Minimizing Conflict, Maximizing Collaboration: Principals and School Counselors

(Click here for a print friendly version.)

(A photo from our 2005 Summer Leadership Institute.)

Elizabeth Broughton, Ed. D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Counseling
Eastern Michigan University
    

     High school principals face an increasingly complex work environment. Demands for greater accountability, for increased responsiveness to parents and community members, and for higher academic performance for all students, characterize their work.

    Among these demands, improved student achievement is the highest priority for principals. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 emphasizes accountability for improved student learning. But NCLB is not alone in advocating for school reform. Several groups also examined schools and recommended changes (Boyer, 1995; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Cawelti, 1994; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1996; Sizer, 1996). Although these recommendations vary, one issue is consistently raised, the need for school personnel to work more closely with one another, as well as with parents and other community members. Collaboration among school personnel is seen as an essential tool for improving services to students.

     While sharing a common interest in serving students, principals and school counselors often approach student concerns from different points-of-view based on their preparation and philosophical orientation (Kaplan, 1995; Shoffner & Williamson, 2000). These varied perspectives may lead to conflict, and ineffective use of time and energy for both principals and counselors. It is essential, therefore, that all school personnel work more collaboratively to serve students.

     Despite differences in professional preparation and orientation, there is ample evidence that collaboration among principals and counselors results in more effective programs and services that positively impact student academic, personal, and social growth (Cole, 1991; Huey, 1987; Wagner, 1998). Such collaboration is a critical issue to effectively meet student needs. It is important, therefore, that school principals and counselors understand and appreciate their differing roles and responsibilities, and develop an appreciation for the contributions that support the success of students.

     An earlier study found differences between secondary school principals and school counselors on a variety of issues, including confidentiality and student discipline (Williamson, Broughton, & Hobson, 2003). To learn more about these differences, a follow-up study examined three areas: (1) pre-service training; (2) perceived role; and (3) point-of-view on school issues like confidentiality and student discipline. The study found, like many others, that principals and school counselors approach their work from quite different perspectives (Coy, 1999; Fitch, Newby, & Ballestero, 2001; Kaplan, 1995).

    However, the most intriguing findings found from the earlier study were the startlingly different perspectives that exist for school leaders and counselors in resolving the day-today issues. Among the starkest differences were the attitudes about the role of school discipline, the role of student confidentiality between counselors and principals, and potential areas of collaboration and conflict.

CURRENT STUDY

     Building on prior work, this study was designed to investigate and explore the differing roles and perspectives held by school leaders and counselors regarding school discipline, confidentiality, and collaboration and conflict in the educational setting. The goal was to identify strategies that could be used to address points of conflict and maximize collaboration.

     In order to explore the differing roles and perspectives held by school counselors regarding these issues a series of small group discussions (focus groups) were held with school counselors at three sites in southeastern Michigan. During the focus group sessions participants were asked to freely discuss their experiences regarding the relationship between the two roles (counselor and principal), and the areas where the two roles conflicted or worked collaboratively. Specific questions addressed student discipline, confidentiality, and the professional educational setting. Responses from the participants were then synthesized to identify a set of findings. Further information was gathered through a Critical Incident Report (Angleides & Ainscow, 2000). Each participant was requested to describe in-depth one significant event that characterized the collaborative relationship between school counselors and administrators at their school.

FINDINGS

     Similar to other studies (Kaplan, 1995; Williamson & Shoffner, 2002), the school counselors agreed that the two roles, counselor and administrator, were very different in orientation and perspective. It was best expressed as, “they [school administrators] need to know their role, and know the school counselor’s role.” Conflict was often described as “they just did not get along with their school principal.” Most counselors in this study “got along with their principal” but when conflict arose it most frequently centered on differing approaches to student discipline and to confidentiality.

Student Discipline

    Every school counselor agreed that his or her role in student discipline was “as a helper.” As one counselor stated, “We are the helping people. We are available to pick up the pieces from a disciplinary action.” Another counselor was more emphatic, “We do not hand out the discipline.” Another counselor defined their role as “the good cop [counselor] versus bad cop [administrator].”

