPARC was resistance to
27
change by fellow school counselors within their departments. Some counselors were
behind the implementation efforts, and others were resistant because of their perceptions
that the implementation would require too much work, or that their new roles and duties
would be more work than what they were already doing. Additionally, resistance was
encountered by teachers who were hesitant to allow counselors to present guidance
lessons in their classrooms. Presenting guidance lessons in a classroom setting is part of
the national model, and is aimed at achieving various ASCA national standards.
Grant’s study identified strategies that counselors enacted to aid in overcoming
resistance by fellow counselors as well as teachers. Counselors reported that when faced
with fellow counselors who were resistant to implementing the national standards, instead
of forcing quick change, they managed change in these resistant counselors over time
through developing collaborative relationships. Counselors met with resistant counselors
individually over time, and as relationships developed, they raised questions regarding
implementation of the national model. Utilizing a one on one, relational approach, the
counselors reported strategic conversations in an individual setting tended to increase
support by resistant counselors, as opposed to attempts at gaining support in groups or in
the context of group staff meetings. When working with resistant teachers counselors
reported overcoming resistance by working with one individual teacher from one
department who was already supportive. Counselors would then utilize outcome data
collected as a result of classroom guidance lessons and provided other resistant teachers
with short presentations that focused on data-driven results. This strategy was reported to
decrease teacher resistance to classroom guidance lessons, and increase support for the
implementation of the ASCA national standards and for creating SPARC documents.
28
Summary of Implementation Literature
This section of the literature review examined existing literature that helps to
identify how school counselors may have been able to implement the national model and
become RAMP certified. Specifically, the review found that many administrators and
principals often support school counselor roles that are misaligned with the ASCA
national standards and national model. Therefore school counselors’ implementation
efforts may be largely dependent on the counselor’s ability to create positive school
counselor-administrator relationships, overcome implementation barriers such as non-
supportive principals, teachers and fellow counselors, and become leaders within their
counseling departments and the school as a whole. The studies presented in this section
did not specifically examine RAMP certified schools, with the exception of Dollarhide,
Smith, & Lemberger (2007), who interviewed principals at two RAMP certified schools.
Additionally, imbedded within the discussion of school counselor’s implementation
efforts are clear connections to leadership strategies that school counselors enacted to
gain implementation support, which is more specifically addressed in the next section of
this review.
School Counselor Leadership
This section of this literature review of the literature regarding school counselor
leadership, which was briefly discussed in the previous section. While no studies were
found that specifically examine school counselor leadership required to implement the
national model and become RAMP certified, several studies together point to a leadership
framework that could be useful for school counselors in their implementation and
certification efforts. With the increase in literature regarding educational leadership,
29
studies that specifically examine the role of school counselors as leaders have only
recently begun to emerge. Many studies have found that school counselor leadership is
an outcome of implementing comprehensive guidance and counseling programs (Bemak,
2000; Dahir, 2004; Dahir & Stone, 2003; Dimmitt, Carey, & Hatch, 2007; House &
Hayes, 2002; Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Musheno & Talbert, 2002; Walsh, Barrett, &
DePaul, 2007; Myrick, 2003a). Others have advocated that school counselor education
programs should include leadership components, in order to better prepare school
counselors to function as educational leaders (House & Sears, 2002). The common
themes among these studies present counselor leadership through advocacy efforts,
leadership in use of outcome data, and creating systemic change. Another commonality
among the above mentioned articles relates to the lack of connection to a specific
leadership theory. The studies mention that school counselor leadership is important, or
that school counselors should utilize leadership to enhance advocacy and outcome efforts.
One study even mentions that leadership through collaboration is important (Bemak,
2000), however, the author just states that collaboration is effective without specifically
addressing collaborative theories of leadership. The rest of the studies referenced above
do not mention through which leadership paradigm these outcomes are best achieved.
Over the last few years the dialogue regarding school counselor leadership has increased,
almost as if the school counseling researchers and educators have identified the gap in the
literature mentioned above.
Recent School Counselor Leadership Studies
Several authors over the past five years have made attempts at examining school
counselor practice to identify leadership components. For example, Berry (2006)
30
examined differences in school counselor work activities between counselors who
perceived themselves to be leaders, and counselors who did not perceive themselves to be
leaders. Findings highlighted activities that promoted school counselor leadership and
identified preferences for school counselor-leader work activities, but were not connected
to any specific leadership paradigm or theory. In another example, Janssen (2007)
identified leadership behaviors of school counselors through the use of Q-Sort
methodology, where school counselor participants ranked leadership behaviors in order
of perceived importance. Based largely on the Integrated School Counselor Leadership
Model of DeVoss & Andrews (2006) (reviewed later in this section), participants in the
Janssen study sorted these behaviors based on their perceptions of importance. Janssen
identified four categories of school counselor leaders that included: self-focused and
reflective exemplar, collegial institutional supporter, engaging systems change agent, and
empathetic resource broker. Though these categories emerged as being significant,
Janssen did not specifically define what exactly was meant by the four categories
developed, just that the results of the Q-sort pointed to these four themes that were named
by Janssen. Keeping in mind that these studies intended to study school counselor
leadership, there was still a lack of a formal connection of the research findings to any
specific leadership theory even though two different leadership theories were utilized in
the study. The two studies by Berry (2006) and Janssen (2007) represent recent attempts
at defining school counselor leadership though neither study ended with a specific
connection to existing leadership theoretical frameworks. Both studies utilized an
activity based approach to leadership, meaning that they identified job activities that
school counselors perceived to be reflective of their leadership efforts. Though there was
31
a lack of connection to specific leadership theory, the studies are helpful in connecting
the practice of school counselors to leadership behaviors required to create positive
outcomes for students.
School Counselor Leadership and Specific Leadership Theory
There has also been an increase in literature that attempts to connect school
counseling practice to specific leadership theories. For example, DeVoss and Andrews
(2006) developed the Integrative School Counselor Leadership Model, comprised of 16
leadership behaviors. These 16 behaviors (listed in Table 2) are based on key concepts
from a myriad of traditional leadership theories such as style, trait, and situational
theories (Northouse, 2007), creating an eclectic description of leadership related
strategies that school counselors may employ. Though the model identifies leadership
behaviors it lacks specific direction for school counselors attempting to integrate the
recommended activities into practice, due to the general and vague nature of each
behavior. Additionally, while directed at school counselors, the leadership behaviors
identified in their model do not specifically address how school counselors can enact
these strategies to implement the national model and become RAMP certified.
Table 2

Integrated School Counselor Leadership Model
Description of Leadership Behaviors
1. Develop leadership from within based on values and life principles.
2. Live with integrity and demonstrate character and morality by doing the right
things instead of striving to do things right. Leaders listen to their inner voice and
reject superficial efforts at school transformation and lack of moral imperative.
3. Learn by experience and reflection and continue to grow as self-directed adult
learners who use a whole-brain approach to process information.
4. Value and promote harmonious relationships through cultural competence,
celebration of differences, social interest, and service to others.
32

Table 2, Continued
5. Advocate for social justice.
6. Model a democratic way of supporting ASCA’s guiding vision through shared
leadership opportunities that encourage contributions to the learning community
and foster experience of belonging, power, freedom, and fun.
7. Believe in collaboration and are skilled in developing supportive and
cooperative strategic alliances.
8. Seek mentors who have positive values and philosophy.
9. Facilitate conditions of trust, open and effective communication, and
opportunities for positive growth and self-actualization.
10. Follow first and believe in a guiding vision associated with mental pictures.
11. Share commitment with other educational leaders to the school’s guiding vision
for transformation of the school.
12. View life as an adventure, life as a career; take active risks, seek challenges.
13. Demonstrate passion for life with curiosity and daring.
14. Thrive on change and challenging the status quo, asking what and why.
15. Utilize systems thinking and develop interdependent relationships that promote
the schools guiding vision.
16. Use contracts that support accountability and responsibility in achieving
measurable goals and collect objective data.
Note. Adapted from “School Counselors as Educational Leaders.” DeVoss, J., &
Andrews, M., 2006. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Lewis & Borunda (2006) also attempted to align school counseling practice with a
distributed model of leadership they described as “participatory leadership” (p. 406).
This frame of leadership was defined as leadership that is “spread out among counselors
in schools, districts, and organizations in promoting a more just and democratic society”
(p. 407). Lewis & Borunda argued that for school counselors, participatory leadership is
developed through collaborative efforts in creating positive change within school sites
“by advocating for and engaging all students in ways in which they are challenged to
meet high expectations, provided care and support, and are given opportunities to
participate in activities they find meaningful” (p. 408). The main difference between the
33
Lewis and Brunda framework and that of the previous studies is that the Lewis and
Brunda model relies on an emerging leadership theory, as opposed to the traditional
leadership frameworks identified in the Berry (2006), DeVoss & Andrews (2006), and
Janssen (2007) models. Their model of participatory leadership does not describe one
specific leader who inspires followers to enact a shared vision, something that is a
common theme among traditional leadership theories. Emerging leadership theories have
been developed over the past few years and are reviewed in the context of application to
higher education settings through the work of Kezar, Carducci, & Contreas-McGavin
(2006). These theories of leadership differ from traditional leadership theories in that they
take into account current cultural, social, and technological advances that were not
present when traditional leadership theories were developed. Given the lack of research
regarding school counselor leadership, and more specifically the lack of connections to
existing leadership theory, the new theories of leadership have received attention within
the recent dialogue regarding school counselor leadership. One such theory is that of
Bolman & Deal’s (2002) four frames of leadership presented in their work “Reframing
Organizations.”
Dollarhide (2003) and Dollarhide, Gibson & Saginak (2008) applied Bolman &
Deal’s (2002) leadership frames to the practice of school counselors in two separate
studies. It is believed by the author of the current study that the 2003 Dollarhide article
may be the first evidence of a study connecting specific leadership theory to school
counseling practice. After a brief review of the Bolman & Deal (2002) leadership
frames, a summary of the Dollarhide studies will be presented.
34
Bolman & Deal (2002) contend that leadership can be viewed through four
distinct frames: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The structural
leadership frame is related to the structural organization of work environments. Policies,
procedures, organizational charts, division of responsibilities, and concrete hierarchies
are all concepts that define the structural frame. The human resource frame is
characterized by attention to relationships within an organization or work setting.
Attending to individual needs, developing and sustaining relationships, empowerment of
individuals and groups and collaboration are concepts that help define this frame. The
political leadership frame is characterized by identifying power structures in
organizational and departmental relationships. Influencing stakeholders, gaining decision
rights (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004), lobbying for change, and paying attention to
power dynamics in organizations are all factors that characterize this leadership frame.
The symbolic frame represents symbols, metaphors, rituals, and organizational
ceremonies that have meaning for an organization or department. These four frames can
be utilized by individuals in leadership positions to enact change, problem solve from
different frames of leadership, and serve as a guide for individuals to personalize within
their unique leadership style (Bolman & Deal, 2002).
The significance of the Dollarhide (2003) study is the attempt to examine a
leadership framework for school counselors’ efforts in implementing the ASCA national
standards. Specifically, Dollarhide followed the efforts of a newly hired middle school
counselor in developing a comprehensive guidance and counseling program similar to the
national model (at the time of this study, the national model had not yet been published)
at a school site where no such program had previously existed. Table 3 summarizes how
35
Dollaride infused the four leadership frames of Bolman & Deal (2002) to create a
leadership framework for implementing a school counseling program that follows the
ASCA national standards. Using examples from each leadership frame, the
implementation efforts of the new middle school counselor involved in the study were
paired to each frame as the program was developed. Through symbolic and human
resource frames, the school counselor in the study developed relationships with key
leaders within the school site to create buy in for the symbolic vision of the program.
Through a structural leadership frame, the counselor worked collaboratively with
school leaders to develop the program goals, service delivery systems, and job tasks for
the counselor relating to the national standards. The political frame was utilized to gain
support for the implementation of the program, as well as to lobby for the reassignment
of non-counseling related tasks and job activities.
Table 3
Leadership Frames Applied to School Counseling Practice
Leadership
Frame
Leadership Activities Applied to School Counseling
Structural

1. Build the foundation of an effective school counseling program.
2. Attain technical mastery of counseling and education.
3. Design strategies for growth of the school counseling program.
4. Implement an effective school counseling program.
Human
Resource
1. Believe in people.
2. Communicate that belief.
3. Be visible and accessible.
4. Empower others.
Political 1. Understand the distribution of power within the building and district.
2. Build linkages with important stakeholders (e.g., parents,
administrators, teachers, board members).
3. Use persuasion and negotiation.

36
Table 3, Continued
Symbolic 1. Use symbols and metaphors to gain attention of followers.
2. Frame experience in meaningful ways for followers.
3. Discover and communicate a vision.
4. Maintain a relationship with the community you represent (e.g.,
students, parents, school colleagues).
5. Model health on all levels to inspire others.
6. Lead by example.
Note. Adapted from “School Counselors as Program Leaders: Applying Leadership
Contexts to School Counseling.” By C.T. Dollarhide, 2003, Professional School
Counseling, 6, 304-308.

As discussed in the first part of this literature review, gaining implementation
support from administrators is a key factor in implementing school counseling programs,
and is likely to include political dynamics. The Dollarhide (2003) study, though based on
only one school counselor’s implementation efforts, is unique in that the issue of political
dynamics first appears within the discussion of school counselor leadership. One reason
the Bolman & Deal (2002) framework was utilized was for its emphasis on understanding
power dynamics at play within political contexts of school sites. The four frames seem to
be a good fit for school counselor leadership based on the Dollarhide (2003) study, which
was again examined in 2008 based on results of a year long qualitative study of school
counselor leadership utilizing the four frames.
In this additional study, Dollarhide, Gibson, & Saninak (2008) invited school
counselors who had recently graduated from their counselor education programs and
were employed as school counselors to participate in the study. Five school counselors
agreed to participate, and all were given the 2003 study by Dollarhide to read prior to the
start of the school year in order to create a common dialogue for leadership among the
study participants. Participants agreed to report their experiences at their individual
37
school sites on a monthly basis, and set monthly leadership goals that were reviewed by
the researchers. The study intended to see how the four frames assisted recently hired
school counselors to enact leadership within their schools, and how the participants
would rate their success as a leader at the end of the school year. Results indicated that
three of the five counselors were able to balance the four frames of leadership, and
reported they felt they were successful leaders in their schools. One important difference
between this study and the 2003 Dollarhide study was that there was no specific
investigation of implementing the national standards. Counselors set their own monthly
leadership goals and worked through the four frames at accomplishing their goals. There
are some key differences between the Dollarhide studies and those of Baker (2006) and
Janssen (2007). Unlike the Baker and Janssen studies, those conducted by Dollarhide
made specific connections between the practice of school counseling and specific
leadership theory. Additionally, the studies by Baker and Janssen were doctoral
dissertations that, as of June 2008, have not been replicated, while the examination of
school counselor leadership through Bolman & Deal’s (2002) four frames has been
applied in two different studies, increasing evidence for its potential impact when utilized
within the context of school counseling leadership.
Summary of School Counseling Leadership
Recent trends in the literature regarding school counseling and school counselor
leadership have begun to establish a continuing dialogue regarding leadership activities,
theories, and frameworks that may be helpful for school counselors. The identification of
leadership activities presented by Baker (2006), DeVoss & Andrews (2006) and Janssen
(2007) signify that there are school counselors engaging in leadership behaviors within
38
their school sites. Within the literature regarding new and emerging leadership theories,
Lewis & Borunda (2006) argued that school counselors can implement participatory
leadership, where distributed responsibilities increase collaboration and positive student
outcomes. Recent promising studies presented by Dollaride (2003) and Dollarhide,
Gibson, & Saninak (2008) have attempted to frame school counselor leadership within
Bolman & Deal’s (2002) leadership frames.
At this point in the literature review, several leadership theories and frameworks
have been presented. Similarities and differences inherent in these models suggest that,
though evidence of school counseling leadership is still emerging, some promising
frameworks have been developed to help guide practicing school counselors. There are
several areas where the previously mentioned leadership frames, theories and behaviors
fall short, specifically related to the present study’s main research question of how school
counselors have been able to fully implement the national model and become RAMP
certified. The next section of the literature review synthesizes the research presented for
implementing the national model, and existing research regarding school counselor
leadership, and points toward an emerging leadership framework that could better help
answer this study’s main research question.
Synthesis of Implementation and Leadership Evidence
In answering the main research question for this study, the literature base
regarding the implementation efforts and leadership efforts of school counselors
presented in the previous two sections brings to light the need for school counselors to
enact leadership strategies to overcome implementation challenges and gain team and
administrative support for becoming RAMP certified. What is clear from the review of
39
implementation literature is that many counselors believe the national standards and
national model are important, but have difficulty implementing the model due to the
constraints placed on their job tasks and roles as determined by their administrators.
Dollarhide’s (2003) application of Bolman & Deal’s (2002) four frames of leadership
have helped provide a framework applicable to counselors’ implementation efforts. Still,
a lack of RAMP certified schools exists. One reason for this may be that the studies
presented in the previous sections consisted of newly hired, recently graduated school
counselors. School counselors who are new to a school may not have the influence and
understanding of the political dynamics that occur with in school contexts and therefore
may lack leadership skill within the political frame to gain administrative support. In the
strategies Grant (2005) identified as helpful in gaining administrative support, enacting
leadership and overcoming resistance were the two most significant results. Within the
discussion presented regarding these two strategies, it was reported that leadership tasks
required negotiating the job activities and roles of counselors with administrators, and
overcoming resistance through relationship building and leveraging change through
incremental stages (refer to Table 1- strategies for gaining support). These strategies can
be examined through the four frames of leadership presented by Dollarhide, as well as the
school counselor leadership activities presented by Janssen (2007) and the participatory
leadership frame presented by Lewis & Borunda (2006).
40

