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.

Dimension 1: Purpose

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).

Dimension 2: Organization

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).

Dimension 3: Content

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).

Dimension 4: Assessment

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).

Dimension 5: Leadership

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

Subjective Theories in Advisory Programs

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.

Literature Review

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).