After years of burnout and frustration school counselors formed their own professional organization to address the unique concerns faced by counseling professionals who are also professional educators. Education as well as school counseling is undergoing a new conceptualization. "Under the old conceptualization, education was thought of as process and system, effort and intention, investment and hope. To improve education meant to try harder, to engage in more activity, to magnify one's plans, to give people more services, and to become more efficient in delivering them." (Finn, 1990, p.586). School counseling has developed an emerging paradigm that identifies the student as the primary client and designs all reform efforts in terms of the results for students. The results-based guidance or "new guidance" approach (Johnson & Johnson, 1991) is one approach to address the changing paradigms of school counseling. This program is designed to guarantee that all students acquire the competencies to become successful in school and to make a successful transition from school to higher education, to employment or to a combination of higher education and work.

The quality of an organization can be judged by the quality of the questions it chooses to answer. "The important element in decision making is defining the question" (Drucker, 1971). Guidance professionals have spent many years trying to define school counseling by answering the wrong question. The question, "What do counselors do?" leads us in an endless circle of describing a variety of processes and services available to students and staff. As these processes change, the answer to the prevailing question has to be readdressed to respond to our many publics. The new paradigm question to answer is, "How are students different as a result of the guidance program?" Clearly, if students do not benefit from a guidance program by acquiring new knowledge or skills, then there is little, if any, need or reason to continue the program.

To get a clearer picture, the following contrasts between traditional add-on programs and the new competency-based programs are offered.

The competency-based approach is based on students' need for a comprehensive, developmental guidance program. The difference between this approach and add-on services is a basic philosophic difference between offering students an opportunity to experience and benefit from guidance at their own request (services model) or providing a planned, sequential program in which counselors take responsibility for assuring that all students gain specific guidance-related competencies. Services have traditionally been based on student demand and local school need. Competencies are based on professionally identified educational, career and personal/social needs of students.

Accountability is now focused on student results. Traditionally, accountability in guidance used a role and function statement to define counselor duties and to approximate the amount of time spent on each function. In a competency-based guidance program, it is assumed that students learn differently and a variety of processes are required to ensure success for all students. In traditional programs, specific processes are established for all counselors; there fore, only a percentage of the students can be expected to attain the desired competencies.

Traditionally, counselors have worked as individuals attempting to meet all the needs of their assigned students. In the new approach, counselors work as a team, utilizing the unique interests and skills of each to accomplish results. This concept legitimatizes the inclusion of differentiated staffing, which can lead to the possibility of career ladders and lattices. In addition, there is a recognized need to form student support teams in which counselors, school psychologists, child welfare and attendance specialists, administrators, parents, and others work as a team. Working closely as a team with others reduces territorial disputes, reduces duplication of efforts, and expands the program to address all students. Counselors are uniquely situated to provide leadership in the development and coordination of student support team efforts.

Counselors, using research on student needs as the source to identify student competencies, develop the results-based guidance program. Traditionally, counseling services have been designed based on needs assessments (i.e., asking teachers, students, parents, administrators and community members what counselors should do). However, needs assessments or surveys that describe thoughts, opinions, desires, or requests of students, faculty, or parents will not bring us to the bottom line of demonstrating the impact of school counseling on students.

Results-based guidance program evaluation is based on the number of students who demonstrate the competencies learned. Guidance services are usually evaluated on the number of students receiving help, the number of services offered to students, and how the students felt about the services. Data on student results can help counselors analyze student progress, challenge their processes, determine the need for systemic change, confirm progress, and reveal shortcomings in student achievement.

A new form of evaluation is needed when counselors are accountable for results rather than following a standardized list of duties. Counselors can no longer be evaluated in competition with their colleagues, with all counselors being measured by the same criteria (role and function statements). Now counselors are evaluated on their success in providing students with guidance-related competencies. A counselor's success in this system is based on the ability to create/select/implement processes to reach student results. Counselors are encouraged to work as a team in conjunction with the other student support professionals and other staff members to maximize the use of their individual skills and interests to reach all students.

The role of the administrator becomes one of negotiating results and plans, monitoring and appreciating processes, and coaching for new behaviors rather than being in a position of directing the activities of the counselors and judging their effectiveness based on elusive criteria or criteria developed for use with teachers. Counselors are expected to demonstrate leadership in the development and regular revision of the guidance program to better meet student needs based on on-going evaluation data, generated and analyzed by the student support team. Counselors in this system manage the guidance program.