Figure 2. Comparison of leadership frames, models, and strategies to gain support.
Figure 2 presents a comparison of the leadership and support strategies presented
in the first and second part of this literature review. Each leadership and support strategy
appears to be integrated and could be applied to all of the strategies and frames. For
example, within the political frame from Bolman & Deal (2002), Janssen’s (2007)
engaging systems change agent, Lewis & Borunda’s (2006) participatory leadership, and
Grant’s (2005) strategies of stepping into a leadership role and overcoming resistance to
change all could be considered “political,” in that the activities and strategies utilized
would necessitate navigating the political dynamics of the school and lobbying influence
toward implementing the national model. Likewise, Grant’s (2005) strategy of gaining
support through overcoming resistance to change could be examined through political,
41
human resource and symbolic frames, and may indeed necessitate all three in order to
truly overcome resistance to change.
Another area in which these models and strategies are related is that they all either
directly or indirectly incorporate some type of connection to change. The four frames
(Bolman & Deal, 2002) were presented within the context of implementing the national
standards, clearly a change in past practice of school counselors. Janssen (2007) refers to
engaging systems change agents. Though not clearly defined by the study, the idea that
school counselors sorted leadership strategies that related to change efforts implies again
that school counseling leadership and practice incorporates some type of change required
when implementing the national standards and national model. Even the participatory
leadership model presented by Lewis and Borunda (2006) and support strategies by Grant
(2005) include issues of change. Since these models all include change as a strategy or
leadership activity, any attempt at answering the main research question for this present
study must also include issues of organizational change.
What appears to be left out of the discussion regarding Grant’s strategies, and
Dollarhide’s use of the four frames, are the politics of newly hired school counselors
attempting to advance in their positions, and advance the vision of the ASCA national
model. Likewise, political dynamics within schools may also prevent veteran counselors
from successfully implementing the model. Literature regarding implementation efforts
and leadership strategies seem to suggest that most school counselors have values and
beliefs developed through their counselor education programs and through the ASCA
national model that may be at odds with the current practice of fellow school counselors,
and the expectations of school administrators. This poses a difficult position for newly
42
hired school counselors, as well as long-time counselors who support the ASCA national
model, but may fear that any attempts at implementing the model may cost them
influence within the organization, or ultimately cost them their jobs if they are not yet
tenured at their current sites. Their choice may be to conform to the roles and
expectations thrust upon them that they disagree with in order to fit in, or to save their
positions. Dollarhide, Gibson, & Saninak (2008) reported that one new counselor, though
attempting to operate within the four frames, experienced such difficult resistance that the
counselor ended up leaving the school to work with another school district where there
was reportedly less resistance to change. Examining a leadership and change framework
that includes issues of political dynamics, negotiating, and building support for change is
something that has yet to be examined in the school counseling literature, and has
potential to help answer the research question for this current study.
Promising Leadership and Change Theory for School Counselors
There are many models and paradigms of organizational change and leadership
(Kezar, 2001; Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006). It could be argued from
many different philosophical paradigms that a variety of change and leadership strategies
could account for the success of school counselors at RAMP certified schools. Though
change models are as varied as leadership models, there is one model within recent
literature that combines leadership, organizational change, and the political dynamics that
challenge school counselors and has potential to direct school counselors, national model
implementation efforts.
A recent leadership and change framework by Meyerson (2003, 2008) and
Meyerson & Scully, (1995) refers to the work of “tempered radicals” (Meyerson, 2008,
43
p. 5). Tempered radicals are defined as individuals within an organization that contribute
and succeed in their jobs, while also representing beliefs, values, and ideals that are
misaligned with the dominant culture of their work environments. They experience a pull
between wanting to fit in within an organization, and wanting to create positive change in
alignment with their own beliefs and values. Meyerson (2008) suggests that because
these individuals feel pulled between conforming to the work culture or resisting to
conform, they often enact strategies to create change, but not in extreme ways. Meyerson
(2008) states “Tempered radicals may believe in questioning the fundamental principles
(e.g., how to allocate resources) or root assumptions, but they do not advocate extreme
measures. They work within systems, not against them” (p. 7). This places school
counselors at odds with the culture of their work environments, and has the potential to
single out school counselors who have beliefs and opinions that are considered different
from the rest of the organization. Meyerson further states that tempered radicals
experience difference from organizations in three main ways:
1. Those who have different social identities form the majority and see those
differences as setting them apart and excluding them from the mainstream.
2. Those who have different social identities and see those differences as merely
cultural and not a basis for exclusion.
3. Those who have not cultural, but philosophical, differences which conflict
with the prevailing values, beliefs, and agendas operating in their
organizations. (Meyerson, 2008, p. 20).
It is apparent that many school counselors may indeed fit the third description of
differences tempered radicals experience within school sites. What is advocated for
44
through the professional associations and school counseling literature is often not enacted
in counselors’ work environments. Therefore, a school counselor could believe deeply
that the assignment of non-counseling related job tasks by an administrator (such as
campus supervision or school discipline) is inappropriate, as described by ASCA. The
counselor may wish to enact changes that allow for more counseling related duties, and
less discipline/supervision, but may not wish to create any tension with administration.
In this case the desire to create change to align with the vision of the profession of school
counseling is at odds with the culture of the school site, where counselors may have been
supervising the campus and coordinating school discipline for years. In addition, the
national model and national standards set up the practice of school counseling so that
counselors spend their time during the work day presenting guidance lessons, providing
individual and group counseling, meeting with parents, and collaborating with teachers.
The counselor’s choice then would be to conform to the expectations of the administrator
assigning the job tasks, or to create change through Meyerson’s tempered radical
strategies.
Meyerson’s (2008) tempered radical framework presents five strategies for
creating positive change within organizations, all of which are applicable to school
counseling practice. Figure 3 summarizes the five strategies, and infuses those strategies
within the models presented from Bolman & Deal (2002), Janssen (2007) and Grant
2005). The first tempered radical strategy, resisting, is viewed in terms of responses by
tempered radicals as they resist conforming to the dominant work culture. This strategy
is made up of psychological resistance (maintaining sense of self); resistance through
self-expressions (leadership style, language used, style of dress, and office decor); and
45
behind the scenes resistance (creating change in state and national professional
associations, helping others within the organization, utilizing informal internal networks).

Figure 3. Addition of Meyerson’s (2008) Tempered Radical Strategies
The second strategy identified by Meyerson, turning personal threats into
opportunities, is characterized by how tempered radicals handle confrontation. Threats
are not intended to encompass physical threats form others, but threats from the
organization or from an individual that have potential to threaten personal values or
identities. Meyerson identifies several strategies for recognizing that, when confronted
46
with the choice to conform or confront the prevailing culture, tempered radicals often
view these interactions as opportunities, see silence as a choice, and depersonalize the
interaction.
Negotiation is viewed as the third tempered radical strategy, and is characterized
by the tempered radical’s ability to see interactions with others as opportunities for
negotiating to create change. Meyerson suggests that a negotiation perspective is “to
think in terms of competing interests, differing positions and concerns, distinct sources of
influence, and alternative framing of issues” (p. 79). Tempered radical negotiation
strategies include stepping back from the issue to see the bigger picture, looking inward
to understand personal motives, taking stock of the other person’s interests, and using
third parties for assistance.
The fourth tempered radical strategy identified by Meyerson is leveraging small
wins. Tempered radicals pay attention to small gains toward accomplishing their change
efforts, and use those small wins to create buy in from others in the organization. These
small wins over time lead to larger systemic change by framing meaning of the small
wins. Framing meaning of small wins helps create structure out of what may seem like
elements of change that are not connected. For example, a school counselor could notice
that it was not necessary to supervise the campus every day of the week because one
particular day has more available staff, and leverage that win to allow the counselor to
avoid supervision one day per week. The gain in time to serve students is a small win that
could be further framed to show the results of interventions enacted during that time, and
leveraged with administration in an attempt to mandate less supervision time for
counselors.
47
The fifth tempered radical strategy is organizing collective action. Some change
efforts require collective action by more than one person in order to enact the change.
After leveraging small wins, tempered radicals can rally support for larger change when
others within the organization begin to see the benefits of the movement. It is a strategy
to get others motivated to support the change effort, and in a collective sense appreciate
the benefits of the change.
Meyerson’s tempered radical framework and the five tempered radical strategies
have direct connections with the leadership and implementation strategies presented
earlier in this literature review. No study as of June 2008 has investigated the extent to
which the framework would benefit school counselors, or serve to identify how school
counselors were able to implement the national model and become RAMP Certified.
Additionally, the literature presented in the first two sections of this chapter points to the
need for a leadership and change framework for school counselors that guides school
counselor’s implementation efforts. There may well be many other leadership and
change theories that could help answer this study’s main research question. Specifically,
Dollarhide (2003) has demonstrated how beneficial the Bolman & Deal (2002) leadership
frames could be for school counselors. However, given that the Meyerson framework
clearly describes the tempered-radical fit for school counselors, it seems likely that many
school counselors are feeling at odds with the dominant culture of their organizations and
would like to implement the national model and become RAMP certified but are thwarted
by resistance to change and lack of a clear action plan for creating change. This
framework therefore warrants further investigation regarding its potential to guide
tempered radical school counselors toward fully implementing the national model and
48
becoming RAMP certified, a topic that has been absent from the existing school
counselor literature.
Summary
In an investigation of existing evidence for answering this study’s main research
question, this present literature review identified several theoretical frameworks and
strategies used by school counselors in attempting to create change in their work sites and
implement the ASCA national model. The review examined implementation challenges,
how school counselors have enacted leadership to overcome those challenges, and several
leadership theories that have recently been applied to school counseling contexts. Of the
research reviewed, no study has yet examined leadership required from school counselors
to implement the national model and become RAMP certified. Nor has any research
examined how counselors at RAMP certified schools were able to fully implement the
model and receive RAMP certification. The insights gained from this chapter serve as a
guide for implementing the current study, in order to contribute to the dialogue regarding
school counselor leadership, and to help inform current school counselors of strategies
utilized to become RAMP certified.

49
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the specific research methods utilized in
this study aimed at providing an in depth description of how counselors at RAMP
certified schools were able to fully implement the ASCA national model and receive
RAMP certification. RAMP designated schools, and school counselors working at RAMP
schools were examined to develop a description of the leadership strategies enacted by
counselors’ that contributed to the successful implementation of the model and RAMP
certification efforts.
Methodology
The study used qualitative methods in order to provide an in depth description of
school counselors’ experiences in the process of implementing the national model and
developing a RAMP certified school counseling program. Merriam (1998) defines
qualitative research as “an umbrella concept covering several forms of inquiry that help
us understand and explain the meaning of social phenomena with as little disruption to
the natural setting as possible” (p. 5). This type of research is also typically defined by
the methods of data collection a researcher uses to gain insight into research questions.
Patton (2003) identifies three main types of qualitative data including interviews,
observations, and document analysis. Interviews have been defined as open-ended
questions about people’s experiences, perceptions, feelings, and knowledge (p. 4). Patton
also defines observations as context specific descriptions of behaviors, actions,
interactions, conversations, processes, or observable experiences (p. 4). Documents have
50
been defined as written materials, organizational and program records, reports,
correspondence, personal diaries, letters, photographs, artistic works and written
responses to open ended surveys (Patton, 2003, p. 4). These three types of data collection
methods are said to be naturalistic, because no attempt on the part of the researcher is
made to disrupt or control the natural environment or contexts where the observations
and data collection methods are employed. These types of methods are best aimed at
answering research questions beginning with “how,” (Merriam, 1998; Cresswell, 1998;
Patton, 2003) such as the main research question for this study: how have school
counselors been able to fully implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP
certified? Inherent in answering this question is the necessity to develop a detailed,
context specific description of the experiences of successful RAMP school counselors,
the challenges they faced and overcame, as well as specific leadership strategies that they
attribute to their success in receiving RAMP certification for their school counseling
programs. Interviewing school counselors at RAMP schools about their experiences,
challenges, and successes through open-ended interview questions provided more in
depth descriptions than available through quantitative methods. There has recently
evolved one well researched quantitative survey examining a school district’s readiness
to implement the national model (Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt, 2005; McGannon, 2007)
and one survey examining the work activities of school counselors (Scarborough, 2005).
Though these surveys address the national standards, and national model, and have been
identified as valid and reliable research tools (McGannon, 2007; Scarborough, 2005)
neither survey would serve to provide a detailed description of the process school
counselors went through, or addresses the leadership strategies employed to have their
51
programs become RAMP certified. The research question for this study therefore was
best examined through qualitative methods, such as interviews, and document analysis.
School counseling program documents such as ASCA national model forms including
mission and philosophy statements, action plans, results reports, master calendars,
guidance curriculum materials, and program management agreements are components of
the RAMP certification application. These documents provided valuable insight into how
counselors were able to implement the national model, and lent themselves to specific
review protocols strengthening the use of multiple sources of data to answer the research
question.
Utilizing an interpretive, collective case study approach, (Merriam, 1998) this
study examined three cases of RAMP certified schools. Cresswell (1998) defines a case
study as “an exploration of a ‘bounded system,’ or case (or multiple cases) over time
through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich
in context” (p. 61). The cases are considered bounded, because they are all from school
sites that have received RAMP certification. A collective case study includes multiple
sites, and in the current study, multiple RAMP schools and counselors working at those
schools serve as the collective cases. Examining multiple RAMP school sites allowed for
within and cross case analysis (Cresswell, 1998). Within and cross case analysis
increased the insight into the experiences of RAMP school counselors, as well as
increased confidence in themes that were generated from the data collection and analysis.
Cross case analysis helped strengthen the validity of themes that emerged surrounding
counselors leadership strategies and experiences with becoming RAMP certified.
52
According to Merriam (1998) interpretive case studies intend “to develop
conceptual categories or to illustrate, support, or challenge theoretical assumptions held
prior to the data gathering” (p. 38). In the current study, data analysis intended to find
support for school counselor leadership strategies that support Meyerson’s (2008)
tempered radical leadership framework. No specific tempered radical quantitative survey
of strategies identified by Meyerson exists, therefore qualitative in-depth interviews and
document analysis strategies were conducted in an attempt to find support for any of the
five categories of tempered radical leadership strategies presented in detail in chapter 2.
The specific interview protocol utilized is presented later in this chapter.
Sample and Selection Criteria
The cases for this study represent a criterion based, maximal sampling strategy
(Patton, 2003). This strategy provided in-depth descriptions of three RAMP certified
school sites, which allowed for the development of leadership strategy themes that
emerged across the varied contexts. The specific ways in which the sites contrast will be
explained in detail later in this chapter. Because implementation of the national model
and RAMP certification efforts vary, identifying common strategies employed through
diverse settings strengthened the connection between counselors’ implementation efforts
and identification of common strategies utilized. Each site selected was based on seven
criteria (See Table 4). These seven criteria represent common characteristics of school
populations and important variations among guidance and counseling departments.
Three sites are in the state of California, and one is Oregon. All sites represent different
school districts. The following criteria helped narrow the selection of RAMP schools for
the purpose of the present study:
53
Table 4
Site Descriptions
Note. This table describes the three selected sites among the seven selection criteria.
*ELA = English/Language Arts.
a
Site D was included to increase verification and
trustworthiness of findings from sites A,B, andC.
b
RAMP certification is granted for a
three year period. As of June 2008, Site C was the only high school to receive back to
back certifications.
c
Site C has both grade level and alphabetical distributions of
counselor case loads.
d
State Test Scores represents percentage of students reported to
have received passing scores on state achievement test scores.

