Counselors in our Schools
There has been some concern expressed here over the district letting the Career Counselors go at the high schools. Now, we have more concerns over the possible letting go of elementary counselors.
I don't know how many elementaries have counselors or even what their role is exactly (although I can guess). According to one school's webpage (Concord), the counselor can meet students individually to help them with feelings and concerns or can meet in small groups or provide classroom guidance with lessons on coping, peer relationships, problem solving, etc. as well as providing anti-bullying lessons. The other thing in the mix is that the district also has Family Support Workers who generally work at a couple of schools to support families who have issues about providing clothing, food, school materials for their student as well as families in crisis. A few schools have both but again, I am not sure how this gets decided.
I've seen in some responses to education stories in the Times the line "well, back in our day, we didn't have all these counselors,etc." and basically that schools are spending too much on these kinds of positions. To me the reality is that we live in a complex world where some children have some real challenges. Without support at school, things could be worse for these kids, both physically and mentally. Is it a parents' duty to take responsibility for their child's support and well-being? Yes, it is but the reality is that not everyone is equipped to do this. Public schools take all comers and we can ignore the child who clearly seems ill-equipped for school or we, as a society, can do something so that child does succeed.
We can cut counselors but it will likely hurt kids in many unseen ways.
This brings me to an article in the NY Times about a survey of high school graduates (over the last 12 years) that says that most believe that their guidance counselor provided little meaningful advice to them about college or careers. This was a survey sponsored by the Gates Foundation to find out about low high school and college completion rates.
These students are probably telling the truth and they probably didn't get much advice.
The elephant in the room? The ratio for many of our high schools (and indeed, throughout the country) is about 350-400 to 1. Take that in. You have 400 bright-eyed students to guide on class selection (a huge amount of time), college advice (and that may be more than ever given the high schools no longer have career counselors) and testing (both state and college tests). Add to that students who seek them out for personal issues (bullying, worry over grades, drug/alcohol issues). (Most high schools do have a Teen Health Center with a counselor but that person? Probably also overwhelmed with a huge number of students to help.)
Kids need help especially in high school. The difference some attention can make to a student making a good decision for their future is just huge. Without our counselors, I don't know what would happen. It can just be about teachers, a secretary, a librarian and a principal in order to provide an education to a child but for more success for more students, we need our counselors.
I don't know how many elementaries have counselors or even what their role is exactly (although I can guess). According to one school's webpage (Concord), the counselor can meet students individually to help them with feelings and concerns or can meet in small groups or provide classroom guidance with lessons on coping, peer relationships, problem solving, etc. as well as providing anti-bullying lessons. The other thing in the mix is that the district also has Family Support Workers who generally work at a couple of schools to support families who have issues about providing clothing, food, school materials for their student as well as families in crisis. A few schools have both but again, I am not sure how this gets decided.
I've seen in some responses to education stories in the Times the line "well, back in our day, we didn't have all these counselors,etc." and basically that schools are spending too much on these kinds of positions. To me the reality is that we live in a complex world where some children have some real challenges. Without support at school, things could be worse for these kids, both physically and mentally. Is it a parents' duty to take responsibility for their child's support and well-being? Yes, it is but the reality is that not everyone is equipped to do this. Public schools take all comers and we can ignore the child who clearly seems ill-equipped for school or we, as a society, can do something so that child does succeed.
We can cut counselors but it will likely hurt kids in many unseen ways.
This brings me to an article in the NY Times about a survey of high school graduates (over the last 12 years) that says that most believe that their guidance counselor provided little meaningful advice to them about college or careers. This was a survey sponsored by the Gates Foundation to find out about low high school and college completion rates.
These students are probably telling the truth and they probably didn't get much advice.
The elephant in the room? The ratio for many of our high schools (and indeed, throughout the country) is about 350-400 to 1. Take that in. You have 400 bright-eyed students to guide on class selection (a huge amount of time), college advice (and that may be more than ever given the high schools no longer have career counselors) and testing (both state and college tests). Add to that students who seek them out for personal issues (bullying, worry over grades, drug/alcohol issues). (Most high schools do have a Teen Health Center with a counselor but that person? Probably also overwhelmed with a huge number of students to help.)
Kids need help especially in high school. The difference some attention can make to a student making a good decision for their future is just huge. Without our counselors, I don't know what would happen. It can just be about teachers, a secretary, a librarian and a principal in order to provide an education to a child but for more success for more students, we need our counselors.
Comments
I don't agree, because I think that all those other people provide some of the same services as a counselor, especially an over-scheduled one. For example, career guidance can be provided by teachers and principals and librarians. So can college advice. Specializing those roles to counselor doesn't really seem a benefit to me. I'd rather have teacher loads arranged so that they can spend more meaningful time with their students, outside of the purely academic.
Teachers and principals have no extra time. They are spread thin and are always slammed. Plus, they are not career and college specialists. They don't have the training or the time to research scholarships, internships, how to write the best college essay, etc., and then meet individually with each student and encourage and help them through the process.
If you don't think we need councelors that's fine, but don't expect already over worked teachers and principals to pick up the slack. That's just not realistic.
I know that's not the plan, but I think that spreading out the role of counselor among teachers, *and* giving them the time to do it, is the way to go.
FABULOUS!
You never think it is your kid who is going to get into trouble, but when my kindergartner started teasing another kid, she stepped in and chose age-appropriate solutions (apology letters, calling mom on the phone from school, etc.).
The weekly classroom lessons in kindergarten about compassion, feelings, conflict resolution, reading body language, self-esteem and assertiveness, etc. are a great thing to introduce at the very beginning of a kid's school career.
