School Advisory Programs: Theory, Implementation, and Care

Theories Applicable to School Advisory Programs

School advisory programs aim to serve various purposes, including providing the environment and time to develop meaningful teacher-student relationships, promoting students' emotional, moral, and social development, and providing academic and personal guidance. The programs need to be organized effectively, encompass relevant content, and have a suitable leader. Periodic program assessment is also important. This paper compares and contrasts three theoretical approaches in the area of advisory program implementation, then takes up one approach — the promotion of care via advisory programs — for extended discussion. It also addresses controversies connected with such programs and recommends solutions to key challenges.

One of the chief purposes of school advisory initiatives is providing the environment and time to cultivate significant teacher-student (advisor-student) relationships. The school community's vision regarding what it aspires to achieve through the program constitutes a key philosophical response to expressed needs. Goal identification and communication serve program planners in both a technical and a philosophical sense. Articulated focus goals offer broad referents for program planning as well as its subsequent stages. Advisory groups endeavor to guide students academically and personally, as well as to promote their moral, social, and emotional development (Osofsky et al., 2003).

Regardless of a program's design and frequency, what occurs within the advisory group needs to be: (1) planned to reflect students' developmental needs; (2) scheduled so that teachers and students know what to anticipate and when; (3) practicable and appropriate in line with the school's distinctive philosophy; and (4) endorsed by faculty and administrative staff so that the program genuinely becomes a team endeavor among school staff, rather than a pet project of a few individuals (Osofsky et al., 2003).

Almost all schools adopt a thematic approach when organizing advisory topics. These topics may be categorized as: personal, which includes self-esteem, wellness, violence prevention, friendship, and disabilities and abilities; career, which covers service learning, citizenship, volunteering, career planning, and community or future planning; and educational, which encompasses knowing one's school, teamwork, goals, test-taking skills, and learning styles. Some typical activities that promote relationship-building within advisory programs address school concerns, instructional concerns, career education, and students' personal concerns (Osofsky et al., 2003).

Regular, formal program assessment is valuable. Questionnaires for gathering information from teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders regarding outcomes and expectations can reveal the extent of program effectiveness. Such surveys must be grounded in program objectives and goals, worded in terms of students' behavioral outcomes. Other school climate indicators — such as vandalism rates, teacher and student attendance, transfer rates, truancy, the severity and frequency of disciplinary issues, evidence of learning, attendance at school-sponsored activities, and community and parent perceptions — help indicate whether students feel valued by the school (Osofsky et al., 2003).

According to respondents of a study on advisory programs, the drivers of advisory programs were a mix of groups or individuals in various configurations. Nevertheless, all schools had somebody or some group entrusted with responsibility for program implementation and supervision. These individuals or groups most frequently comprised the advisory/planning committee, counselors, the principal, and advisory teachers. Numerous advisory program advocates have emphasized the significance of staff development and comprehensive planning both before and during advisory program implementation (Osofsky et al., 2003).

The concept of subjective theories (STs) is credited to Scheele and Groeben and is defined as complex cognitive aggregates through which individuals make sense of the world and of themselves, revealing an at least implicit argumentative structure (von Reininghaus, Castro, & Frisancho, 2013). STs are individual theories formed to clarify a perceived reality and have a cause-and-effect argumentative structure. Although these personal theories are social in nature, this does not detract from the value of personal representations. Some consider STs as everyday hypotheses that individuals construct about their environment and themselves in order to relate to others. It has been demonstrated that STs exert a strong influence on the understanding and actions of experts, largely because they serve as powerful tools for interpreting reality and possess remarkable influence on behavior. A literature review on teachers' professional knowledge supports the importance of applying STs as a tool for studying teachers' thought processes.

Recent high school reform efforts have concentrated on the construction of small schools. Supporters point to the educational gains that learners acquire in small learning communities, such as increased graduation rates, reduced dropout rates, and improved academic performance (Center for Social and Emotional Education, n.d.). The benefits of a small high school setting, however, are not solely academic; there is substantial evidence that small learning environments promote closer teacher-student relationships, yielding several emotional, psychological, and social benefits for young people.

Students in smaller high schools display more positive attitudes toward being in school and a lower sense of isolation compared to students in larger schools. Additionally, small schools report proportionally fewer disciplinary issues and incidents of violence. Students in small schools hold significant positions in their school communities and are more likely to participate in extracurricular activities than those in large schools. Overall, learners in small schools manifest a greater sense of belonging and, consequently, more positive social conduct (Center for Collaborative Education, 2003).