1. RAMP Certification within last 3 years (2005-2008): Since the program’s
inception in 2003, 172 RAMP schools have been awarded the ASCA designation,
of which 60 were high schools. Only one high school nation wide has received
RAMP certification twice, and is located in Southern California. Selecting sites
Selection
Criteria

Site A

Site B

Site C

Site D
a

Year RAMP
Certified
2005 and
2008
2008 2004 and
2007
b
2008
Enrollment 1,328 1,778 2,127 1,540
Counselors 3 5 6 3
Case Load
Number
Distribution

442
Grade Level

356
Combination
c

354
Combination

513
Grade Level
Demographics
African
American
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic
Multiracial
White

3.1%

0.9%
0.3%
88.3%
0.2%
6.3%

1.2%

4.1%
(other) 4.7%
30.4%
6.5%
53.1%

1.8%

14.3%
1.5%
22.8%
2.9%
56.7%

28.2%

12.3%
9.9%
28.8%
2.3%
18.5%
Free/Reduced
Lunch

62.7%

35.4%

13.4%

48.7%
State Test
Scores
d
ELA*
Math

39.3%
36.9%

63%
57%

63%
28%

60%
55%
54
that have been certified within the past three years increased the likelihood that
the school counselors involved remembered specific details of their
implementation experiences. ASCA provided a list of RAMP certified schools for
the past three years, of which three school sites were selected.
2. Number of students enrolled at school site: In an effort to provide maximum
variability with in RAMP high schools selected for this study, student enrollment
was considered a variable that could influence school counselors’ ability to
implement the national model. Sites selected had different numbers of students
enrolled.
3. Number of counselors at site: The number of school counselors at each school site
was considered in the selection process. The number of counselors, and the
division of student case loads contributes to the job role and function of
counselors based on competing demands for the counselor’s time. To increase
variability, one site has 3 counselors, one site has 5 and one site has 6 counselors.
4. Counselor case load: School counseling departments often have varying models
of distributing student case loads. Some schools have individual or multiple
counselors per grade level, where counselors follow grades from first year
students to senior year. Other school sites have an alphabetical distribution, where
counselor case loads are equally distributed based on the students’ last names.
Still other schools may have a combination of the two mentioned- both grade
level and alphabetical distributions. These varied models all contribute to a
school counselor’s ability to enact leadership and implement the national model.
55
Two schools have a combined alphabetical and grade level distribution and one
school has a traditional grade level distribution.
5. Student demographics: Selecting RAMP schools that have different student
demographics will increase variability of the sample cases. Diversity profiles of
each school intended to identify three distinct school populations. One school has
a fairly diverse, but predominantly White student population (56%); and one
school is predominantly Hispanic (88.3%); and one school has a mix of
predominately White (53%) and Hispanic (30%) students. The fourth site
included for verification of findings was predominately Hispanic (28.8%) and
African American (28.2%).
6. Percentage of students on free/reduced lunch as indicator of economic status:
Sites selected also attempted to include a diverse economic view of RAMP
schools. A school’s socio/economic status could be a factor that contributes to a
school site’s support for implementing the national model. It is well known that
socio/economic status is correlated with academic performance (Blossfeld &
Shavit,1993), and therefore presenting three cases with varying levels of
socio/economic status will help maximize variability within the sample cases.
One way to indicate the economic situation of students attending a particular
school is the percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunches.
Students whose families meet specific income requirements qualify for either free
or reduced price lunches. RAMP schools selected on this criteria have 62.7%,
35.4% and 13% of students receiving free lunches.
56
7. Measure of statewide or national academic achievement scores: In 2001, the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal legislation was passed that requires schools to
track and report student’s yearly academic progress (US Department of
Education, 2001). States vary on how they measure progress, however as a
general measure, each school site is required to report students’ progress in their
state English/Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics (Math) yearly tests. For
this criterion, attempts were made to select one low, middle and high performing
school.
Site Descriptions
The sample for this study included three RAMP certified schools, based on the
seven criteria mentioned previously. One additional site (Site D) was included to verify
findings based on Sites A, B, and C. These sites were chosen to create a criterion based,
maximum variation sample (Patton, 2003). This strategy allowed for the identification of
leadership strategies that school counselors have utilized across varying school sites, with
varying caseloads, student demographics, and student academic performance. As
mentioned earlier, the utilization of this strategy, and the seven identified criteria help to
establish a framework for selecting three school sites that display different characteristics
that contribute to the job tasks of school counselors. Utilizing the seven criteria
mentioned above, three RAMP certified schools were selected in an attempt to create a
maximum variation sample. The sites are described in further detail in the next section to
highlight the ways in which the sites contrast.
Site A. “Site A” is middle school in Southern California. Demographic
information for Site A was obtained from the school’s demographic information page of
57
the 2007-2008 RAMP application (Appendix B). The total student population for Site A
is 1,328 students. The racial make up of the school was reported to include 3.1% African
American, .9% Asian, 88.3% Hispanic, .2% Multiracial, and 6.3% White students. Site
A has three school counselors, all of whom are female. Site A counselors have an
average caseload size of 442 students, distributed by student grade level. Almost 63% of
students attending Site A receive free or reduced price school lunches, an indicator of the
school’s socioeconomic status. The state of California administers a yearly achievement
test utilized for reporting accountability data as required by NCLB. At Site A, 34% of
students pass the English/Language Arts portion of the test, and 25% of students pass the
Math portion, which represents a relatively low achieving school. All three school
counselors at this site participated in individual interviews, and school counseling
program documents utilized to apply for RAMP certification were analyzed.
Site B. Site B is a medium sized high school in the Pacific Northwest.
Demographic information for Site B was obtained from the school’s demographic
information page of the 2007-2008 RAMP application (Appendix B). The total student
population for Site B is 1,778 students. The reported racial make up of the school is
1.2% African American, 4.1% Asian, 30.4% Hispanic, 11.2% Multiracial or “Other,” and
53.1% White. Roughly 35.4% of students attending Site B high school receive free or
reduced price school lunches, a measure of the school’s socioeconomic status. Site B
reports graduation rates based on meeting a statewide minimum target of 68.1%, but did
not report the specific graduation rate for their site. Graduation rates in this state’s district
are reported based on student ethnic groups, and whether or not the statewide minimum
target was achieved for that group. At Site B the minimum graduation rate was not met
58
for Hispanic or Asian students. There are five school counselors, four females and one
male, with an average caseload of 356 students. The counselors’ caseloads are divided
based on both grade level and alphabetical distributions. One counselor works solely
with the freshman class, while the other four counselors divide tenth through twelfth
grade students alphabetically. State wide assessment test scores indicate that 63% of
students at Site B pass the English and Language Arts and 57% pass the Math portions of
the assessment exams. All five school counselors at this site participated in individual
interviews, and school counseling program documents utilized to apply for RAMP
certification were analyzed.
Site C. Site C is a relatively large high school in California, with a student
population of 2,127 students and roughly 150 staff. Demographic information for Site C
was obtained from the school’s demographic information page of the 2006-2007 RAMP
application (Appendix B). The reported racial make up of the school includes 56.7%
White, 22.2% Hispanic, 14.3% Asian, and 1.8% African American, and 1.5 % Filipino
students. Only 13.4% of students at Site C receive free or reduced price school lunches,
an indicator of the school’s relatively affluent socioeconomic status. There are six school
counselors (one male and five females) at this site with an average caseload of 354
students. The school counseling department assigns caseloads by both alphabetical and
grade level distributions, with an additional academic support counselor. The academic
support counselor has a unique role at this school, and serves students identified as at risk
of not graduating, or as underperforming on the state’s high school exit exam. There are
four counselors who share an alphabetical distribution of grades 10, 11, and 12, and one
counselor who serves only freshman students. Achievement data indicates that 63% of
59
students pass the state English/Language Arts requirement, while 28% of students pass
Math. Though reported test scores appear to be lower than in the other three sample
schools for Math, comparatively academic performance at Site C is considered above
average, and the school boasts a 99.3% graduation rate. All six school counselors at this
site participated in individual interviews, and school counseling program documents
utilized to apply for RAMP certification were analyzed.
Site D. Site D is middle school in California, and was included in the sample to
increase verification and trustworthiness of the results of individual interviews and
document analysis of sites A,B, and C. After interviews were conducted at sites A, B,
and C, results were compared with site D to increase verification of the themes generated
from data analysis. Though Site D has three counselors, only one counselor participated
in individual interviews, and provided the site’s RAMP application documents for review
by the principal investigator. Demographic information for Site D was obtained from the
school’s demographic information page of the 2007-2008 RAMP application (Appendix
B). The total student population for Site D is 1,540 students. The racial make up of the
school was reported to include 28.2% African American, 12.3% Asian, 28.8% Hispanic,
2.3% Multiracial, and 18.5% White students. Site D has three school counselors, all of
whom are female. Site D counselors have an average caseload size of 513 students,
distributed by student grade level. Almost 49% of students attending Site D receive free
or reduced price school lunches, an indicator of the school’s socioeconomic status. The
state of California administers a yearly achievement test utilized for reporting
accountability data as required by NCLB. At Site D, 60% of students pass the
English/Language Arts portion of the test, and 55% of students pass the Math portion,
60
which represents a relatively high achieving school. Across these four sites, a total of
fifteen school counselors participated in individual interviews.
Profile of Interview Participants. In this study, fifteen school counselors from
four different schools participated in individual interviews aimed at identifying how they
were able to fully implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified.
Table 5 presents specific demographic data of the fifteen participants including gender,
number of years in school counseling, and number of years at their current school sites.
Two counselors were male, and thirteen were female. Seven of the counselors who
participated in the study have only worked at one school site, and eight counselors have
worked at multiple sites. Of those who have worked at multiple school sites, the majority
of their time in the school counseling profession has been at one school site.
Table 5

Interview Participant Profiles.
Sites Gender Years at current site Years in profession
A 3 Female 21
3
2
21
6
5
B 4 Female
1 Male
9
4
3
2
2
9
4
4
4
2
C 5 Female
1 Male
12
10
4
4
3
3
13
12
17
7
3
3
D* 1 Female 6 6
Note. Years at current site are paired with years in school counseling profession.*Site D
has three female counselors, however only one participated in the study.