Having a specialist at the school address these issues means that there is a consistent message given to all kids at the appropriate age level.
I've read MGJ's contract there was no obligation to award any bonus.
What is the matter with these directors?
The SPS is beginning to resemble a really bad divorce... SPS Over-Lords only reference the children (or even notice them) when it is to their advantage. The rest of the time it is all about adult concerns.
Oh yeah "Elementary Counselors" who needs them. Class size irrelevant...
RIF teachers and expand academic coaching .... Who can possibly think this is a model to improve student learning or build a sane society?
Oh yes every school will be a Quality School even though it has been months of this blarney and the SPS has yet to even define what a quality school is. Remember the entire Student Assignment Plan is based on this "Quality School" premise. {Otherwise we are promoting separate and unequal schools.}
Just trust them it is like the NTN contract ... it will show up someday and you will like it.
{God help us ..... We are trapped in the Twilight Zone ... can Rod Serling lead us out?}
Losing these counselors will only exacerbate many of the social problems we have in our schools.
As for the college counselors...I don't know if ZB has a clue about how intense competition for college admittance is these days. Most kids apply to a minimum of 5 schools, and many up to 15. That's a lot of work for a teacher to help with—and our kids most in need who don't have parents who went through the application process might get left in the dust.
I teach a class for Seattle-area divorcing and separating families. Many are Seattle families-- many have school-aged children. I refer to school counselor every single session for the crucial services that they provide.
Elementary school counselors are providing services-- but they are also doing prevention. Children's social and emotional needs won't go away without intervention, they will become amplified. Your choice is to pay for the service now... or to end up paying later (increased drop out rates in high school, increased violence, less family engagement in school.)
If we don't help these kids, we will have more and more kids fail or just do poorly.
How is RTI going to work without the counselors?
He is part of the reason I feel comfortable sending my kids to our south Seattle school. He is a real partner to the principal, teachers ans staff. Having a counselor in this environment is a need, not a luxury. Things will really change without him.
Isn't it better to help kids while they're young to prevent bigger problems later? Talk about penny wise ans pound foolish. The choice to eliminate elementary counselors is pushing our family over the edge in our loss of faith in SPS the past few years.
RTI is like the emperor's new clothes. We all talk about it and the wonderful threads it is made out of, but really.......
......there's nothing there.....
Counselors are a big piece of what we need for RTI to be a reality - specialists who aren't tied to a caseload or spread wafer-thin between 3 or more schools like school psychologists are.
Really, every elementary school needs this position in place.
With that said though, I believe they are both essential.
Just to note, there are groups out there that DO help with college counseling but for some kids, it's hard to access if it isn't on-site.
Moral to the story...I became a teacher.
I SPENT three hours at a budget retreat for my son's elementary school.
And then I went home and cried.
I mean, really, is this the best we can do? Even fewer resources and bigger classrooms while losing the staff necessary to hold the pieces together.
In a stealth attack, Seattle Public Schools eliminated its funding of a half-time counselor position in all elementary schools. In our school, gone too is the half-time math coach critical to teaching students in each of four split-grade classrooms. And there went the full-time librarian — we got funding for only half that position.
Right about now, the School Board is countering, hey wait, we gave you some "discretionary" dollars! You can choose to retain one of those three part-time positions.
Talk about a Sophie's Choice.
But there's more. We'll no longer have a full-time art teacher. They don't give us money to pay for the daily copying of math work sheets for every student, as mandated by the district's new math curriculum.
And here's the worst of all. With the elimination of staff positions, we won't have bodies to supervise kids during after-lunch recess. Instead, we'll hold them in the cafeteria for an extra 15 minutes, and then at the point where the sugar in their system ignites with claustrophobia, we'll shoo them back into their classrooms for the rest of the afternoon.
There is no race to the top here — it's more a free fall to the bottom.
I face the naked truth of these budget numbers with teachers who take on yet another cut with resignation. They've been through this — or something just as dire — many times before. It is to their enormous credit that they don't just walk out and refuse to return until the situation changes.
They remind me of that knight in the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." The one who comes out raring for a fight and gets his arm chopped off. Blood spews from the shoulder, but he retains every bit of cockiness taunting his opponent to continue. And so it is with our teachers saying, "I can teach these kids! I can teach these kids!" Whack goes the other arm and still they keep coming back. We laugh while the legs are cut and blood is pouring from where every appendage once was.
But this is not a joke. These are our kids, the people we're supposed to be preparing to cure cancer or end global warming or educate the next generation. These are our kids, the education of whom is our government's top priority as stated in the Washington Constitution: "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders."
This notion that we might get around to fully funding our constitutional obligation by 2018 is ludicrous. By the time we start, we've already lost an entire generation. I say to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, bully for your income-tax proposal, but keep the other taxes as well, because we can't afford revenue neutrality and the cuts you are pushing down the pipeline.
And I say to Seattle Public Schools, shame on you for putting us in this situation. For slashing, with no warning, the school counselor positions. For denying federal Title I support for kids who need it when you closed schools and shifted student populations.
I've heard the stern lectures that adequate funding does not correlate directly with student performance. But I also know what you get when the money isn't there. You get what you pay for.
Janet Pelz is a writer and public-affairs consultant with two children in Seattle Public Schools.
This is no excellence for all at SPS; there is barely excellence for some. Yes, state funding is an issue, but so is the gross incompetence of much of what comes out of the Central Office. The growth in CA cannot be ignored.
I worry very much about the state of this city if the public school system is allowed to stay on its present course. I for one, am tired of writing letters and emails, or signing petitions and attending presentations. I can only imagine how burned out the true advocates are (Charlie, Melissa, et al.).