The new approach is proactive (i.e., counselors must reach out to all students rather than waiting for students to request services). It is developmentally designed to address expected concerns and needs associated with normal stages of development. It is preventive, that is, planned programs occur on a systematic basis, before a crisis necessitates emergency or remedial actions. This approach expands the skills of the counselor to encompass an educational component. Traditionally, counselors wait for the "teachable moment" and try, through crisis intervention, to assist students to solve their problems. Assuring that a counselor is available at all times becomes a major concern for crisis-oriented counseling services. The focus of the new results-based programs is to teach all students problem-solving skills which can be practiced as they face the predictable crises of childhood and adolescence.

Results-based guidance provides a new paradigm that forever changes the perspective on counselors' contributions and responsibilities. There is more than one way to approach the development of results-based programs which may or may not include addressing how guidance interacts with other aspects of the school educational program such as counselors time allocations, school climate, and responsibilities for other programs within the school. However, the one common focus is the need to ensure that all students gain specific competencies they need to be successful students and to become successful adults. For example, the Missouri model (Gysbers & Henderson 2000) addresses not only the specific competencies to be delivered but also includes the percent of time counselors spend in different aspects of the guidance program with the intent of ensuring that counselors have sufficient time to address critical elements of the program. The American School Counselor Association National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Programs (2003) addresses not only the student competencies to be delivered but also the system of delivery, the management of the program, and the accountability for standards. The model defined by the authors (Johnson & Johnson, 1991) addresses only the guidance competencies, leaving most of the time and process decisions to the program implementers. In this approach counselors determine their own professional contributions and delivery system. Time allocations are determined based on how the individual counselor chooses to reach the pre-determined goals. This freedom within the system structure allows each program to develop uniquely to meet the challenges and constraints of the specific school and population.

A system by definition has certain characteristics. One important characteristic of any system is the need for homeostasis. That is, when any element of a system is changed, all other elements will change in order to achieve a state of balance. The following program elements provide a framework to identify the desired program results (mission, conceptual model, goals, and competencies) as well as system elements that are needed for implementation (management, counselor contributions, needs data, counselor plans, monitoring of student progress, advisory council, and a calendar of events). Each element is an essential part of the system. When all elements are present, the system provides the framework within which counselors, administrators, parents, community members, and students work together to ensure that students receive the knowledge, attitudes, and skills they need to become successful, contributing adults. In addition, the use of a systemic program mandates a new method for personnel evaluation.

The new guidance program is designed to be an integral part of the education of each student within a district. The program itself consists of a system of elements, which are interrelated and interdependent. It also provides congruence with the school district's philosophy, curriculum, and other educational programs. The structure of the program lends itself to the formation of a student support team which works collaboratively to meet the identified goals and student competencies. The student support team consists of all support professionals on the school staff including school psychologists, social workers, attendance professionals, health professionals, and others.

The elements of the new guidance program are as follows:

1. Mission: This statement articulates the intentionality of the guidance and/or student support program. It provides direction for all student goals and program activities by specifying the desired long range (5 to 10 years) outcomes for ALL students. It links with the statement of purpose or mission of the administration, the Board of Education, and ideally with the other student support programs.
2. Philosophy: The philosophy is a set of guiding principles that are used in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program. The principles (usually a set of "we agree" statements) address all students, focus on prevention, specify the management system, indicate how counselors will maintain their professional competencies, and indicate the ethical guidelines.
3. Conceptual Model of Guidance: A conceptual model of guidance for student support programs provides a framework for student goals and competencies. It also provides a glossary and has bases in research. The conceptual model serves as an organizer for all elements of the program.
4. Goals: Goals are an extension of the statement of mission and define the desired results to be met by the time the student is ready to graduate. They are stated in terms of what the students are to achieve (e.g., how to learn, to work, to relate to others, to develop a program for personal wellness).
5. Competencies: Competencies identify specific knowledge, attitudes, and skills operationally defined by grade level for all students. They are developmental and measurable.
6. Management System (Data Flow Schedule): The management system is the process by which accountability for results is established. It identifies who is responsible for students acquiring predetermined competencies; what data will be generated; how the data will be collected, formatted and analyzed; and when the data will be submitted to the administrator. There is a clear division between accountability for results of agreed-upon program responsibilities and compliance to duties that have been assigned by others.
7. Results Agreements: These agreements are responsibility statements made by each counselor, specifying the student results for which she or he will be accountable. The results are delineated in terms of the competencies students will achieve and are related to the program goals; they are not lists of processes and activities the counselor will perform. The results agreements include a separate section for all assigned duties. The administrator or guidance program leader responsible for the guidance program will be active in the negotiation of the results agreements. A district director of pupil personnel services, or comparable position, audits the results agreements to assure that the assigned duties are not disproportionate to similar responsibilities expected of all teachers.
8. Needs Assessment: Needs data identify the gap between the desired results and results that are being achieved. They are directly related to the goals and student competencies defined for the program and provide directions for student support personnel to consider establishing as a high priority. Curriculum alignment is often used to determine which guidance competencies are already included within other areas of the curriculum. This match can then serve as a logical link for counselors and teachers to work together to ensure attainment of the specified competencies. If there is no curriculum match then a need for guidance intervention or teaching is apparent.
9. Results Plans: The plans completed by the counselors indicate how the results will be achieved. The plan contains the student competency; criteria for success; who will do what, where and when; the activities and resources; and how the evaluation will be done.
10. Monitoring System: This is the process of ensuring that each student acquires the specified guidance competencies. It is a system designed to communicate to the student and parent, the individual student's progress in attaining guidance-related goals. It is also designed to ensure that no student is left behind.
11. Advisory Council: This committee that consists of representation of those groups effected by the program (i.e., parents, teachers, student support staff, administration, local community groups, and students, when appropriate). The purpose is to review guidance program results and recommend priorities to the appropriate administrative body.
12. Master Calendar of Events: A calendar of guidance events is published to communicate program activities to allow students, teachers, parents, and administrators to know what, when, and where activities are scheduled. This element serves as a communication vehicle and increases the visibility of the program in the school, the district, and the community.
13. Glossary: The glossary ensures clarity of all terms included in the description of the program. It is imperative that guidance and counseling throw off the cloak of mysticism in order for others to work comfortably with counselors as team members. The glossary is a definition of terms, written at a basic reading level, to ensure that team members, administrators, students, parents, and community members clearly understand all aspects of the program.