61
Recruitment methods
The three sample school sites were recruited through personal contact by the
researcher. Additionally, individual participants received a copy of the Meyerson (2008)
text that serves as the leadership framework for the study.
Data collection procedures
The present collective case study examined how school counselors’ were able
implement the ASCA national model and receive RAMP certification. In answering this
question, a maximum variation sample of three RAMP certified schools, and the
counselors working at those sites served as the focus of data collection. Within this
sampling strategy, multiple sources of information were collected, and multiple
perspectives were gathered in an effort to answer the main research question. According
to Patton’s (2002) definition of maximum variation samples, “…when selecting a small
sample of great diversity, the data collection and analysis will yield two kinds of
findings: (1) high-quality, detailed descriptions of each case, which are useful for
documenting uniqueness, and (2) important shared patterns that cut across cases and
derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity” (p. 235). In an effort
to attain high quality, detailed descriptions of each case and to identify shared patterns
across and within cases, two forms of data collection drove the current study: interviews
and document analysis.
Interview Strategy and Protocol
Interviewing RAMP site school counselors and administrators is essential to
developing a detailed description of how counselors have been able to implement the
national model and become RAMP certified. Though a survey could be constructed to
62
identify leadership strategies that school counselors have utilized to implement the
model, face to face individual interviews allowed for a more detailed description of the
experiences counselors had while attempting to implement the model. Unlike open
ended survey items, individual school counselors were more likely to talk openly about
their implementation experiences because of the professional pride associated with the
accomplishment of becoming RAMP certified in an individual interview. Additionally, it
was considered unlikely that counselors would elaborate on processes, barriers,
challenges, and successes if responding to a written questionnaire, particularly because of
the busy nature of their professions. An important aspect of the challenges and successes
of implementing change like the implementation of the national model involves the
political dynamics that occur between school counselors and administrators. These
challenges could include the differences in what is viewed as appropriate and
inappropriate counselor roles and responsibilities, and counselor’s use of time during the
school day. Gaining insight into these dynamics was best examined through individual
interviews with counselors.
Patton (2002) defines various interview strategies for collecting data in qualitative
studies. Two strategies that were particularly appropriate for answering this study’s main
research question were the interview guide, and the standardized open-ended interview.
The interview guide is an interviewing strategy that utilizes an outline of topics to be
covered with each individual participating in the study. The topics are open ended, but
the outline allows the interviewer the freedom to explore topics or probe for further
information on a particular topic. The standardized, open-ended interview format
consists of pre-determined questions, in a standardized format that is asked in the same
63
sequence to each participant. Both of these strategies are appropriate in interviewing
school counselors and administrators regarding the implementation of the ASCA national
model and becoming RAMP certified. Both strategies were combined into one interview
protocol that has both standardized items and topical questions that left room for probing
and further exploration by the interviewer. The specific interview protocol (Appendix C)
was utilized to gather detailed, context specific information regarding school counselors’
experiences in implementing the national model and becoming RAMP certified. While
the protocol served to gather experiences of school counselors, it also served to identify
specific strategies school counselors utilized in implementing the national model and
becoming ramp certified. As reviewed in detail in chapter 2, the study intended to find
support for Meyerson’s (2008) tempered radical leadership and change framework, and to
identify strategies school counselors have utilized that are in alignment with Meyerson’s
framework. Overall the interviews intended to find support for Meyerson’s leadership
and change strategies across and within the three RAMP high school sites, however, the
principal investigator was aware that there may be strategies that counselors reported
utilizing that could be connected to other theoretical frameworks.
Document Analysis
In an attempt to gain multiple perspectives and sources of information to answer
this study’s main research question, there were many documents that were examined.
Specifically, each RAMP certified school must submit a RAMP application, which calls
for specific evidence of implementing the national model. These documents provided
more information regarding school counselors implementation and certification efforts.
Specifically, the ASCA national model calls for the development of a mission statement,
64
a management agreement (supervisory agreement that describes in detail how a school
counselor’s time will be spent) a master calendar, action plans, results reports, and yearly
program evaluations and program audits.
Additionally, through the interview process other comprehensive counseling
program documents were identified that helped to provide a detailed description of school
counselor’s implementation efforts. These documents included staff meeting agendas,
implementation action plans, classroom guidance lesson plans and forms, and internal
data collection documents that school counselors utilized to enact leadership strategies to
fully implement the national model and become RAMP certified. All documents
collected were examined to determine common characteristics and themes that relate to
implementation and certification efforts. RAMP applications and national model
documents are fairly standardized, and served to provide insight into different strategies
utilized by each counselor or RAMP school sited to accomplish a similar implementation
task. Examining common documents strengthened findings for cross case analysis
(discussed in the next section) and provided valuable information in identifying how
counselors have been successful in their implementation efforts. School counseling
program documents can be viewed as tools utilized by school counselors to mange their
school counseling programs. These tools may take on different formats, but generally
serve the same goal: to demonstrate compliance with aspects of the ASCA national
model. For example, part of the national model requires the development of a master
calendar for the counseling program. Routine events that are conducted by the school
counselors that are part of the calendar document were examined to see differences and
similarities in routine events across each RAMP site.
65
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study consisted of the following steps: transcription of
interviews with all sample participants; coding of interviews into thematic categories that
emerged after transcript analysis; within case analysis- review of interview transcriptions
in order to develop an understanding of each case, and the processes and experiences of
school counselors implementing the ASCA national model and becoming RAMP
certified at each case site; cross case analysis- identification of common themes that
emerged across all three cases; and categorization of documents collected for analysis.
Interpretive case studies intend “to develop conceptual categories or to illustrate,
support, or challenge theoretical assumptions held prior to the data gathering (Merrian,
1998, p. 38).” In the current study, data analysis intended to find support for school
counselor leadership strategies that support Meyerson’s (2008) tempered radical
leadership framework. Emergent themes surfacing from both within and cross case
analysis served as evidence supporting or disconfirming elements of Meyerson’s
tempered radical framework for five categories of tempered radical leadership: resisting,
turning threats into opportunities, negotiating, leveraging small wins, and organizing
action.
Verification/Trustorthiness
According to Cresswell (1998), qualitative researchers “use the term verification
instead of validity because verification underscores qualitative research as a distinct
approach, a legitimate mode of inquiry in its own right” (p. 201). Using Cresswell’s
concept of trustworthiness of the study, in addition to Merriam’s (1998)
66
recommendations for case study methods, this study employed triangulation and member
checks to increase the strength of findings.
Triangulation as a method for increasing trustworthiness of a study has been
discussed by several authors (Cresswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1998). Consensus
appears to be that the use of multiple methods of data collection, various sources of
information, and use of multiple perspectives to gain corroborating evidence for
emerging themes all serve to increase the trustworthiness of a study. In this case study,
interviews of multiple school counselors from four different RAMP schools, and
document analysis was used to find corroborating evidence for the study’s findings.
Themes that emerged from interviews of counselors at each RAMP school site were
examined across and within each site, as well as with findings from document analysis in
an effort to find support for each theme. If findings were unable to be supported through
triangulation efforts, the researcher was open to identifying themes that were supported
as they emerged throughout data collection and analysis procedures.
Additionally, themes that emerged from the data analysis of sites A, B, and C
were examined with additional data from Site D. Site D provided an additional
perspective of strategies to become RAMP certified, and confirmed findings from sites
A,B, and C.
Where possible, the current study also made attempts to utilize the strategy of
member checks (Merriam, 1998; Cresswell, 1998) to increase the trustworthiness of
findings, and to verify that those who participated in the study corroborate themes that
emerged. Member checking is a strategy whereby the researcher provides study
participants the opportunity to review the researcher’s interpretation of the data collected
67
to ensure that the voice of the participants is included in the study. If the participants
report that emerging themes are not capturing their experiences, attempts were made to
obtain further clarification from participants in order to obtain a better understanding of
their experiences. This process included providing participants with copies the themes
that emerged from the data analysis and asking for their feedback. Counselors who
participated in the study agreed with the emergent themes presented. Additionally,
member checks supported findings from document analysis.
Ethical considerations
Several key strategies were utilized to ensure that this study followed ethical
guidelines, and maintained confidentiality of the participants. These strategies included
obtaining permission from site administrators to conduct the study, as well as informed
consent of all interviewees. Names, locations, and identifying information were changed
to protect the confidentiality of participants, and when including participants in “member
checks,” participants were only be allowed to review themes, not interview transcripts
from other interviewees. Interview transcripts and documents collected will be stored in a
secure location, where only the researcher has access to any identifying information.
Limitations
There were several limitations that may be associated with the present study.
First, there is potential bias from the researcher conducting the study. The researcher was
a high school counselor at a large public high school in Southern California that was not
RAMP certified while the researcher was employed there. Therefore it was necessary to
ensure that methodological guidelines were followed in detail to reduce potential bias.
68
The researcher had to keep bias from personal experiences in attempts to implement the
national model and become RAMP certified apart from the findings of the study. The use
of a standardized open-ended interview protocol helped to decrease any unintended
effects of the researcher’s influence over participant responses or data analysis.
Additionally, the use of interviews and document analysis presented limitations.
Patton (2003) states that these limitations could include “distorted responses due to
personal bias, anger, anxiety, politics, and simple lack of awareness since interviews can
be greatly effected by the emotional state of the interviewee at the time of the interview”
(p. 306). Patton also discusses challenges with interviews because of recall error, the
reaction of the interviewee to the interviewer, and the tendency for people to provide
socially desirable answers (p. 306). Examining school counseling program documents
and national model related documents may have had limitations relating to the
completeness of the document, quality of information, and variability in records kept by
each case site.
A third limitation includes the researchers attempt to find confirming or
disconfirming evidence for school counselor’s leadership efforts in implementing the
national model and becoming RAMP certified. The specific theoretical assumptions
regarding strategies implemented by school counselors at RAMP sties held by the
researcher could hinder data analysis and interpretation. The present case study is framed
as an interpretive, multi-site case and findings could suggest theoretical connections to
alternate leadership and change theories. In-process data analysis and member checks
served to ensure that emergent themes matched participants’ experiences regardless of
any presence or absence of support for a specific leadership paradigm.
69
Summary
This chapter presented an overview of the methodology of the study to investigate
how school counselors have been able to fully implement the national model and become
RAMP certified. Specifically, an interpretive, collective case study approach of three
RAMP certified schools was detailed. Each case was selected in an attempt to create a
maximum variability sample, based on seven selection criteria. Data collection methods
included interviews of school counselors at RAMP high schools, and document analysis
of existing counseling program documents from each site. Data analysis procedures
detailed how interviews were examined for emerging themes, and how member checks
and collection of multiple sources of data were utilized to find corroborating evidence for
the emergent themes. Overall, the study intended to find support for strategies
implemented by school counselors’ who were successful in becoming RAMP certified, in
hopes that the findings may be helpful for further study of school counselor leadership, as
well as for other counselors attempting to implement the national model and become
RAMP certified.

70
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
Introduction
The present study utilized qualitative methods to investigate how school
counselors at RAMP certified schools were successful in implementing the ASCA
National Standards to become RAMP certified. The purpose of this chapter is to present
findings based on the results of interviews of 15 school counselors across four RAMP
certified school counseling programs. Two major thematic groups were identified based
on data analysis including: 1) similar preconditions that existed across all sites and 2)
similar leadership strategies utilized by school counselors at each site to implement the
ASCA national model and become RAMP certified. The next section of this chapter
defines the two thematic categories that include five specific preconditions, and three
specific leadership strategies that were common across all RAMP sites included in this
study.
Site Pre-Conditions
Across the four sites included in this case study, five common situational factors
emerged from the data analysis that appeared to allow school counselors working at those
sites to enact leadership strategies to implement the ASCA national model and become
RAMP certified. These factors were common across two middle school and two high
school RAMP certified sites, in two different states. These factors were in place prior to
each site becoming RAMP certified and contributed to creating an environment at these
sites that was conducive to implementing the ASCA model, and receiving RAMP
certification. The five preconditions include: 1) the existence of a supportive
71
administration at the school site; 2) A high performing school counseling team; 3) An
existing school counseling program that was already closely aligned with the ASCA
national model; 4) Specific combinations of school counseling staff; and 5) existing
school counselors with unique professional skills. Each of these conditions will be
defined, and presented with corroborating evidence from the individual interviews.
Supportive Administration. Each of the sites included in the present study, as
well as the additional site (Site D included to verify the findings from sites A, B, and C)
had what the school counselors reported as a supportive administration, or an
administration that did not interfere with school counselor’s efforts to implement the
ASCA national model and become RAMP certified. A supportive administration can be
defined as a principal or administrative team that approves of the school counselors’
efforts to follow the national model. At three of the sites, administrative support was
highlighted by all of the counselors interviewed. For example, one counselor stated
I would say [the administrators] are supportive very much. And I think mostly in
terms of this school has a reputation of excellence, and they wanted the
counseling department to be a program of excellence, and they saw this as an
opportunity to document that.

When asked about administrative support another counselor stated specifically, “Of
course they were on-board with that, no resistance from administrators.” This theme
continued within each site, and across the four different sites. At one site, the principal of
the school attended a school counseling conference with the counselors working at that
school site. This type of support demonstrated that the principal not only supported the
school counselors’ efforts, but also took time to actively engage the counselors about the
implementation process by attending the conference. The conference was reported to be
72
held in Southern California, and focused on the implementation of the ASCA national
standards. Administrative support at this site was different than support reported by two
other school sites, which will be described next.
Administrative support was also described by two sites as being supportive by not
interfering with counselor’s efforts to implement the ASCA national standards and to
become RAMP certified. One counselor reported that their school site had undergone
high turnover rates of principals and assistant principals within the last few years. This
counselor stated
They [the administration] don’t pay any attention to what we’re doing around
here, that was a benefit. We’ve had the constant turnover so they were
distracted…but not knowing what we were doing allowed us to move forward.

At a different site, a counselor stated similarly
It was kind of as long as we kept doing other things they wanted us to do, the
other counselor was in charge of testing and I was in charge of the master
schedule; as long as we did that we had the freedom to do all the other things we
needed to do.

In both of these examples, administrative support was defined by the counselors who
were interviewed as having principals and assistant principals who supervised the
guidance department not interfere with the school counseling department’s efforts to
implement the national model and to become RAMP certified.
Existing School Counseling Program. The second precondition that was evident
across the sites included in this case study as reported by the interview participants and
documents examined by the principal investigator, was that each RAMP site had an
existing school counseling program in place that was already closely aligned with the
ASCA national model. School counselors reported that there were minimal changes that
73
needed to be made to the existing programs to ensure alignment with the ASCA national
standards and national model. As reviewed in Chapter 1, the ASCA national model helps
school counselors develop a comprehensive program that provides a balance of services
across three domains: academic, career, and personal/social. In addition, the model helps
serve as a guide for creating responsive services intended to meet the national standards.
Each RAMP certified site that was included in this study had programs in place that, as
reported by the school counselors, was already inline with the standards and the national
model. The two most commonly mentioned changes included the collection of program
outcome data, and the development of a guidance advisory committee.
When discussing their school counseling programs prior to becoming RAMP
certified, a school counselor reported “Honestly we didn’t do much different. All we did
was document. We did the extra things like pre and post tests. We had never really done
those before.” Another counselor reported
Before we had the national model, I would say we were doing a lot of the things
we are doing now, very similar in my opinion, but it wasn’t charted. For other
schools I would say to become nationally certified you’d have to change a lot of
things. Because they weren’t doing what it takes to become certified. But for us,
it was more like charting it. As we looked at it we were doing really close to what
we should be doing…So I wouldn’t say we changed a whole bunch. I’d say it
confirmed we were doing what we were supposed to.

The theme of documenting results and collecting data about program outcomes
was routinely mentioned by most of the interviewees. Another counselor stated
…before we were going in to do class presentations and just leave, now we pre an
post test them about what we’re talking to them about. And we can use that data.
We do that even for our parent nights, we give them a pre and post at parent
nights.

74
Another small change that was needed was the development of a guidance
advisory committee. A guidance advisory committee is a component of the national
model, and serves to help school counselors communicate outcomes of their
interventions, as well as ensure that the program components are meeting school and
community needs. These advisory committees are made up of administrators, teachers,
parents, students, and community partners such as local counseling agencies and health
and wellness agencies. Each site included in the study mentioned specifically that their
school counseling programs that were in place prior to implementing the national
standards and becoming RAMP certified were closely aligned with the national model.
This was reported to have eased implementation and certification efforts of school
counselors working at these sites.
High Performing Team. The third precondition that was evident across all of the
sites included in this study was the existence of a high performing school counseling
team. This precondition was described by fourteen of the school counselors who
participated in individual interviews. When describing how school counselors were able
to implement the national model and become RAMP certified, counselors reported
perceptions of teamwork, lack of resistance from colleagues, and willingness of team
members to commit to the implementation process. Specifically when asked to describe
colleague’s support for the national model, one counselor stated:
At this site? Extremely high. I think we’re all on the same page. We’re all very
different as I’m sure you’ll see. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, but as
a team, we work very well together and I think we really see eye to eye on what
the students need.

75
Other comments from interview participants included statements about teamwork, and
lack of resistance to implementing the national standards and committing to the process
of becoming RAMP certified. Specifically, an example of this is from a counselor who
stated “We all have different personalities, different strengths and weaknesses, but
mostly strengths, and we complement each other, we really work well together.” When
asked if specific strategies were utilized to foster this type of teamwork, the same
counselor reported
I think it was just kind of natural. I think the more we could do to better
ourselves, which was something that we all agreed to, and no one ever says ‘oh,
we don’t want to do that,’ we just say lets go do this because it’s going to help our
kids.

Similar comments were shared by another counselor at a different site who stated
There’s an unusually high level of camaraderie with this counseling team,
probably more than most schools. I would say it’s unusually high. Some of it is
not something other schools can control for as easily. We are very fortunate, all of
us get along very, very well. I think there was a natural bond that happened pretty
fast with the other team members…

Comments from the interview participants at all of the school sites included in this study
echoed those listed above. There was clear evidence of a team of school counselors who
understood that effective teamwork contributed to being able to implement the ASCA
national standards and become RAMP certified. What was not clear, however, was the
strategies these counselors employed to create the atmosphere necessary for the
development of a high performing team. The counselors in this study all agreed that their
teams worked well together, but were not clear of how the team began to perform so well.
Though this precondition was evident at all sites, there were differences between the
sites. For example, counselors at Site C reported that due to the camaraderie evident at
76
their site, the counselors spent time together outside of work. They socialized together
after work, and even spent time with each other on the weekends. For example, one
counselor at Site C reported
…we shop together, we text [message] each other, we hang out together, we buy
the same clothes, I mean we have to text each other like ‘don’t wear that red shirt
today because I’m going to wear it’, you know we get our hair cut in the same
place, we usually go to the same stylist. But it’s really nice because we have the
same goals, we care about kids in the same way….so it’s really allowed us to
really leap forward because we’re a unit.