Subjective Theories and Literature Review

Simply reducing school size, however, is not sufficient on its own to produce positive social and academic results. Small schools frequently promote close teacher-student associations. Research in child development and school counseling supports the belief that students learn best in a close-knit, encouraging environment where no child "falls through the cracks" of large, impersonal high schools. Such environments help students establish "relational trust" with both peers and adults within the school structure (Tocci, Hochman, & Allen, 2005).

Historically, teachers have frequently viewed the goal of providing emotional and social support as separate from addressing academic goals. More recent research, however, suggests that both dimensions are required to attain high levels of academic success, particularly among low-income students. Findings from a study of Catholic high schools serving disadvantaged urban youth identified strong "educational press" combined with strong social relationships as major elements of school effectiveness. Similarly, findings from a study of sixth- and eighth-graders at public schools in Chicago indicated that academic achievement is founded on both academic press and social support (Tocci et al., 2005). Students defined "social support" as the regularity with which their teacher: (1) connected subject matter to students' personal interests, (2) genuinely listened to what students said, (3) knew the students personally, and (4) believed students could perform well in school. Indicators of social and academic achievement increased with higher levels of social support.

The typical high school, however, is structured in a way that creates a false dichotomy between academic and social development. The departmentalized structure of high schools rarely leaves room for sustained attention to the emotional, psychological, and social concerns affecting young people, channeling such concerns exclusively into the purview of guidance counselors (von Reininghaus et al., 2013). Despite the well-documented social-emotional learning needs of teenagers, guidance counselors often work with unmanageable caseloads and are largely isolated from the school's teachers, curriculum, and instructional life.

Administrators and educators charged with students' social and academic development are themselves deprived of the resources and conditions that would support their capacity to help students. Teachers' isolation from one another prevents them from discussing individual student needs or developing appropriate curricula. Educators are required to work with large student populations, cover an ever-expanding curriculum, oversee extracurricular activities, and raise test scores — all without sufficient resources or professional development to meet these demands (Van Hoose, 1991).

Faced with growing enrollments and scarce resources, many large high schools lack adequate school counseling personnel to meet student needs. School reform initiatives have responded to this scarcity with various innovative counseling models. One model adopted by several small high schools is the "distributed counseling" system, in which the responsibility of counseling students is spread across a team of teachers and counselors who organize and provide counseling and guidance to a considerably smaller student population — for example, four educators and one counselor may work with approximately 100–150 students (Tocci et al., 2005).

Research has identified five key advisory program goals, with multiple goals identified across a number of studies, including: development of strong interpersonal relationships between school faculty and students; educational support to the school's students; curriculum enrichment; and development of school culture. Several popular models of school reform explicitly encourage or actively integrate advisory systems into high school models. For example, in schools adopting the "Coalition of Essential Schools" principles — a nationwide movement for school reform — advisory is regarded as the primary mechanism for ensuring that individual students are "known well" by one or more adult faculty members. New York's high school reform efforts, including initiatives sponsored by "New Visions for New Schools," have also incorporated advisory into their models for thriving small schools. According to the Institute for Student Achievement (ISA), advisory, together with student-focused team meetings and similar measures, represents a promising form of distributed counseling implementation (Tocci et al., 2005).

Middle school advisory programs differ substantially from traditional school advisory methods. Traditionally, school advising has been most common at the high school level, using certified counselors rather than classroom teachers. The traditional counselor's role involves meeting individually with students, assisting them with class scheduling, supporting high school-to-college-to-career transitions, and providing guidance and intervention. Typically, counselors carry caseloads exceeding one hundred students, assigned alphabetically or at random, and high school students generally meet with their counselor only periodically — often once per semester — unless a specific need arises.

Advisory programs, by contrast, aim directly at meeting transescent students' affective needs. Activities can range from informal interactions to systematically designed units organized around transescents' common needs, problems, concerns, or interests — such as getting along with peers, developing a positive self-concept, or navigating school life. In an ideal advisory program, a transescent will become closely acquainted with one adult faculty member who will help him or her understand how to become a well-rounded individual and find a sense of security at school (Stawick, 2011).

Every school has its own unique arrangements and plans; therefore, expectations must be clear. For example, an advisor should know: how frequently he or she is required to meet with each student; how students are to be grouped; how to receive information on each student; how frequently he or she should meet or speak with students' parents; and what his or her role is in student-related matters such as discipline and scheduling (Stawick, 2011; Goldberg, 1998).