The system described is a student support team approach to results-based school counseling and guidance programs. It is similar to other results-based programs in that it is based on the identification and evaluation of specific student competencies. However it differs from some of the other current programs in that although each identified element is essential for a comprehensive system, the specific counselors and other student support professionals working within the program ultimately define each element. Therefore, each program is unique to the school population it serves, the interests and skills of the individual professionals, the constraints of the resources and community it serves, and the framework of the school system within which it resides. It is based on a belief that there is no right way nor is there a student support program that will fit every community. Only the professionals within the system know what will work best within their school environment. The counselors are considered professionals with individual accountability for their programs, their activities, the student results attained and the evaluation of their program.

This program approach is currently being implemented in part or in whole in 27 states and 9 countries. In every location as the program visibility, accountability, and communication have improved, the support for guidance programs has increased verbally and, in many cases, financially. Perhaps the most encouraging reports come from counselors currently implementing the program who indicate that they have gained control over their programs and their time, and now are recognized as professionals who are making differences in the students' base of competence and confidence.

The time for change in the structure of guidance programs is here. The new ASCA standards for school counseling programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) and the National Model (ASCA, 2003), offer an alternative to traditional programs by changing the expectations within the field of guidance to address guaranteed student results. The way one sees and thinks about guidance must undergo a fundamental change if guidance is to move ahead. The new approach focuses on the student as the primary client, not on the services being provided, By clearly identifying individual accountability for specific students results, counselors are encouraged to break out of established boundaries, to become more creative and to involve others in the process. Involving others also provides a way to share one's skills, build a caring community and expand the resources available to help students.

Johnson, C. D., & Johnson, S. K.(Eds.). (2002). Building stronger school counseling programs: Bringing futuristic approaches into the present. Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CAPS Publications.

Johnson, C. D., & Johnson, S. K.(2000). Results-based student support program: Leadership academy workbook. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Professional Update.

??? American School Counselor Association. (2003). The American School Counselor Association national model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

??? Aubrey, R. F.(1985). A counseling perspective on the recent educational reform reports. The School Counselor, 33, 91-99.

??? Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A.(1997). Sharing the vision: The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

??? Drucker, P.(1971). What we can learn from Japanese management. Executive Development Series, Part III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College.

??? Finn, C.(1990). The biggest reform of all. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 584-592.

??? Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P.(2000) Developing and managing your school guidance program (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

??? Johnson, C. D., & Johnson, S. K.(1996), The new guidance: Building a systems model of competency-based guidance and Competency-based guidance: A systems approach. ERIC Digest, Competency-Based Guidance Programs.

??? Johnson, S. K., & Johnson, C. D.(1991). The new guidance: A systems approach to pupil personnel programs. California Association of Counseling and Development, 11, 5-14.

Clarence D. Johnson, is a consultant and a professor, Psychology Division, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.