School counselors at the other sites also described their team as being tightly knit,
unified, and committed to implementing the ASCA national standards and becoming
RAMP certified, but did not seem to report the same type of social atmosphere as the
team at Site C. The counselors at Sites A, B, and D reported more details about the
commitment of the team to working together while at work, and less about socializing
together outside of work.
School Counselor Skills. In addition to the existence of a tightly knit school
counseling team, data analysis results indicated that these RAMP certified school sites
were staffed with school counselors who were identified by their colleagues as possessing
unique and specific skills. These included: having a school counselor on the team who
prefers or enjoys working with data and statistics; a counselor who enjoys presenting
information in classrooms through guidance lessons; a counselor who has developed an
understanding of the political culture of the school site’s administration and culture; and
finally having at least one school counselor who understands how to utilize technology
such as Microsoft Office programs (Microsoft Excel, Word, and PowerPoint). Several
counselors from each site mentioned that there was a specific school counselor on staff at
77
their site who had strong preferences for collecting and analyzing data related to the
school counseling program. For example, a school counselor reported:
One of my colleagues is so data driven it’s wonderful. And that’s great because I
love data, but I’m not they kind of [person] that wants to sit in front of a desk all
day and compile numbers. I’d rather be working with kids. And that was great,
she did a lot of the data for us. A lot of classroom guidance came to me because I
teach all the CIS, which is our career information system to all the freshman, so I
was able to log a lot of the guidance time that we needed…

The counselor quoted above reported that there was a counselor on staff who had skills
working with data, while also indicating individual preferences for presentations and
guidance lessons. Similar comments were made among counselors across the sites
included in this study regarding specific computer skills. Another counselor reported
I have to hand it to my younger counselors, the ones who were formatting
documents and doing a lot of stuff on the computer- I don’t know how to do those
charts and whatever, but every counselor had their own strength.

At another school site, in a different state than the counselor quoted above, when
discussing school counselor skills a counselor reported
It helps if there is one person on the team that’s a little better with numbers and
the structure of [the RAMP application]. When you have a team full of people,
like me, my area is like the crisis and the counseling and the putting back
together- numbers are not my strength. But when you have someone like [names a
specific counselor at the school site] you know that can kind of be that point
person’s that’s really helpful.

Though school counselor skills in data collection and analysis were highlighted along
with presentation skills, another common component of this precondition was the
presence of a school counselor who was more attuned to the political climate of the
school. Understanding the power dynamics and political relationships among
administrators, staff, and key stakeholders was a skill that was not directly mentioned in
interviews, but was evidenced by language used by the counselors interviewed who
78
demonstrated these skills. Generally, the counselors who had been working at the school
sites longer, (more than 6 years) answered interview questions from a political point of
view, or injected power dynamics, influence, and relationships with key stakeholders into
their answers. Counselors who had been at the school sites for fewer than six years
typically answered interview questions by demonstrating a more technical point of view.
These counselors reported the utilization of specific strategies, or data collection
procedures by describing step-by-step procedures. In addition they reported more detail
about programs and services from structural point of view. Therefore the key skill that
appeared to be connected to this precondition was having a school counselor on staff who
has either been in practice longer or has been at the site longer than other school
counselors on the team to provide insight into the political dynamics involved in
implementing the national model and becoming RAMP certified. For example, when
discussing the process of becoming RAMP certified a counselor with nine years of
experience reported “I think having RAMP has given us a little more clout, so when we
say something they [school administrators] listen a little bit more.” Additionally when
discussing the existing program prior to RAMP certification and the administration’s
support for becoming RAMP certified, one counselor with seventeen years of experience
reflected on the political dynamic of the administration stating:
…because the school is very student centered, and the principal and the
administration team. The question we ask in all of our meetings and all of our
interactions is what’s best for kids. So if we’re having a discussion, and there’s
different points of view, ultimately in this situation what’s best for kids? So I
think with the national standards it’s a slam dunk, what ever is best for kids.

As evidenced by this quote the counselor had an understanding of how the administration
dealt with differing points of view, and was able to leverage support for the national
79
standards and becoming RAMP certified by showing the principal that it was what was
perceived to be best for the students at that school site. In addition to specific skills that
counselors at RAMP certified school sites had prior to certification, data analysis results
indicated that each site included in the study had similar changes among school
counseling staff.
School Counseling Staff. There were many similarities across the four sites
included in this study related to the school counseling staff at each site. These
preconditions included having a school counselor who had been working at the school
site for at least five years. Each site had at least one veteran counselor who had been at
that site for a minimum of five years, regardless of the length of time they’ve been in the
profession of school counseling.
Another commonality was that each of the sites had new team members (within
the last three years) who were recent graduates from a school counseling Master’s degree
program that taught the ASCA national model as part of the counselors course work.
School counselors participating in the individual interviews either stated that there was
someone who was recently hired who had been exposed to the ASCA national model in
their graduate programs, or reported individually that they had personally been exposed
to the national model through graduate coursework. For example, one school counselor
reported “…my younger counselors, they actually took classes in this stuff [the ASCA
national model] so they actually learned what the terms meant, and what the structure of
the framework looked like and all of that.” Additionally, an example of a counselor
reporting personal exposure to the model through graduate studies reported “I developed
my own program in graduate school, I knew all about that coming into my profession
80
because I had already done it…so I’ve been trained in implementing the national model
program.”
School counselors working at these RAMP certified school sites also reported that
there was one key school counselor who championed the idea of implementing the ASCA
national standards and becoming RAMP certified. Though the sites included in this study
had school counseling teams that incorporated a head-counselor position (a counselor or
counselors who took on additional team leadership responsibilities and served as a liaison
between the counseling staff and administration), the head counselor was not always the
person who spearheaded the implementation and certification efforts. Counselors at each
site specifically identified one counselor and reported how that specific counselor had
brought the idea of becoming RAMP certified to the team, and assisted the team by
coordinating their certification efforts.
The sites included in this study had also experienced recent increases in the
number of school counselors at the school site. Site A received one additional counselor
for a total of three, Site B received one additional counselor for a total of five, and Site C
received one additional counselor for a total of six school counselors. The addition of a
counselor to each of these sites happened within the last three years, and counselors at
each site reported that the increase helped with their implementation efforts.
The five identified preconditions mentioned above were conditions that were in
place across all four sites in this study, and were referenced by each of the counselors
participating in the individual interviews. It appears that these conditions directly
affected the school counselors’ ability to implement the ASCA national standards, and
become RAMP certified. In addition to these preconditions, data analysis revealed three
81
key leadership strategies employed by school counselors working at each site that
facilitated implementation and certification efforts. The next section of this chapter
presents the identified leadership strategies.
School Counselor Leadership Strategies
The second main theme emerging from the data analysis included three leadership
strategies that school counselors at RAMP certified sites in the present study employed to
implement the ASCA national model and to become RAMP certified. These strategies
were common across all sites included in the study, and include fostering teamwork,
building support for implementation and certification, and use of strategic planning.
Foster teamwork. School counselors at the RAMP certified school sites included
in this study reported utilizing strategies to implement the ASCA national model and to
become RAMP certified that were related to fostering teamwork within their school
counseling departments. Though there appeared to be a precondition of a high
performing team prior to becoming RAMP certified, there were several strategies that
school counselors utilized to continue to improve teamwork and camaraderie among
counselors at each RAMP school site during the implementation and certification efforts.
Therefore, fostering teamwork can be defined as school counselors’ intentional use of
strategies to increase team performance. At two school sites a head counselor utilized
these strategies, and at one school site these strategies were implemented based on the
entire school counseling team’s decisions. Specifically, these strategies included
developing a strengths-based approach to program implementation; increasing
communication amongst team members; and influencing school counselor hiring
decisions.
82
School counselors at RAMP certified schools included in this study reported that
one main strategy utilized in their implementation and certification efforts that fostered
teamwork was to develop a strength-based approach to the implementation of the national
model, and for completion of the RAMP application. This approach involved the
identification of individual school counselor strengths, and then assigning
implementation and certification tasks based on those individual strengths. The
development and implementation of a comprehensive guidance and counseling program
that follows the ASCA national model requires the participation of all the school
counselors at a school site. Utilizing individual school counselor strengths to implement
the national model and for becoming RAMP certified was a strategy utilized by
counselors at RAMP certified schools that was reported to increase teamwork.
Specifically, according to one school counselor:
It brings your office together, to a purpose. It makes you celebrate the strengths of
your office. Makes me celebrate to know that (states a specific counselor’s name)
loves data. She loves sitting there for two hours plugging in the numbers, and I
don’t have to worry about that. And she’s very thankful that I’m the one that loves
to go in the classroom, because that’s my thing. And it wasn’t this ‘should I be
doing as much data as she is, and should she be doing as much classroom?’ It was
like nope, as a whole we all have to be doing this- from five individuals to one
system, we were completing it, where each individual wasn’t, and that made a big
difference.

This theme was echoed by other counselors who reported that distributing the
responsibilities based on individual counselor strengths seemed to foster teamwork.
Another counselor reported “it also helped that the other lead counselor with me is really
good on the computer, and loves typing things up and laying things out, this counselor is
just this superb tech person, so that’s been very helpful.”

83
Still another counselor mentioned
Brainstorming how you fit together, how everything we do fits together, how just
because I don’t do every single competency doesn’t mean it’s not being done by
the other freshman counselor or the diversion counselor, and we all as a team, it
shows how our school provides it.

The reference to identifying individual strengths to foster teamwork also contributed to
another teambuilding strategy implemented by counselors at RAMP certified school sites,
which was increasing communication amongst the team members.
Increasing communication amongst the counselors working toward implementing
the national model and becoming RAMP certified was a strategy that was reported to be
utilized across all of the school sites included in the present study. Providing information
about the implementation efforts, program requirements, and completion of the RAMP
application increased collaboration and teamwork within each school counseling
department. When discussing implementation strategies, one counselor stated “I think
that just sharing everything with everybody, sharing the process, having updates not
keeping it close to the vest where it was only me in my office doing it helped.”
Counselors spoke of providing updates and information regarding their implementation
efforts in routine staff meetings and making implementation and certification topics part
of their meeting agendas. Similarly, one counselor spoke specifically about the benefits
of communication and it’s impact on fostering teamwork. This counselor reported “Time
to sit and talk together was the most valuable thing because as we do that, we realize how
our different philosophies come together, and I think it created a stronger team in the
process.”
84
Increasing communication helped create an atmosphere where all counselors were willing
to commit to the implementation and certification process, which in turn continued to
foster teamwork.
A final strategy that was reported by school counselors to foster teamwork was
the intentional influencing of school counselor hiring decisions. School counselors
reported that with changes in the school counseling staff experienced at each site, specific
attention was given to hiring individuals who would increase the sense of camaraderie
and teamwork that was already evident at each site. Specifically, a counselor reported
I think we had a clear vision of the different skills that we wanted, and we were
also looking for cohesion in the team. And the members that have been selected to
make up our present team, it’s been amazing. I think we all kind of gelled towards
each other when they were hired, and now we’ve become this super cohesive
team.

When discussing the influencing of hiring decisions, a counselor at another site reported
“When a new counselor was hired, we were all part of that interview panel, so we were
able to kind of have input onto our rankings and how we felt the people would fit.” Two
of the preconditions mentioned in the previous section of this chapter was the recent
addition of school counseling staff, and an existing high performing team. A strategy
reported to be used to continue to foster this type of teamwork by counselors involved in
this study was to strategically influence hiring decisions to ensure that the team continued
to function at a high level. Leadership strategies employed by school counselors at the
RAMP certified schools included in this study also revolved around how counselors
gained support from administrators and fellow counselors to implement the ASCA
standards and become RAMP certified.

85
Build support for implementation and certification efforts. A second leadership
strategy implemented by school counselors at RAMP certified schools included building
support from administrators, counselors, and other stakeholders for their efforts. In the
previous section, a precondition was identified as having a supportive administration, or
an administration that did not interfere with the school counselors’ implementation
efforts. There were three strategies that school counselors reported using to continue
building support for their efforts. These strategies included use of different language for
different stakeholders, being strategic in the development of the program’s guidance
advisory committee, and use of strategic presentations at staff and school board meetings.
Gaining support for implementing the ASCA national standards and for becoming
RAMP certified involved school counselors utilizing language that was most familiar to
their audience when communicating with fellow counselors, administrators, or other
stakeholders at their school sites. Specifically, when discussing how to gain support, one
counselor stated
Find a way to speak their language. What is it that motivates them and how does a
comprehensive guidance and counseling program address that need. How does
documentation address that need? For example, school counselors may say ‘well
we don’t have time for this.’ Ok; by doing the time task analysis and your
calendaring piece of this you document that you don’t have time, you align it to
standards and show what the recommended amount is and what you’re doing. So
it gives you a tool to address the concerns that are the resistant pieces.

Another counselor spoke about utilizing language to gain support by stating
I wasn’t as strategic as I would have liked to be, but I recognized that when I’m
talking to different stakeholders that I try to use the language that they were most
familiar with. For example when I was talking with the counselors about wanting
to do this process, it’s about because we are trying to align with the school and be
seen as a part of the school which is something school counselors struggle with.

86
When talking with the administrators I use the language of using data to analyze
student achievement and how the counseling department impacts student
achievement. So it depends on the group of stakeholders that I’m talking to which
language I use.

This counselor’s comments were similar in nature to comments made from counselors at
other school sites. Though a precondition of support was evident, counselors reported
using language to gain continued support for their implementation and certification
efforts. These comments indicate that there were efforts on behalf of school counselors
at the RAMP certified sites included in this study to bolster support for their efforts,
regardless of the level of support from fellow counselors and administrators. Persistent
support building efforts were evident at each site, by multiple counselors. This could
indicate that at times support was strong, but may have waned and strategies were
implemented to bolster support through the use of specific language.
A second support building strategy implemented by school counselors who
participated in this study was to be strategic in the development of the school counseling
program’s guidance advisory committee. Part of the ASCA national model includes the
formation of an advisory committee that is involved in the development and ongoing
improvement of a school counseling program. School counselors recruit members for this
committee to advise the program, though the committee does not have any supervisory or
mandated authority over the individual school counselors. School counselors at RAMP
certified schools reported that they were strategic in their recruitment and selection of
guidance advisory committee members, so that these members would also gain support
for implementing the national model and becoming RAMP certified.

87
Specifically, as one counselor reported:
…for our committee for the RAMP, it helps to have, strategically have people on
the committee who are key people that would help give more information to other
people about the program. We had an administrator who is also a parent so that
helps. We had somebody from our school board who is also a parent of a student
here. So we had key people that we invited to join the committee, who also had
roles in the bigger picture, so that helped with buy in.

Similar reports were made from counselors at other school sites when discussing
strategies utilized to gain support for implementing the national standards and becoming
RAMP certified. Counselors at these sites carefully selected guidance advisory
committee members who would advocate for the school counseling program, and work
toward gaining support for the counselors. In this way the support building efforts of
school counselors at these sites was distributed strategically through the school
counseling staff, as well as through teachers, administrators, parents, and school board
members who were part of the school’s guidance advisory committee.
School counselors participating in this study also reported that they were able to
build support for implementation and certification efforts through presentations at formal
and informal meetings about the school counseling program at their sites. These
presentations occurred at school board meetings, staff meetings, and even meetings
specifically requested by counselors to communicate information about the program to
targeted individuals such as school administrators and teachers. For example when
discussing support building strategies, one school counselor reported:
At the beginning of this year we had the board presentation because we had gotten
an entirely new administration. Both of the assistant principals and the principal
left, so it was us and the new people. We kind of had to advocate for ourselves to
let them know what our program was about.

88
Another counselor discussed gaining support through presentations to administrators and
school board members when the counselors received their first RAMP certification.
This counselor reported:
….we were asked to go to the school board meeting and bring the RAMP to show
them. And so we, using our advocacy skills turned it a little bit and we did a mini-
presentation on the school counseling program. We just did a quick overview of
these are the different programs, some slides on results to show that what we are
doing was actually helping with academics, behavior and attendance.

