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).

Subjective Theories and Literature Review

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).

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).

Theoretical Approaches to Implementing Advisory Programs

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).

Conclusion

School advisory programs serve a range of important purposes, and research in the field has identified five key program goals. Nearly all schools adopt a thematic approach to organizing advisory topics. Traditionally, school advising has been most common at the high school level, with certified counselors rather than classroom teachers in the advisory role. In an ideal advisory program, a transescent student becomes closely acquainted with one adult faculty member who helps him or her develop as a whole person and find a sense of security at school. Advisors must be clear on expectations regarding meeting frequency with students and parents, how students are grouped, how student information is shared, and their role in matters such as discipline and scheduling.

Students report that advisors can sense when a student is upset, will initiate conversation with a visibly troubled student, and recognize and affirm students' unique personalities. Students from multiple schools also reported feeling that their school had deliberately matched them with a compatible advisor. Advisors, for their part, report that noticing and caring for students is their primary aspiration. Despite advisory programs' valuable aims and documented benefits, significant controversy and mixed feelings persist regarding their adoption. Many teachers have reservations and are reluctant to take on an advisory role. Many schools also find their initial expectations impractical, resulting in programs that are modified or discontinued after implementation. Collaborative inquiry is especially valuable for schools building advisory initiatives from scratch, and careful planning, staff development, and transparent assessment are essential to long-term program success.

Beck, L. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Brown, K. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2001). Competing perspectives on advisory programs: Mingling or meddling in middle schools? Research in Middle Level Education Annual, 24.

Center for Collaborative Education. (2003). How are Boston Pilot Schools students faring?

Center for Social and Emotional Education. (n.d.). Reaching every child: Developing a middle school advisory program. Retrieved from

Framework for School Success. (2015). 11 principles of effective character education. Retrieved from http://www.character.org/

Gilpin, L. A. (2013). Comparing perceptions of advisors and students in relationship to behaviors within a middle school advisory program. Graduate Department and Faculty of the School of Education, Baker University. Retrieved from www.bakeru.edu

Goldberg, M. (1998). How to design an advisory system for a secondary school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Makkonen, R. (2004). Advisory program research and evaluation. Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from

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