The student to school counselor ratio in the United States continues to decline, with data published this month showing that it has hit the lowest point since 1986, the year the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) began tracking student-counselor ratios.
The new data reflects the 2021-2022 school year and reveals that nationally, there was an average of 408 students for every school counselor. The previous year, the ratio was 415 to 1 and, in fact, the margin has been closing each consecutive year since 2013-14when he was at 491 to 1.
Research shows that school counselors are linked to better student outcomes. And the smaller their cases, the more time they can spend with the students in their charge. ASCA recommends a ratio of 250 to 1, still a long way from today’s reality.
This progress toward lower ratios is necessary, says Jill Cook, ASCA’s executive director. And it didn’t happen overnight. It took decades to shift public sentiment and redefine the role of counselors to enable this change, plus a pandemic that supercharged the direction things were already headed by raising awareness of the youth mental health crisis and providing an unexpected amount of funding for districts.
EdSurge recently spoke with Cook to find out what is driving this year-over-year improvement and to understand the work that lies ahead. The conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
EdSurge: Could you start by highlighting the importance of lowering the student to school counselor ratio?
Jill Cook: Thus, today’s school counselor works with all students in a school around academic, career, and social-emotional development, unlike the former counselor many of us have had experience with who may have only worked through the admissions process. admission to the university at a high level. school or disciplinary matters. And since today’s school counselors work with all students in a school, through classroom instruction, small group instruction, individual counseling, and individual consultation, having those smaller ratios gives school counselors the opportunity to provide information and curricula and… address gaps around opportunity, equity and access.
So a lower ratio gives students more access to their school counselor. It may not be individually, but knowing that the task is to reach all students, the lower ratios provide an optimal opportunity for school counselors to do so.
The most recent data shows that we have 408 students for every counselor nationally, so we are moving in the right direction. Does this feel like a cause for celebration for you and your colleagues?
My gosh, I love that question. Absolutely, there is reason to celebrate. The lower ratio is partly due to the higher number of school counselors. This report shows that there are nearly 121,000 K-12 school counselors in the country, the most since we began tracking this in 1986. So there is great cause for celebration, since we know that having school counselors has an impact on student results.
With that said, the caveat is that, for the first time in history, in many places there are not enough qualified, certified and licensed school counselors to fill existing positions. Part of that is people leaving the profession, but it’s also that we’ve seen [a growing] need for school counselors and there are more federal funds available and state funds available. So we know that more positions have been created and are being created. The problem we have to address now is to ensure that there are enough people to fill these positions to serve the students.
What is behind the trend in recent years to reduce this proportion? How are districts and states doing this?
Well, we have been fortunate in that there has been federal money available since the beginning of the pandemic and especially that we have seen an increase in mental health needs for students, as well as mental health needs for staff and families. The president has recognized on his platform and on the state of the union address the mental health crisis and the student mental health crisis. the general surgeon published a report a year ago about the mental health crisis, specifically what schools can do to help address it and the importance of school counselors in that process.
That attention, on such a national level, and knowing that there has been federal money that has gone to the states to be used, if warranted, to hire school counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, I think that’s part of it.
I also think that it is partly due to the change in the profession in the last 20 years from reactive to proactive, from [counselors being] just sort of an adjunct to really being embedded in a school and using data to drive a school counseling program. And as a result, we have research showing that having school counselors, having lower ratios, contributes to [higher] standardized test scores and attendance, and lower disciplinary rates. So I think as administrators and decision makers see that impact, they’re going to be willing to allocate money to make sure these positions are in the schools.
So, there was already a change underway in the profession, but that change was accelerated by pandemic funding?
Yes. And for us as an association, specifically, two things happened. One was the language change from “guidance counselor” to “school counselor” in the 1990s. And then our association launched a document that’s the guiding document for school counseling programs, about what school counselors need to do to impact student outcomes. And that actually came out 20 years ago next month.
It’s not like when I was a school counselor. I did not base what I did on student or school data. I only did things that felt [right] me. Today’s school counselors don’t work that way. They look at student and school data and develop their goals and programs based on the needs of the school and how the school counseling program can address them. And I think that that change, along with this opportunity for funding and awareness of the positions, has contributed to the increase in the number of school counselors and therefore the decrease in the ratio.
Is there a specific state that you want to draw attention to?
I can talk to California. If you go back and look at the ratios, even five or ten years ago, there was a time when California’s ratio was well over 1100 to 1. It was the highest in the country and had been that way for a long time. And then some things happened in that state.
One was when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of California, he allocated funding for middle school counselors. But when the funding ran out, there were many districts that eliminated school counseling positions and many that reduced all of their counseling programs. And that was kind of the peak of his ratio. Once that happened and they saw the negative impact [that the cuts] they had on students and student outcomes and school culture, they reinstated the school counselors, they hired more school counselors. I think it’s just a great example where they realized the important role these professionals play in the school. And they’ve just done a really amazing job ensuring that there is state and local funding to hire for these positions.
California’s ratio is 509 to 1 now. That is great progress.
How do you think about the role of pandemic funding, now and when it expires?
That’s the million dollar question, literally and figuratively, for many education professionals in school districts, I’m sure.
We hope that schools and districts have seen the benefit of having these professionals in the schools. [in the last few years]especially at this time when we know that student mental health issues are so important, and that they will make it a priority at the state and school district level to ensure funding is available to keep these professionals in schools.
If you gave this newly released ratio a rating, where A+ is 250 to 1, how would you rate 408 to 1?
Wow. I had never been asked that question before. It’s always been “needs improvement” in the ratio category, and while this is a wonderful ratio, we know it’s not in the 250 to 1 we recommend. So I’ll give it a solid C+ or B-. We are making progress and we are fortunate that the states and the federal government have provided funding to ensure that these professionals can be in schools.