At a different site, counselors reported more informal meetings with administrators and
teachers to present information about the school counseling program to gain support for
implementing the national standards and becoming RAMP certified. For example, one
counselor reported that they gained support by “just informing them and giving them
information, letting them know it looks good for the school, looks good for them and that
this was the direction that we wanted to head, which aligned with district goals as well.”
Additionally, in regard to gaining teacher’s support another counselor reported
Communicating what our expectations are as far as the model, because if people
don’t know, teachers know they have certain standards and things they need to
abide by and adhere to. Ours are very different, and helping them understand why
we’re asking to take up their class time by going in and doing guidance lessons,
what we’re trying to fulfill, what we need to do to meet our competencies and the
standards and things that are out there for kids, so that we’re addressing the
domains (of the national model). Communication has been a big factor so when
they understand that that’s something that we need to do, that that’s part of our
job, then they support us.

Utilizing presentations about the counseling program and implementing the national
model and becoming RAMP certified as a strategy to gain support from administrators,
teachers, and other counselors was similar across all sites that participated in the present
study. In addition to leadership strategies that increased teamwork amongst the school
counseling department, and leadership strategies that increased support for
89
implementation and certification efforts, school counselors in the present study utilized
strategic planning strategies that allowed them to successfully implement the ASCA
national standards and become RAMP certified. These strategies are reviewed in the next
section of this chapter.
Utilize strategic planning. The final leadership strategy that emerged from the
data analysis indicated that school counselors utilized strategic planning strategies to
implement the ASCA national standards and become RAMP certified. School counselors
reported utilizing specific, planned, and intentional strategies for their implementation
and certification efforts. Specifically, five strategies were common across all of the sites
included in the present study and include: 1) distribute program responsibilities amongst
team members based on individual strengths; 2) create a data-collection focus within all
program aspects; 3) start small, and do not implementing everything all at once; 4) view
completed RAMP applications from certified counseling programs; and 5) consult with
RAMP application reviewers for guidance prior to submitting RAMP applications.
Strategies four and five are strategic in that school counselors in the present study utilized
completed RAMP applications and consulted with RAMP reviewers as a means to adjust
their implementation and certification efforts. In all, these five strategies emerged from
interview questions about strategies utilized to implement the ASCA model and for
completing the RAMP application. Strategies also emerged from an interview question
about what school counselors at RAMP certified schools would recommend other school
counselors do to be successful in their implementation and certification efforts.
School counselors at all sites included in this study identified the distribution of
responsibilities amongst team members based on individual strengths as an important
90
strategy for implementing the ASCA national model and becoming RAMP certified.
This strategy involved the distribution of specific tasks required by the ASCA national
model, as well as the distribution of specific tasks required to complete the RAMP
application. For example, one counselor reported
I think it’s kind of easier too when you have one person that’s kind of running it,
and then having other people doing different parts, and to make sure all of the
other team members get to see all the sections

The strategy of distributing responsibilities has already been stated to foster teamwork
and build support for implementation efforts. Within the context of strategic planning,
distributing responsibilities was also highlighted by a counselor who stated
I would establish a specific, concrete set of responsibilities and delineate those
and communicate those for each and every counselor. I would meet weekly and
let everyone have input as to the contents of the agenda. I would put together a
calendar for the year, so you know what’s coming for the year. Early in your
RAMP year, lay out which counselors are going to take what aspects of that
RAMP and collect and put that stuff together.

Distributing responsibilities for implementing the national model components as well as
for completing the RAMP application was the most commonly discussed strategy among
all 15 school counselors who participated in the study.
A second strategic planning leadership strategy reported to have allowed for
implementation and certification success included the creation of a data collection focus
within all aspects of the school counseling program. Counselors reported that shifting to
a data collection focus was important because it allowed for the development of pre and
post measures of program effectiveness. For example comments about increases in data
collection from school counselors included statements such as “It’s just that we’re doing
more documenting, more data type stuff now, than compared to before.”
91
Another counselor stated
Before we were going in to do class presentations and just leave, now we pre and
post test them about what we’re talking to them about, and we can use that data.
We do that even for parent nights, we pre and post at parent nights.

Shifting to a data collection focus allowed school counselors to be more strategic in their
development of counseling interventions, and to be more prepared to implement the
national standards and complete the RAMP application, which asks for evidence of
school counseling program effectiveness. Counselors echoed this theme by comments
such as
As a group we made time to meet, and to sit down and say: Anybody have
anything we can do a pre/post test on? How about financial aid night, how
about…ok; you take care of that, and we actually wrote down what each person
was going to do, and kind of spread the wealth.

Additionally, in determining what programs and services to offer, the strategy of shifting
to a data collection focus influenced counselors’ decisions based on what would fit the
requirements of the ASCA national model and RAMP application. For example, a
counselor stated
I know when I start developing a program the first thing I’m looking at I ask
myself is ‘is it evidence based? and ‘what kind of data am I going to be able to
find out about this, is it successful?

Support for this theme was also evident at a different site, where a counselor discussed
data collection by stating
RAMP is something that happens every day, every week, all year long. You are
implementing and doing these things, and so you have to always keep in the back
of your mind, ‘is this something we will measure, and we will present as part of
the RAMP, is this evidence for RAMP?’ So you always have that in the back of
your mind. I have a folder, oh this would be great for RAMP, I’ll throw it in there,
I’ll toss it in there. We are collecting things and taking care of things all along.

92
The intentional shift toward documenting results of the school counseling program, and
collecting data regarding program effectiveness helped school counselors participating in
this study to implement the ASCA national model and to become RAMP certified. As a
planning strategy, the shift toward the collection of more data influenced the types of
interventions created by school counselors in the present study. Since data collection
became a priority, the planning of interventions intentionally afforded opportunities for
data collection that would later be utilized to meet the requirements for RAMP
certification.
A third strategy employed by school counselors in this study was to start small,
and implement pieces of the national model over time, instead of attempting to
implement the entire model all at once. This key leadership strategy helped lessen the
amount of work school counselors had to accomplish on top of their already
overwhelming workloads. This strategy emerged from data analysis based on interview
questions that asked school counselors how they were able to implement the model and
become RAMP certified, as well as questions about advice they would have for other
school counselors attempting to do the same. Specifically, as reported by a counselor
who participated in the present study
Pick a piece and do it now. And when you finish that piece, pick another section
and do that. And keep good documentation. And before long all of those little
pieces, you know if there is five counselors, and each one of them does one little
thing, and they do that twice, there’s ten pieces to the puzzle.

This theme was consistent across all sites that participated in the study, and was
mentioned by 13 of the counselors who participated in individual interviews. Another
counselor discussed taking small steps towards implementing the model by stating
93
But you know I was taught this before I became a counselor and I agree now that
I’ve been a counselor, and I tell new counselors the same thing: take baby steps.
You can’t walk into a school that is not following the national model and just start
trying to tear things up and make changes. You have to go a little at a time.

Implementation of the national model is a large process, and after the program is in place,
completing the RAMP application is also a large process. Counselors participating in this
study clearly identified the strategy of taking small steps over time to fully implement the
model as something that contributed to their success in becoming RAMP certified.
The fourth and fifth strategies identified by school counselors at RAMP certified
schools are related, and involved viewing previously completed RAMP applications from
programs that had been successfully certified, as well as consulting with RAMP
reviewers for guidance in completing the RAMP application. These two strategies were
echoed by counselors at each site included in this study and were reported to directly
assist counselors in their implementation and certification efforts. Specifically, when
reporting the usefulness of this strategy a counselor reported
…we had support from people that had previously done it to help walk us through
it. And also having an example really helped us. We had a binder of someone
else’s RAMP program who had become RAMP certified, so it was nice to be able
to see what we were doing and compare.

When discussing the helpfulness of meeting with an individual who reviews RAMP
applications for certification, a counselor reported
I think one of the things that helped us the most was that I actually went to spend
the afternoon with a reviewer, and asked her what is looked for, what are the
things to pay attention to. And she was able to help guide me in that, which
helped me guide the team, because it gave me some heads-up about stuff that I
didn’t know anything about.

Two of the sites that participated in this study have been RAMP certified twice. Though
these sites had examples of their own successfully submitted RAMP applications,
94
counselors at these sites still reported that viewing completed RAMP applications from
other school sites and meeting with reviewers as helpful strategies. Upon viewing these
documents and gaining guidance from RAMP reviewers, counselors reported using the
knowledge learned and guidance gained to direct their implementation and certification
efforts.
Conclusion
Results of interviews with school counselors at RAMP certified school counseling
programs identified several preconditions, and leadership strategies that emerged from
data analysis as factors that contributed to school counselors being able to fully
implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified. Though there were
multiple sites, the themes discussed above echoed across all sites, and among all
counselors who participated in the study. Results did not indicate that sites had differing
strategies to become successful in implementing the model, or in becoming RAMP
certified. The next chapter reviews the major findings from this study, and discusses the
implications for practicing school counselors attempting to implement the ASCA national
model and become RAMP certified.

95
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations
Introduction
This study examined how school counselors at RAMP certified schools were able
to fully implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified. Counselors at
three RAMP certified school sites in two different states participated in individual
interviews aimed at identifying strategies counselors used to become RAMP certified.
One additional RAMP certified school was included to increase verification and
trustworthiness of findings. Based on results of interviews with counselors at these
school sites, several preconditions and leadership strategies were identified as having
contributed to school counseling programs become RAMP certified. The purpose of the
present chapter is to review the major findings of the study, discuss implications for
practice, and make recommendations for future research. It is hoped that these results
will serve as a guide for school counselors attempting to implement the ASCA national
model and become RAMP certified by presenting strategies that describe how to be
successful in their implementation and certification efforts. As reviewed in chapter 2,
many studies have examined school counselor leadership, and strategies to implement the
ASCA national model. Often results of previous studies leave practicing school
counselors with a sense of “what to do,” but not a clear vision of “how to do” what the
research suggests. Results from the current study intend to build on those findings by
presenting useful strategies that inform counselors how to become RAMP certified.
96
Review of Key Findings
Data analysis identified five existing preconditions and three leadership strategies
that were similar across each school site included in this study that directly contributed to
school counselors successfully implementing the ASCA national model and becoming
RAMP certified. This section of the current chapter briefly reviews the preconditions and
leadership strategies, and provides connections of the findings to existing literature and
frameworks that were discussed in chapter 2.
Five Site Preconditions
1. Administrative Support- each RAMP certified school included in this study
had school administrators who supported the school counselors’
implementation and certification efforts, or administrators who did not
interfere with the school counselor’s efforts to implement the model and
become RAMP certified.
2. Existing school counseling program closely aligned with ASCA national
model- Sites included in this case study reported having school counseling
programs that were already closely aligned with the ASCA national model
prior to counselors implementation and certification efforts.
3. High performing school counseling team- RAMP schools included in this
study had school counseling teams that were high performing prior to
becoming RAMP certified. Teams reported a high degree of camaraderie,
lack of resistance to change, and high willingness of team members to commit
to implementing the national model and complete the RAMP application
process.
97
4. Existence of school counseling staff with unique skills- Ramp certified
schools included in this study all had school counselors with unique skills that
were directly related to implementing the ASCA national model and
becoming RAMP certified. These sites each had a school counselor who
preferred or enjoyed working with data and statistics; a counselor who
preferred or enjoyed classroom guidance presentations; a counselor who
developed a unique ability to understand the political culture of the school and
the school’s administration; and a counselor who was proficient in utilizing
technology such as the Microsoft Office programs Word, PowerPoint and
Excel.
5. Specific combinations of school counseling staff- RAMP certified schools
included in this study had a counselor who had been working at the site for at
least five years; the addition of new counselors within the last three years who
were recent graduates from school counseling programs that taught the ASCA
national model as part of the curriculum; the recent increase of school
counseling positions at the school; and the existence of one school counselor
who championed the implementation and certification efforts.
Discussion of Site Preconditions. The site preconditions that emerged from the
data analysis were conditions that were in place at each school site included in this study
prior to the site becoming RAMP certified. The identification of these preconditions was
not the main focus of the study, however data analysis clearly supported the critical
nature of their existence. There are some direct connections to the existence of
preconditions to implementing the ASCA national model that have been identified in
98
previous research by Carey, Harrity & Dimmitt (2005), and in the ASCA national model
workbook (ASCA, 2003).
Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt (2005) developed an ASCA national model
implementation readiness survey, which measures a school district’s readiness to
implement the national model. Though this readiness survey does not specifically address
RAMP certification, the implementation of the ASCA national model is required in order
for a school site to become RAMP certified. Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt’s study
identified seven specific readiness indicators including community support; leadership;
guidance curriculum; staffing/time use; school counselors’ beliefs attitudes; school
counselors’ skills; and district resources. Carry, Harrity, & Dimmitt defined community
support as “indicators about school and local community members’ knowledge and value
of school counseling programs” (p. 306). Leadership is defined as “indicators related to
the availability, knowledge, beliefs, and skills of superintendents, principals, and
guidance directors” (p. 306). Guidance curriculum indicators are defined as “the
existence and use of a formal National Standards-based guidance curriculum as well as
integration with existing state and district guidance curriculum standards as specified in
the National Model” (p.306). Staffing/Time use indicators are defined as “indicators
concerning school counselor workloads and time use that are conducive to effective
national model implementation” (p. 306). The school counselors’ beliefs and attitudes
indicators are defined as “the congruity of school counselors’ beliefs and attitudes with
the goals and modes of practice suggested by the ASCA national model” (p.306). The
school counselor skills indicators are defined as “indicators concerned with the skills
needed by school counselors to enact activities specified in the ASCA national model
99
delivery, management, and accountability systems” (p. 306). And the district resources
indicators are defined as “the district’s ability to provide resources, materials, and support
necessary for ASCA national model implementation” (p. 306). Each readiness indicator
had many factors that school counselors can use to evaluate the extent to which they have
met the indicators, and are thereby ready to implement the model. In total, 54 items were
grouped among the seven indicators and are listed in Appendix D.
Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt identified fourteen “critical readiness indicators,” (p.
310) which were reported to be minimally necessary for implementation of the ASCA
national model. These indicators are listed in table 6, and are split into five clusters
including community support; leadership; guidance curriculum; school counselors’
beliefs and attitudes; and district resources.
Table 6.

Critical Readiness Indicators.
Indicators Items measuring if indicators are met
Community
Support
1. The school board recognizes that school counseling is an important
component of all students’ public education.
2. The school board believes that the school counselors can play an
influential role in closing the achievement gap.
Leadership 1. The superintendent believes that the school counseling program is an
essential component of the district’s educational mission.
2. The superintendent believes that the school counseling program can
help support students’ academic achievement.
3. The school counseling program has a full-time, district-level leader
who is respected by the superintendent, principals, and school
counselors.
4. The majority of principals believe that school counselors ought to be
engaged in developmental and preventative activities.
5. The majority of principals believe that school counselors ought to be
involved in helping students achieve academically.
6. The majority of principals would be receptive to redefining school
counselor activities.

100
Table 6 Continued.
Guidance
Curriculum
1. The school counseling program operates from a asset of student
learning objectives that have measureable student outcomes.
School
Counselors’
Beliefs and
Attitudes
1. In general, school counselors are open to change.
2. In general, school counselors believe that it is important to adopt the
ASCA national model.
3. In general, school counselors believe that they should be responsible
for helping all students achieve academically.

District
Resources
1. The district is committed to providing professional development to
help school counselors develop skills necessary for the
implementation of the ASCA national model.
2. The district guidance leader has implemented a system ensuring good
communication and information sharing across the school counseling
program.
Note. Adapted from Carey, J. Harrity, J. & Dimmitt, C. (2005). The development of a
self assessment instrument to measure a school district’s readiness to implement the
ASCA national model. Professional School Counseling, 8, 305-312.