     When faced with a complex student discipline case, a dualistic role emerged. Most school counselors wanted to “advocate for the student.” Others wanted to work with the school administrator in “the best interest of the student.” This “behind the scenes” work, in behalf of the best interests of the student included suggesting alternatives, helping to support the student and their family, and providing advice and counsel for the student. Some counselors talked about their ability to help the administrator develop a set of alternatives, rather than consider just one disciplinary option.

     The term, dualism, best described the role of school counselors with the issue of student discipline. Overall, counselors discussed their aversion to being involved with student discipline. Yet, depending on the student, or the issue, they wanted to have some involvement in terms of advocacy. These responses affirmed the researcher’s prior work (Williamson, Broughton, & Hobson, 2003) where school counselors indicated a strong preference not to deliver discipline, yet considered some involvement in discipline necessary and at times important.

     Further discussion about the school counselor’s role in the disciplinary process is warranted. It continues to be a point of some conflict between counselors and principals.

Confidentiality

    Confidentiality is a counseling cornerstone. The school counselors in this study reflected their professional training regarding the counselor’s need to maintain confidentiality. However, as with student discipline, depending on the student or the issue, these school counselors seemed to extend the boundaries of confidentiality. While supporting confidentiality, there were times when there was a need to share, “general in nature, not specifics.” Several counselors described this tenuous break in confidentiality as acknowledging the administrator’s “need to know basis” and described such sharing as in the student’s best interests. This tenuous break in confidentiality also was supported by prior research (Williamson, Broughton, & Hobson, 2003).

     Interestingly, during one session, school counselors agreed that “school counseling is different than professional counseling.” This position, reflected by many of the counselors in this study requires further investigation, since it reflects a view that varies from the view most frequently espoused by professional counselors.

Collaboration and Conflict between School Counselors and Principals

     One of the most interesting findings that emerged during this study involved the counselors work with their principal. The conversations described a unique and powerful relationship that emerged between the counselor and their principal when they collaborated on student issues.

     This collaborative relationship between counselor and principal was described as an “intangible feeling” or “intuitive feeling.” This relationship appears to develop over time as a “felt sense” of trust that is built “unconsciously.” Risk taking often characterized the evolving relationship, but once “trust” was established with the principal, the working relationship improved.

     An example of a school counselor’s “intuitive feeling” was described in a Critical Incident Report.

But I had a good feeling about our new administrator right from the start. He was somehow different than the prior two building administrators. You could immediately sense that he was well seasoned and a man of action—he actually followed through on what he said! He demonstrated through daily situations, that he placed the best interests of the students above all else. That continues to be his bottom line: “What is best for the kid?” As a result, I felt more comfortable in trusting him with confidential information (on a need-to-know basis) regarding my ethical and legal dilemmas, one of which I’m about to describe.

     Another Critical Incident Report described collaboration with their principal on a student issue:

At this juncture, I was concerned as to how much information I could share with an administrator, especially since our principal was in his first year in our building/district. Specifically, issues germane to confidentiality were paramount. I had not yet the opportunity to establish [sic] a significant rapport and relationship. The student and parents agreed to meet with the principal, a person they did not know well, and to share all the information he “needed to know”, it was considerable [sic]. The principal provided his support and consent. As a result of this incident, I began to develop a better trust of this new administrator’s judgment, principles, and ethics.

     Conversely, with this sense of intuitive feeling, a school counselor could identify poor relationships with principals. If a lack of trust was determined, boundaries would be established, and conflict occurred.

STRATEGIES FOR MAXIMIZING COLLABORATION

     While important, the results of this study are limited since the study reflects only the perspectives of school counselors. It is apparent that school counselors hold different perspectives than principals on critical school issues like student discipline, confidentiality, and collaboration and conflict in an educational setting. While the differences exist, they do not appear insurmountable. These data suggest that principals can work with their counselors to build trust and establish a mutually respectful relationship. This study, both the survey of counselors and principals, and the small group discussions with counselors, suggest several strategies to build strong collaborative relationships between school counselors and principals.