Expectations must be practical and fully understood by advisors. Some advisors choose to go well beyond these basic expectations; however, no advisor should be pressured into doing more than is expected of them. It is essential that advisory program plans emerge from thoughtful discussion among staff. A teacher-led committee will typically formulate the final plan, which then gains the approval of the administrative team and the majority of staff. This plan will generally reflect the needs, contract provisions, and culture of the school or school district. Advisory systems typically fit within teacher contract parameters. As the late Albert Shanker, a former union leader, predicted, many teacher groups devise special arrangements when they perceive value for students and when such arrangements do not seriously violate their contracts. Shanker believed that teachers welcome responsible change and will collaborate with administrators and educational boards to create special or creative circumstances for initiatives they value (Goldberg, 1998).

A student advisory form can provide school staff with useful information for supporting students. Such forms need to be clearly explained so that advisors can answer the following questions: For what purpose has the form been distributed? How should staff complete it? What are advisors required to do with completed forms? Most advisory forms are straightforward to understand and fill out; the difficulty lies in determining what advisors and recipients are required to do with the written responses (Goldberg, 1998).

This New Jersey school, operating within a global baccalaureate curriculum framework that emphasizes global tolerance and responsibility, uses a student advisory program to offer avenues for service and leadership to all students. Students express this sense of care through a variety of service education initiatives. The school's aim is to be a caring, spirited family for every student. Each school day begins with an advisory session in which students get to know one another, discuss issues, and plan service projects. To create a family atmosphere on campus, this school of more than 600 students has divided grade levels into individual "Learning Communities" — educator teams responsible for particular groups of students and working collaboratively to meet students' unique needs. The school's culture emphasizes acceptance and caring, both on campus and in the broader community (Framework for School Success, 2015).

This school intentionally restructured its school day to accommodate "Character Connection" sessions, in which students meet daily for 20 minutes following class-meeting protocols. During these advisory sessions, mixed-grade student groups helped each other grasp, internalize, and practice core values. Group activities include peer tutoring, writing character objectives, discussing current events and school issues, and recognizing group accomplishments. For example, students at this school have engaged in cleaning school buses, purchasing cakes for cafeteria staff, cleaning hallways so custodians could take a break, and making name tags for support staff members (Framework for School Success, 2015).

According to Stawick (2011), most student guidance functions are handled by advisory programs in certain middle schools, where small student groups are placed in the care of advisors who are teachers — not counselors — with training in early adolescent characteristics, advising, and middle-level student education. Advisors serve as student advocates and possess more knowledge than other adult staff members about individual students' academic progress, social and intellectual strengths and weaknesses, relationships, and home life. Consequently, advisors can guide students and recommend to other teachers the approaches that work best with each student. Advisors are also well-positioned to refer students to appropriate interventions and to determine whether students would benefit from contact with an administrator, social worker, or other support service. Furthermore, advisors are best equipped to act as the primary point of contact for students' home relationships, facilitating meaningful conversations with parents and identifying how families can best support their children's learning at home (Stawick, 2011).

Theoretical Approaches to Implementing Advisory Programs

Organizing students into focus groups within advisory programs allows them to voice their thoughts, feelings, and needs, while giving advisors the opportunity to demonstrate genuine care. According to a focus group study involving students from three different schools, advisors were well-acquainted with their advisees and asked individualized questions about students' personal and social lives — referencing events such as a basketball game, a favorite family restaurant, or a recent weekend activity. Participants from each school notably used words like "care" and "notice" when describing their advisors. When asked about the qualities of an ideal advisor, one participant remarked that the best advisor would notice a student enough to know when he or she was having a rough day. Participants also noted that their advisors could quickly detect when a student was facing difficulties, and would initiate conversation with a visibly troubled student. In advisees' view, advisors recognize and acknowledge students' unique personalities. Students from each school also reported feeling that their school had intentionally matched them with their advisor or that the advisor had deliberately selected them.

According to Shulkind and Foote (2009), advisors assert that noticing students and genuinely caring for them is a primary aspiration of theirs. Over 50% of school advisors interviewed stated that a key goal of their advisory program was getting to know students well. One advisor noted that this knowledge helps professionals find ways to reach students. Advisors consistently mentioned "checking on," "caring about," "connecting with," and "watching over" pupils, and described how they approach students whenever something seems wrong — consistent with student reports that advisors notice when a child is behaving atypically (Shulkind & Foote, 2009).

A young adolescent requires structured opportunities to develop a sense of responsibility, belonging, and independence. Strong connections with caring adults have the potential to help students avoid risk-taking behaviors that could undermine fulfillment of their goals and dreams. Effective advisory programs can significantly influence individual students and the overall school atmosphere. Advisory program design is guided by the following key goals and questions: (1) development of a common vision for program goals, purpose, and outcomes; (2) frequency and scheduling; (3) grouping and size; (4) advisory content and curriculum; (5) advisory roles; (6) assessment; (7) support and training for advisory program leaders and advisors; and (8) creation of meaningful links between advisory activities and goals and other academic or school-wide targets (Center for Social and Emotional Education, n.d.).