Though the self-assessment developed by Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt identified fourteen
critical readiness indicators which were stated to be minimally necessary for the
implementation of the ASCA national model, these indicators were different than the
preconditions identified in the current study. However, there are some similarities among
the indicators from Carey Harrity & Dimmitt and the preconditions identified in the
current study, which help strengthen the findings of the current study.
The present study did not specifically examine the critical readiness indicators
presented by Carey, Harrity & Dimmitt (2005), but shares some similarities with four of
the seven readiness indicators (listed in Appendix D), and three of the five critical
readiness indicators (listed in Table 6). Specifically, the leadership, guidance curriculum,
school counselor beliefs and attitudes, and school counselor skills indicators were similar
to the five preconditions evident in the current study. Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt’s
leadership cluster includes eleven readiness indicators related to school board and school
101
site administrative support for the school counseling program. These indicators (listed in
Appendix D and in Table 6) were similar to the administrative support precondition in the
present study in that school counselors’ reports of administrative support were similar to
the leadership indicator statements such as “the majority of principals would be receptive
to redefining school counselor activities” (p. 307) and “the majority of principals would
be receptive to creating yearly plans with school counselors” (p. 307).
The readiness indicators for guidance curriculum are similar to the precondition
evident in the present study as an existing school counseling program closely tied to the
ASCA national model. Readiness indicators in the Carry, Harrity & Dimmitt study for
guidance curriculum such as “The school counseling program operates from a set of
student learning objectives that have measureable student outcomes,” (p. 307) and “The
school counseling program operates from a set of student learning objectives that are
grounded in the ASCA National Standards, state and district standards, and local norms,”
(p. 307) were consistent with the existing school counseling programs at the sites
included in the present study prior to the sites becoming RAMP certified.
The precondition evident in the present study as school counselor skills are
similar to the readiness indicators for Carry, Harrity, & Dimmitt’s school counselors’
skills cluster. Items such as “School counselors can measure how students are different
as a consequence of their interventions,” (p. 308) and additional indicators related to
school counselors use of technology were evident in the skills reported as helping school
counselors in the present study implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP
certified.
102
Additionally, the critical readiness indicators for school counselor beliefs and
attitudes were evident in the present study, though not directly tied to any specific
precondition. School counselors that participated in individual interviews reported beliefs
and attitudes in alignment with Carry, Harrity, & Dimmitt’s readiness indicators such as
“in general school counselors are open to change,” (p. 311) and “in general, school
counselors believe that it is important to adopt the ASCA national model,” (p. 311).
Support for the preconditions evident in the present study are related to the Carry,
Harrity, & Dimmitt study, which strengthen the results of the present study. The present
study did not specifically intend to identify preconditions, or to test critical readiness
indicators, however the preconditions evident in the present study were critical conditions
to school counselors success in implementing the ASCA national model and becoming
RAMP certified.
The ASCA national model workbook (ASCA, 2003) also indicated preconditions
for the implementation of the ASCA national model, however they were different than
those identified in the present study. Preconditions identified by the ASCA national
model workbook (ASCA, 2003) include: administrative support; program; staff; budget;
materials, supplies, and equipment; facilities; and technology categories. The
preconditions listed in the ASCA national model workbook are reported to be helpful in
supporting the program, but are not listed as required or necessary. The preconditions are
not defined, rather are listed with bullet points that support each category. These
preconditions can be viewed in Appendix E. Some of support indicators for each of the
preconditions listed by ASCA were evident in the school sites that were included in this
study, however the conditions and indicators did not seem to be critical indicators of how
103
school counselors in this study were able to successfully implement the national model
and become RAMP certified. For example, the precondition materials, equipment and
supplies, has indicators such as “All school counselors have locking file cabinets, private
telephone lines, and computers with internet access in their offices” (ASCA, 2003, p. 68).
Though this indicator was present in all of the sites, and for all of the counselors who
participated in the present study, it did not appear to be a significant requirement
indicating how school counselors were able to implement the national model and become
RAMP certified.
Of all the preconditions listed by ASCA, a few of the conditions related to
administrative support and technology were evident as a critical precondition in the
current study. For example the technology category listed by ASCA includes support
indicators such as “School counselors use technology in the planning, implementation,
and evaluation of the school counseling program” (p. 68). The current study identified
the importance of having school counseling staff that were proficient in use of technology
in the precondition related to school counselors having unique skills. In addition, the
administrative support precondition identified by ASCA was evident in the preconditions
that emerged as critical in the present study. However, the supporting indicators of
administrative support as stated in the ASCA national model workbook (ASCA, 2003)
were still different than those identified in the present study. For example, ASCA lists
indicators such as “Administrators work collaboratively with counselors to create a
systemic and interdependent approach to improve student academic achievement” (p. 67).
The present study identified preconditions related to administrative support, however
school counselors did not identify collaborative relationships as being critical, as much as
104
having an administration that supported the counselors implementation efforts.
Administrative support as it was identified in the present study was not specific to
counselors working directly with administrators, rather it was defined as administrators
being described as supportive of the implementation efforts, or as not interfering with
implementation efforts.
There may be several reasons why the preconditions identified by the current
study are different than those presented in the ASCA national model (ASCA, 2003).
First, though ASCA uses the term precondition to describe characteristics that may be
helpful if in place prior to implementation of the national model, the categories listed as
preconditions by ASCA may be better defined as pre-implementation recommendations.
These pre-implementation recommendations are reported by ASCA as conditions that
may be helpful, but were not reported as critically necessary for successful
implementation of the national model. Results of the present study appear to indicate that
not all of the conditions or pre-recommendations listed by ASCA may be necessary for
successful implementation of the ASCA national model, as they were hardly evident in
four RAMP certified school counseling sites.
Secondly, the differences evident in preconditions identified in the present study
were different than those recommended by the ASCA national model implementation
workbook could be because those listed by ASCA did not appear to be connected to any
previous research about program implementation. Rather, the ASCA preconditions
appear to be recommendations based on experiences of the school counselor educators
and practitioners who helped in the development of the model. While helpful, these
recommendations may not have been evidence based, whereas the present study sought to
105
intentionally identify strategies utilized by school counselors who have been nationally
recognized for their implementation efforts by receiving the RAMP certification.
The preconditions evident in the present study were reviewed and compared to
literature discussed in chapter two. After a brief discussion of the leadership strategies
that emerged from the data analysis, implications for practicing school counselors and
counselor educators will be discussed for the identified preconditions and leadership
strategies.
Three Leadership Strategies
In addition to the five preconditions that were evident across all of the sites
included in the present study, there were three leadership strategies that school counselors
working at RAMP certified sties in this study utilized to fully implement the ASCA
national model and become RAMP certified. These strategies include:
1. Foster teamwork. School counselors at RAMP certified school sties included
in this study fostered teamwork within their school counseling department by
developing a strengths-based approach to implementing the ASCA national
standards; increased communication among team members; and influenced
hiring decisions to increase team camaraderie and effectiveness.
2. Build implementation and certification support. School counselors utilized
similar strategies across sites included in this study that increased support for
their implementation and certification efforts by fellow counselors, site
administrators and stakeholders. These strategies included school counselors
intentionally utilizing language most familiar to their audience to increase
support; being strategic in the selection of guidance advisory committee
106
members; and use of strategic presentations at staff and school board
meetings.
3. Utilize strategic planning. School counselors in this study utilized five
specific, intentional planning strategies when implementing the ASCA
national model and becoming RAMP certified. These five strategies include:
distribute program responsibilities amongst team members based on
individual strengths; create a data-collection focus in all program aspects; start
small, and avoid implementing entire model all at once; review completed
RAMP applications from successfully certified RAMP schools; and consult
with a RAMP reviewer for guidance in becoming RAMP certified.
Discussion of Leadership Strategies. The main focus of the current study
intended to identify how school counselors were able to fully implement the ASCA
national model and receive a RAMP certification. Specifically, the study intended to
identify leadership strategies that school counselors utilized to become RAMP certified,
based on leadership theoretical frameworks presented in chapter two.
One leadership paradigm presented in chapter two was Meyerson’s (2008)
tempered radical leadership. The present study intended to find support for the five
tempered radical leadership strategies, however results from data analysis did not support
Meyerson’s framework. Results indicated three leadership strategies that were utilized by
school counselors at three different RAMP certified sites that were not tempered radical
strategies as discussed in chapter two. School counselors working at RAMP certified
schools also did not appear to be tempered radicals as defined by Meyerson. There did
not appear to be much resistance to the school counselors’ implementation and
107
certification efforts, and counselors did not report that their professional values were
different from the dominant culture of their work sites. However, future research should
examine sites where resistance was present and if these strategies are useful.
In the three sites included in the present study, school counselors did not report
having to turn threats into opportunities, resist work responsibilities to create change,
leverage small wins, negotiate or organize collective action. Rather, counselors working
at the RAMP certified sites included in this study reported high instances of cooperation,
collaboration, similar values, camaraderie, teamwork, and support for their efforts in
implementing the ASCA national model and becoming RAMP certified.
Figure 3 (in chapter two) compared several leadership theoretical frameworks that
have been utilized in previous studies of school counselor leadership, and support
building strategies. Of those frameworks reviewed, support was found for Bolman &
Deal’s (2002) leadership frames. The three leadership strategies utilized by school
counselors in the present study appear to fit the political, structural, symbolic, and human
resource frames reviewed in chapter two. Specifically, the leadership strategy of
fostering teamwork fits Bolman & Deal’s (2002) human resource frame. Gaining
implementation support fits Bolman & Deal’s political frame, and utilizing strategic
planning fits the structural leadership frame. Counselors at RAMP certified sties in the
present study appeared to utilize three of the leadership frames, and did not seem to favor
one frame over others. There are many implications of these findings for practicing
school counselors as well as school counselor educators. The next section of this chapter
will review the major implications of the preconditions and leadership strategies
identified in the current chapter.
108
Limitations
Results of the current study are limited by several factors in addition to those
discussed in chapter three. First, the preconditions identified emerged as a critical
component to answering the research question: how have school counselors been able to
fully implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified? However, the
preconditions were not anticipated to be such a critical component of the school
counselors’ implementation and certification success. Had preconditions been identified
as vital prior to the study, perhaps different interview questions could have expanded
findings related to the preconditions that would help other school counselors who are
attempting to become RAMP certified.
A second limitation to the current study is the use of three RAMP certified sites.
Future research should examine strategies utilized by school counselors at more sties,
across more states to continue to refine preconditions and leadership strategies that
contributed to successful implementation of the ASCA national model resulting in a
RAMP certification.
Lastly, the results from the present study were from three RAMP certified sites
that did not experience any specific implementation challenges other than school
counselors finding the time in their schedules to complete the RAMP application. No
significant challenges from administrators, or resistance fellow school counselors and
from other stakeholders had to be overcome prior to successfully becoming RAMP
certified. The extent to which this is common is unknown. Because so few RAMP
certified school sites exist as of 2008, there could be many school sites that experience
significant challenges not identified by school counselors at RAMP certified schools in
109
the present study that prevent more sites from fully implementing the ASCA national
model and becoming RAMP certified.
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research
The existence of five specific preconditions, and three specific leadership
strategies common across three RAMP certified school sites has several implications for
practice. First, successful implementation of the ASCA national model and subsequent
RAMP certification of school counseling programs included in this study were largely
dependent on the existence of specific preconditions, and these preconditions may be
more important than leadership strategies that school counselors utilize to be successful.
The main research question for this study was “how have school counselors been able to
fully implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified.” Answering
this question led to the identification of five preconditions that were evident at every site
included in this study, plus the additional site utilized to increase verification and
trustworthiness of the findings. Therefore the existence of these preconditions allowed
school counselors at each site in this study to successfully enact specific leadership
strategies to implement the national model, and complete the RAMP application, which
lead to becoming RAMP certified. Future research should continue to identify conditions
that were evident among school counseling programs that have successfully implemented
the ASCA national model, and intentionally identify specific strategies school counselors
utilized to create those conditions. Since these preconditions were critical to school
counselors’ success in the present study, additional research needs to be conducted to
identify specific strategies utilized to create these conditions that could be transferrable to
other school sites attempting to do the same.
110
There are challenges that may prove difficult for school counselors attempting to
become RAMP certified in the developing the preconditions identified in the present
study. For example, acquiring the preconditions related to school counselor staff and
school counseling skills may prove difficult. The existence of counselors with the unique
skills described in chapter four contributed to the successful implementation and RAMP
certification efforts of counselors in the present study. Acquiring additional school
counseling staff, or developing skills in existing school counseling staff may be difficult
due to lack of district or site funds for additional staff and staff training and development.
Second, the most impactful precondition appeared to be the existence of a high
performing school counseling team. School counselors at each school site included in the
present study identified teamwork and camaraderie as integral to their success in
implementing the national model and becoming RAMP certified. This was clearly
evident throughout the individual interviews of counselors participating in the current
study. Counselors at each site repeatedly referenced the importance of their counseling
teams, and the high level of team development that made their implementation efforts
possible.
However, school counselors were unaware of exactly how their teams became so
tightly knit, and often reported that the teamwork developed naturally, not strategically.
There were strategies identified that school counselors reported utilizing that continued to
foster teamwork, but no sites reported starting with a dysfunctional school counseling
team, or with a team that was wrought with poor relationships among school counselors
employed at the site.
111
This presents a clear challenge for school counselors working at school sites
where there is less camaraderie and teamwork. Often counselors working at school sites
have been granted tenure after two years of service. If counseling departments are
comprised of tenured team members who do not get along well, implementing the
national standards and becoming RAMP certified could prove difficult. School
counselors at a school site that does not have a high functioning team may be able to
utilize some of the strategies identified in the current study as those that fostered
teamwork in an effort to create a team atmosphere conducive to implementing the ASCA
national model, however, more research needs to be conducted to determine if the
identified teambuilding strategies utilized by counselors in the present study are
successful strategies for other school settings.
A third implication for practice based on findings from the current study is that
even though the implementation of the ASCA national model and becoming RAMP
certified is complicated by many factors, it may not require the presence of as many
preconditions and readiness indicators as previously indicated by past research.
Implementation of the ASCA national model and similar comprehensive guidance and
counseling programs has been widely researched. This study however, pioneers the
examination of RAMP certified school counseling programs, which is a strong and
credible indicator of school counselor’s success at implementing the ASCA national
model. Results from previous studies discuss many implementation strategies and
readiness indicators that have been published in the premier school counseling journal,
Professional School Counseling, and have been presented at state and national school
counseling conferences. School counselors may have been exposed to this literature or
112
have attended presentations outlining the conditions necessary to implement the national
model and have been overwhelmed by the 54 readiness indicators such as those identified
by Carey, Harrity, & Dimmitt (2005). The five preconditions identified by the current
study may provide some more clear direction for school counselors attempting to
implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified, but who have been
assuming that it was not possible without meeting the preconditions identified in past
research.
Fourth, Bolman & Deal’s leadership frames appear to be useful for framing
school counselor leadership evident in the present study. School counselors fostered
teamwork utilizing a human relations frame. School counselors developed
implementation and certification support by utilizing a political frame, and relied on a
structural frame by utilizing strategic planning implementation and certification
strategies. Understanding the four leadership frames however, may not be as helpful as
having specific examples of leadership behaviors utilized by school counselors that
clearly demonstrate each frame. The leadership strategies evident in the present study can
serve as specific examples for school counselors interested in how to be structural,
political, or human-resource focused in their leadership behaviors.
A fifth and final implication for practice based on findings from the current study
is that the Meyerson (2008) tempred radical leadership framework may be extremely
useful for school counselors who are working at school sites that do not have any of the
preconditions identified in the current study, and who are attempting to create them.
Though counselors in the present study were not described as tempered radicals, the
strategies identified by Meyerson’s framework should be examined further as potential
113
strategies to successfully create the five preconditions from the present study in other
school sites where school counselors have less support, less teamwork, and values that
are in alignment with the current direction of the school counseling profession but that
are at odds with the culture that exists at their site. Future research should identify school
counselors who are attempting to implement the ASCA national model, and who are
experiencing challenges that thwart their implementation and certification efforts.
Research could test the utilization of the five tempered radical strategies to see if the
framework is indeed helpful in creating change for school counselors, and for developing
the preconditions that appear to be critical for implementing the ASCA national model
and becoming RAMP certified.
Conclusion
As the school counseling profession continues to evolve and advance,
implementation of a comprehensive guidance and counseling program such as the ASCA
national model will help school counselors ensure that students attending their school
sites receive academic, career, and personal/social support services. The Recognized
American School Counselor Association Model Program certification is the ultimate
measure of implementation success, however it is clear from the lack of RAMP certified
school sites nationwide, that fully implementing comprehensive programs like the ASCA
national model is full of challenges. Recent research has targeted leadership enacted by
school counselors as an avenue for overcoming implementation challenges, and the
present study intended to add to this growing body of research. The present study
identified five specific preconditions, and three leadership strategies that school
counselors at RAMP certified sites reported contributed to their success. These
114
preconditions and strategies may be useful in assisting school counselors at other school
sites as they begin to implement the ASCA national model and work toward becoming
RAMP certified.
115

References
Amatea, E. S., & Clark, M. (2005). Changing schools, changing counselors: A qualitative
study of school administrators’ conceptions of the school counselor role.
Professional School Counseling, 9, 16-27.