     Meet routinely, not just in times of crisis. We found that when principals held regular meetings with their counselors it allowed them to establish a respectful and trusting relationship. The meetings provide a time to discuss ongoing student issues, to develop processes and protocols for handling complex and sensitive student issues, and to become familiar with differing perspectives on critical school issues like student discipline or confidentiality of student information. Routine meetings become an investment that can build a repository of good will that can be drawn on in time of crisis.

     Build and sustain trust. We also found that the relationship between principal and counselor was most positive and productive when each respected the role of the other including ethical and legal guidelines that shape that role. When trust was present, principals didn’t ask counselors to break confidentiality. Similarly, when trust characterized the relationship, counselors openly advocated for students but respected the need for the principal to discipline students and maintain a safe school environment. In other words, both counselors and principals understood and respected the role of the other and acknowledged how that role contributed to the health of the school.

     Establish clear procedures and protocols. Strong collaborative relationships between counselors and principals were characterized by clearly articulated procedures for handling student issues where the roles might conflict. Most often a procedure for sharing information, for discussing disciplinary alternatives, or for securing services for students was already in place and understood by both parties.

     Advocate for the counselor’s role in support of students. Due to their advocacy for students, school counselors are often at odds with other school personnel including teachers. When they advocate too forcefully they are often described as “soft” or “out of touch.” Principals who understood the importance of having student advocates were present in the most collaborative settings. Principals respected the advocacy role and interceded with other school personnel to assure that the advocacy role was not undermined.

CONCLUSION

     This study examined issues of conflict and collaboration between school counselors and their principals regarding school discipline, student confidentiality, and the professional educational setting. It is clear that even when differences in point-of-view are present, principals and counselors are able to find common ground for establishing strong collaborative relationships. Working together to meet “student’s best interests” bonds school counselors and principals in a shared commitment, one that can serve as the basis for building and sustaining a respectful and collaborative relationship.

REFERENCES

Angelides, P., & Aniscow, M. (2000). Making sense of the role     of culture in school improvement. School Effectiveness and     School Improvement, 11(2), 145-163.

Boyer, E. (1995). The basic school. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie      Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning     points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century.      Washington, DC: Author.

Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study.     Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Cole, C.G. (1991). Counselors and administrators: A     comparison of roles.NASSP Bulletin, 75(534), 5-13.

Coy, D. (1999). The role and training of the school counselor:     Background and purpose. NASSP Bulletin, 86(203), 2-9.

Fitch, T.J., Newby, E., & Ballestero, V. (2001). Future school      administrator’s perceptions of the school counselor’s role.      Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 89-99.

Huey, W.C. (1987). The principal-counselor partnership: A      winning combination. NASSP Bulletin, 71(499), 14-18.

Kaplan, L.S. (1995). Principals versus counselors: Resolving      tensions from different practice models. The School      Counselor, 42, 261-267.

National Association of Secondary School Principals (1996).      Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston,      VA: Author.

Sizer, T. (1996). Horace’s hope. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Shoffner, M.F., & Williamson, R.D. (2002). Engaging preservice      school counselors and principals in dialogue and      collaboration. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40,      128- 139.

Wagner, T. (1998). Change as collaborative inquiry. Phi Delta      Kappan, 79(7), 512-517.

Williamson, R.D. & Shoffner, M.F. (2002). Building bridges:      Cultivating increased trust and understanding between      school administrators and school counselors. AASA      Professor, 25(3), 29-35

Wiliamson, R.D., Broughton, E., Hobson, S.A. (2003). Shaping      the future: Collaborative opportunities for school      administrators and school counselors. Paper presented at      the Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors      of Educational Administration, Sedona, AZ. (ERIC Document      Reproduction Services No.CG032545).

See our Feature Article Archives for past articles!