Support from school leadership is essential, but it must extend beyond written policy; the means by which policies will be implemented should be clear and precise. This is because health promotion programs may be perceived by educators as an additional burden — one they are unlikely to go beyond the minimum for if doing so is seen to place their personal well-being, professional standing, or work-life balance at risk. The path to program introduction and implementation should be both paved (through training and coordination with other aspects of school life) and sheltered from external parties — whether national or local — who disagree with the program's approach or focus (Pearson et al., 2015).

The importance of this ground-level support generally follows a continuum. Support is somewhat less critical at the primary school level, where a teacher's class typically comprises the same group of students and few controversial health promotion topics are addressed. In secondary school, where students' subject choices may create more variation in class composition — and where more maturity-level differences may exist — this support becomes increasingly crucial, particularly as more sensitive health promotion topics are addressed. The type of training and support required will also depend on whether those delivering the program are teachers or outside experts (Pearson et al., 2015).

Whether programs are delivered by outside professionals, peer educators, teachers, or a combination, and whether at primary or secondary level, a named coordinator was consistently identified as important for both introducing and sustaining program delivery. This individual's status or profession mattered less than his or her willingness to coordinate and capacity to exert influence within the school.

Across both secondary and primary school levels and across a variety of health promotion topics, the motivation of program providers to participate in training depended on whether the training addressed skill or knowledge gaps they themselves considered relevant. This connects with the principle of reciprocity: both students and teachers are more likely to participate when they can see potential social, developmental, or personal benefits from their involvement (Pearson et al., 2015). Participation can be an issue when there is a conflict between personal values and program content, though this has been reported primarily in relation to sex and relationship education (SRE).

Student participation generally follows a continuum aligned with psychosocial development. At the primary school level, the primary concern is whether the program is engaging. As students progress through secondary school and programs address more sensitive topics such as substance use and sexual relationships, engagement remains necessary but is not sufficient. Addressing a perceived knowledge or skill gap and the quality of the relationship between participants and program providers become increasingly significant.

The study periods in the reviewed research were generally too short — two years or less — to produce evidence about the long-term embedding of health promotion programs. There is insufficient short-term evidence regarding the effect of coordinating programs with other school activities. Existing evidence about embedding is largely limited to the views of managers and educators about factors they believe would be helpful, such as networking and senior support (Pearson et al., 2015). The fact that managers and educators had to generate ideas about embedding implies that sustainability was not built into the design of most programs reviewed.

Considerable variation existed across programs in how they were delivered in different schools. The acceptability and importance of programs in which core and customizable elements were identified was not formally assessed, though educators expressed substantial ambivalence about more rigidly structured programs (Pearson et al., 2015). An assessment of one SRE program suggests that implementation fidelity is supported when educators work in an open, supportive environment where concerns about program delivery can be discussed freely with colleagues and where support is available from both program developers and senior school staff.

Conclusion

MARC. (2013). Advisory curriculum pilot outcomes. Research Report, Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center, July 2013. Retrieved from

Osofsky, D., Sinner, G., & Wolk, D. (2003). The power of advisories. The Education Alliance, Brown University.

Pearson, M., Chilton, R., Wyatt, K., Abraham, C., Ford, T., Woods, H., & Anderson, R. (2015). Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: A realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom. Implementation Science: IS, 10, 149. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0338-6

Poliner, R. A., & Lieber, C. M. (2003). The advisory guide. Cambridge, MA: Educators for Social Responsibility.

Shulkind, S. B., & Foote, J. (2009). Creating a culture of connectedness through middle-school advisory programs. Association for Middle Level Education. Retrieved from

Stawick, J. (2011). The effects of an advisory program on middle-level student learning. College of Education, Paper 43. Retrieved from http://via.library.depaul.edu/soe_etd/43

Tocci, C., Hochman, D., & Allen, D. (2005). Advisory programs in high school restructuring. American Education Research Association, April 2005.

Van Hoose, J. (1991). The ultimate goal: AA across the day. Midpoints, 2(1).

von Reininghaus, G. N., Castro, P. J., & Frisancho, S. (2013). School violence: Subjective theories of academic advisory board members from six Chilean schools. Interdisciplinaria: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 30(2), 219–234.

Wasley, P. A., & Lear, R. (2001). Small schools, real gains. Educational Leadership, 58(6).

Weiss, E. (2006). A middle school teacher-advisory program evaluation using teacher and student feedback. Portland State University, Counselor Education, School Counseling Specialization. Retrieved from