American School Counselor Association (2003). The ASCA national model: A framework
for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association (2007). RAMP Recipients. Retrieved
December 21, 2007 from:
http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?pl=325&sl=134&contentid=278.

Bauman, S., Siegel, J., Falco, L., Szymanski, G., Davis, A., & Seablt, K. (2003). Trends
in school counseling journals: The first fifty years. Professional School
Counseling, 7, 79-90.

Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to provide leadership in
educational reform through collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 3,
323-332.

Berry, E. L. (2006). Counselor as leader: Investigating school counselor activities.
University of Virginia, Virginia. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full
Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3218456).

Blossfeld, H. & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting Barriers. In Y. Shavit & H. Blossfeld
(Eds.), Persistent Inequality. Bolder, CO: Westview Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2002) Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Brooks-McNamara, V. & Pedersen, L. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: A method to advocate
for systemic change. Professional School Counseling, 9, 257-260.

Brown, D. & Trusty, J. (a) (2005). School counselors, comprehensive school counseling
programs, and academic achievement: Are school counselors promising more
than they can deliver? Professional School Counseling, 9, 1-8.

Brown, D. & Trusty, J. (b) (2005). The ASCA national model, accountability, and
establishing causal links between school counselors’ activities and student
outcomes: a reply to Sink. Professional School Counseling, 9, 13-15.

116
Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). Sharing the vision: The national standards for
school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor
Association.
California Association of School Counselors, (2006). CASC Monograph Manuscript.
Support personnel accountability report card (SPARC): A pilot study of
accountability for California school counselors. Retrieved September 18, 2006,
from http://www.schoolcounselor-ca.org
Carey, J., Harrity, J., & Dimmitt, C. (2005). The development of a self-assessment
instrument to measure a school district’s readiness to implement the ASCA
national model. Professional School Counseling, 8, 305-312.
Chata, C. C., & Loesch, L. (2007). Future school principals’ views of the roles of
professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11, 35-41.

Clark, M. & Stone, C. (2000). The developmental school counselor as an educational
leader. In J. Wittmer (Ed.) Managing your school guidance program: K-12
developmental strategies (pp. 75-82). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media
Corporation.

Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dahir, C. (2004). Supporting a nation of learners: The role of school counseling in
educational reform. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 344-353.

Dahir, C. (2001). The national standards for school counseling programs: Development
and implementation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 320-327.

Dahir, C. & Stone, C. (2003). Accountability: a M.E.A.S.U.R.E. of the impact school
counselors have on student achievement. Professional School Counseling, 6, 214-
221.

DeVoss, J. A., & Andrews, M. F. (2006). School counselors as educational leaders. New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dimmitt, C., Carey, J., & Hatch, T. (2007). Evidence-based school counseling. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Dollarhide, C. T. (2003). School counselors as program leaders: Applying leadership
contexts to school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 6, 304-308.

Dollarhide, C. T., Smith, A., & Lemberger, M. (2007). Critical incidents in the
development of supportive principals: Facilitating counselor-principal
relationships. Professional School Counseling, 10, 360-369.
117

Dollarhide, C.T., Gibson, D. M., & Saginak, K, A. (2008). New counselor’s leadership
efforts in school counseling: Themes from a year long qualitative study.
Professional School Counseling, 11, 262-271.

Education Trust (1996). Transforming school counseling initiative. Retrieved February
15, 2008 from
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Transforming+School+Counseling/
Counseling+tsci.htm

Foster, L., Young, S., & Hermann, M. (2005). The work activities of professional school
counselors: Are the national standards being addressed? Professional School
Counseling, 8, 313-321.

Grant, J. (2005). How school counselors gain support to implement comprehensive
guidance and counseling programs. University of San Diego, California.
Retrieved January 10, 2008, from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
database. (Publication No. AAT 3169425).

Gysbers, N. (2006). Improving school guidance and counseling practices through
effective and sustained state leadership. Professional School Counseling, 9, 245-
247.

Gysbers, N. (2004). Comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: The evolution of
accountability. Professional School Counseling, 8, 1-14.

Gysbers, N., & Lapan, R. (2003). Implementation and evaluation of comprehensive
school counseling and guidance programs in the United States: Progress and
prospects. Professional School Counseling, 6, 222-227.

Gysbers, N., & Henderson, P. (2001). Comprehensive guidance and counseling
programs: A rich history and bright future. Professional School Counseling, 4,
246-256.

Gysbers, N., & Henderson, P. (2000). Developing and Managing your Comprehensive
School Guidance Program (3
rd
ed.) Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association

Gysbers, N., & Henderson, P. (1997). Comprehensive guidance programs that work- II.
Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS Publications.

Hatch, T., & Bowers, J. (2002). The block to build on. ASCA School Counselor, 39, 12-
19.

118

Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004) Cracking the code of accountability.
USCUrban Ed. University of Southern California: Rossier School of Edcation.

House, R., & Hayes, R. (2002). School counselors: Becoming key players in educational
reform. Professional School Counseling, 5, 249-256.

House, R. & Martin, P. (1998). Advocating for better futures for all students: A new
vision for school counselors. Education, 119, 284-291.

House, R. & Sears, S. (2002). Preparing school counselors to become leaders and
advocates: A critical need in the new millennium. Theory Into Practice, 41, 154-
162.

Indiana School Counselor Association (2008). Gold star awards 2006. Retrieved July 29,
2008 from: http://isca-in.org/index.html

Janson, C. A. (2007). High school counselors' perceptions of their educational
leadership behaviors: A Q methodology study. Kent State University, Ohio.
Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT
3279202).

Kaffenberger, C. J., Murphy, S., & Bemak, F. (2006). School counseling leadership team:
A statewide collaborative model to transform school counseling. Professional
School Counseling, 9, 288-294.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in
higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. ASHE Higher
Education Report. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A., J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21
st

century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kirchner, G. L., & Setchfield, M., S. (Fall 2005). School counselors' and school
principals' perceptions of the school counselor's role. Education, 126, 10-17.

Lambie, G.W. & Williamson, L.L. (2004). The challenge to change from guidance
counseling to professional school counseling: A historical proposition.
Professional School Counseling, 8, 124-131.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

119
Meyerson, D. (2008). Rocking the boat: How to effect change without making trouble.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

Meyerson, D. (2003). Tempered radicals: how everyday leaders inspire change at work.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Musheno, S., & Talbert, M. (2001). The transformed school counselor in action. Theory
Into Practice, 41, 186-191.

Myrick, D (2003a). Accountability: counselors count. Professional School Counseling,
6, 174-179.

Myrick, D. (2003b). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical approach (4
th

ed). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2008). Numbers and Types of Public
Elementary and Secondary Schools From the Common Core Data: School Year
2005-2006. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/pesschools06/tables/table_4.asp.

Northouse, P., G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Perusse, R., Goodnough, G.E., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of school
counselors and school principals about the national standards for school
counseling programs and the transforming school counseling initiative.
Professional School Counseling, 7, 152-161.

Schwallie-Giddis, P., ter Maat, M., & Pak, M. (2003). Initiating leadership by
introducing and implementing the ASCA national model. Professional School
Counseling, 6, 170-173.

Sink, C. (2005). Comprehensive school counseling programs and academic achievement-
A rejoinder to Brown and Trusty. Professional School Counseling, 9, 9-12.

Stone, C. B., & Clark, M. A. (2001). School counselors and principals: Partners in
support of academic achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 46-53.

Studer, J, R., & Alton, J. A. (1996). The professional school counselor: Supporting and
understanding the role of the guidance program. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 53-60.

120

US Department of Education (1994). The educate America act. Washington, DC: Author.

US Department of Education (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved May
14, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Walsh, M., Barrett, J., & DePaul, J. (2007). Day-to-day activities of school counselors:
Alignment with new directions in the field and the ASCA national model.
Professional School Counseling, 10, 370-378.

Wittmer, J. (2000). Developmental school guidance and counseling: Its history and
reconceptionalization. In Wittmer, J. (Ed.) Managing your school counseling
program: K-12 Developmental Strategies. (pp. 1-13). Minneapolis, MN:
Educational Media

121
Appendices

Appendix A
The National Standards For School Counseling Programs

122

123

124

125
126
127

Appendix B

2007-2008 RAMP Application Demographics Page

128

Appendix C

School Counselor Interview Protocol

ASCA National Model Implementation and RAMP Certification
Interview Protocol-School Counselors

Question Themes
Background Information
Name, Gender, Age, Race, etc:
How many years have you been a school counselor?
• How long have you worked for your current employer?

Demographics
When you first were employed at (current school) what was
the counseling department like?
• Were your professional values similar or different than
the expectations of your site regarding the counseling
department?
• What differences do you see in your department now
compared to when you first started?

Politics
Conformity
Deviance
Power
Describe a time when you resisted a work responsibility
because of your professional values
• Who noticed?
• What was the result?
Resisting
Implementation of the National Model
How did you become aware of the National Model?
• How would you describe your colleague’s support for
the National Model?

Politics
Conformity
Describe the process utilized to implement the national model.
• What strategies were utilized?
• How was buy in was created among staff and
administration?
• Describe the biggest challenges in implementing the
model.
• How were those challenges overcome?

Organizing
Action
Politics
Leveraging Small
Wins
Negotiating
129
RAMP Certification Process
Describe the process utilized to become RAMP certified.
• What strategies were utilized?
• How was buy in was created among staff and
administration?
• Describe the biggest challenges becoming RAMP
certified.
• How were those challenges overcome?

Organizing
Action
Politics
Leveraging Small
Wins
Negotiating

130
Appendix D

National Model Implementation Readiness Indicators.

131

132

133

134
Appendix E

ASCA National Model Workbook Preconditions
Administrative
Support
• Administrators are the school leaders who understand the school’s
direction and needs
• Administrators who meet regularly with the school counseling
staff to discuss the school’s mission and the counseling program
are critical links in supporting the school’s mission and meeting
student needs.
• Without administrative support, school counseling programs may
strive, but they will not thrive.
• An involved and supportive administrator is one of the school
counseling program’s best advocacy tools.
• Administrators work collaboratively with counselors to create a
systemic and interdependent approach to improve student
academic achievement.
• Both school counselors and administrators are especially alert to
and responsible for the needs of every student, including those
who are underserved.
Program • Every student, parent or guardian, teacher, and other recipient of
the school counseling program has equal access to the school
counseling program.
• The program operates in a supportive work environment and has
an adequate budget and school counseling materials.
• The school counselor works cooperatively with parents or
guardians, teachers, and community partners and follows ASCA
and local policies regarding counseling with students.
• School administrators understand and support the program’s
priorities and demands.
• The state departments of education provide leadership and
technical assistance as the schools in each state implement a
school counseling program.
Staff • School counselors hold a valid school counselor certification from
their state.
• School counselor responsibilities are clearly defined by the
program to make maximum use of the school counselor’s
expertise.
• The student to counselor ratio is appropriate to implement the
designed program. ASCA recommends a ratio of 250 to 1 or
better.
• All staff members accept responsibility for the infusion of school
counseling standards and competencies into the program.
• School counselors are members of their state and national
professional associations.

135
Budget • A school counseling department budget is established to support
program needs and goals.
• Budgets similar to those of other departments are established at
the local or district level.
• Local, state, and federal funds are made available to support the
program’s goals.
Materials,
Supplies and
Equipment
• Materials are relevant to the program and appropriate for the
community.
• The school counselor consults with the advisory committee and
the local board policy concerning the evaluation and selection of
program materials.
• Materials, supplies, and equipment are easily accessible and of
sufficient quantity to support the program.
• All school counselors have locking file cabinets, private
telephone lines, and computers with internet access in their
offices.
Facilities • All facilities are easily accessible and provide adequate space to
organize and display school counseling materials
• The school counselor has a private office that is designed with
consideration of the student’s right to privacy and confidentiality.
• As available, access is provided to facilities for meeting with
groups of students.
Technology • School counselors use technology daily in their work, including
the internet, word processing, student database systems, and
presentation software.
• School counselors use technology to help students perform career
and educational searches and create online portfolios.
• School counselors use data regarding their school population to
work with the principal, teachers and the advisory council in
making recommendations to improve academic achievement.
• School counselors receive yearly training in all areas of
technology advancement and updates.
• School counselors use technology in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of the school counseling program.
• School counselors use technology as a tool to gather, analyze, and
present data to drive systemic change.
Note. Adapted from The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling
programs. (2003). American School Counselor Association. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The present study examined how school counselors working at three Recognized American School Counselor Association Model Program (RAMP) school sites were able to fully implement the American School Counselor Association’s (ASCA) model program and become RAMP certified. Through qualitative methods, results of the study identified five preconditions that were evident at each site prior to becoming RAMP certified, and three leadership strategies utilized by school counselors that directly contributed to successfully implementing the ASCA national model and becoming RAMP certified. The results are discussed, and implications are presented in an effort to assist other school counselors who also seek to implement the ASCA national model and become RAMP certified.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study

PDF

K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

PDF

Civic engagement: a case study of civic leadership in partnering with an urban public school district

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

New school counselor's perception of preparedness

PDF

Strategies used by California high school counselors to help Latino students complete a–g requirements

PDF

Evidence-based school counseling: challenges encountered by public high school counselors in implementing 21st century counseling skills

PDF

Leadership development in student affairs graduate preparatory programs

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

School to Work Program as a contributor to adult literacy skill development

PDF

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: a case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Breakthrough: an outperforming model continuation school's leadership, programs, and culture case study

PDF

Service-learning and character development: an analysis of Up with People resulting in a model of global citizens for servant leadership

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

Asset Metadata

Creator Fulthorp, Keith Michael (author)

Core Title Recognized American school counselor association model programs: a case study of school counselor leadership

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Psychology)

Publication Date 07/29/2009

Defense Date 05/07/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag ASCA,implementation,leadership,national model,OAI-PMH Harvest,RAMP,school counselor

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Balok, David (committee member), Hoffman, Rose Marie (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email fulthorp@mac.com,kfulthor@csulb.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2410

Unique identifier UC1119412

Identifier etd-Fulthorp-3077 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-407764 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2410 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Fulthorp-3077.pdf

Dmrecord 407764

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fulthorp, Keith Michael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu