Meningkatkan Prestasi Siswa

melalui Penguatan Kepala dan

Konselor Pendidikan Kemitraan
Olcay Yavuz
Nur Cayirdag
Carol Dahir
Ali İLker GumuŞeli

Abstrak: Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji 1466 pendapat kepala
sekolah pada enam aspek yang berbeda dari konseling praktek di K-12 publik
dan sekolah swasta. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan
yang signifikan antara pendapat kepala sekolah negeri dan swasta tentang
prioritas konseling sekolah, persepsi, pengembangan akademik, dan manajemen
program. Jenis sekolah dan interaksi tingkat sekolah signifikan untuk
pengembangan karir dan akademik dan sedikit signifikan untuk pengembangan
pribadi-sosial. Tingkat sekolah juga memiliki efek utama yang signifikan pada
perkembangan pribadi-sosial, karir, dan akademik. Hasil ini mungkin bernilai bagi
para pemimpin sekolah dan pendidik yang peduli dengan peningkatan prestasi
siswa dan efektivitas sekolah melalui perbaikan dan peningkatan layanan
konseling sekolah mereka.

Kata kunci: kolaborasi kepala sekolah-konselor, akademik, karir, sosial

emosional, pengembangan

A Selama tiga dekade terakhir, telah terjadi peningkatan perhatian

dibayar untuk membangun kapal mitra kepala sekolah dan

konselor yang efektif untuk meningkatkan akses perguruan tinggi dan
keberhasilan siswa perkotaan yang kurang terwakili (Dahir & Stone,
2012; Janson & Militello, 2009). Seperti yang dicatat oleh Lotkowski,
Robbins, dan Noeth (2004), membantu siswa bersiap-siap, masuk, dan
melewati perguruan tinggi adalah investasi jangka panjang yang
memerlukan pendekatan sistemik dan upaya kolaboratif di antara para
pemangku kepentingan. Secara khusus, para pemimpin sekolah didorong
untuk bekerja secara kolaboratif dengan konselor sekolah, guru kelas,
dan pemangku kepentingan utama lainnya untuk mengembangkan
intervensi, perawatan, dan pencegahan yang komprehensif untuk
meningkatkan semua keterampilan, pengetahuan, dan aspirasi siswa
sehingga setiap siswa dapat menjadi perguruan tinggi dan karier. -siap
(Dewan Perguruan Tinggi, 2009; Perna & Titus, 2005).
Namun, meningkatkan keberhasilan setiap siswa melalui menciptakan
konselor sukses dan kemitraan kepala sekolah adalah proses yang rumit.
Banyak kepala sekolah yang tidak memiliki informasi atau pemahaman
yang cukup tentang layanan konseling dan fungsi konselor, sehingga
pemimpin sekolah kurang membangun kemitraan yang efektif dengan
konselor untuk meningkatkan prestasi akademik, karir, sosial, dan
perkembangan emosional siswa (Karatas & Baltaci,

176 International Journal of Educational Reform, Vol. 26, No. 2 / Spring 2017
Meningkatkan Prestasi Siswa melalui Penguatan Kepala Sekolah 177

2013; zabacı, Sakarya & Dogan, 2008; Güven, 2009; Hokeer & Brand,
2009 dan Dahir, Burnham, Stone & Cobb, 2010). Dahir (2003)
menyatakan, “Kisahnya tentang konseling sekolah telah menggambarkan
sebuah profesi dalam pencarian identitas” (hal. 345). Memahami
beragam peran, tanggung jawab, dan dampak dari konselor sekolah
pada keberhasilan siswa sangat penting untuk kemitraan yang efektif
antara konselor dan administrator. Oleh karena itu, studi ini dapat
bermanfaat bagi K-12 dan pemimpin sekolah yang terkait dengan
merevisi dan meningkatkan layanan dan praktik konseling sekolah
mereka sehingga mereka fokus untuk mempersiapkan semua siswa
untuk kesiapan perguruan tinggi dan karir.

Perubahan Peran Konselor Sekolah

Selama beberapa tahun terakhir, para pemimpin pendidikan, peneliti, dan

pembuat kebijakan telah secara khusus berfokus pada membangun
upaya kolaboratif dan layanan siswa berbasis bukti untuk meningkatkan
kesiapan perguruan tinggi dan karir semua siswa (Candan & Sezgin ,
2012). Di masa lalu, peran utama konselor sekolah adalah untuk
menawarkan layanan responsif untuk memenuhi kebutuhan mendesak
siswa yang berisiko, tetapi di abad ke-21, konselor sekolah diharapkan
untuk meningkatkan perkembangan akademik, karir, sosial, dan
emosional setiap siswa. (ASCA, 2012).
American School Counselor Association (ASCA) didirikan pada tahun
1953 dan memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap pengembangan
program konseling sekolah K-12 di Amerika dan di seluruh dunia
(Burnham & Jackson, 2000). ASCA memberi konselor sekolah
kredensial, standarmereka sendiri
, dan pedomanuntuk memenuhi beragam kebutuhan semua siswa.
Secara khusus, selain membantu pengembangan karir dan sosial
emosional siswa, ASCA mendorong konselor sekolah untuk bekerja
sama dengan kepala sekolah dan guru binaan untuk meningkatkan
pengembangan akademik siswa (ASCA, 2012).
Berdasarkan apa yang direkomendasikan oleh Model Nasional ASCA
(2012), tinjauan literatur mengeksplorasi perubahan peran konselor
sekolah di empat bidang utama: pengembangan akademik,
pengembangan karir, pengembangan sosial dan emosional, serta
manajemen dan akuntabilitas program. Selanjutnya, bagian terakhir dari
tinjauan pustaka akan fokus pada layanan akademik dan konseling di
sekolah swasta dan negeri.

Pengembangan Akademik

Tidak seperti praktik konseling tradisional, Model Nasional ASCA (2012)

mendorong konselor untuk bertindak sebagai pemimpin, agen perubahan
kritis, dan pemain kunci dalam reformasi sekolah yang berfokus pada
membantu siswa meningkatkan prestasi akademik dan keberhasilan
sekolah. Perlu dicatat bahwa bekerja sama dengan kepala sekolah,
konselor memiliki kapasitas untuk berhasil meningkatkan pengembangan
akademik siswa melalui (a) mengkoordinasikan program dukungan
akademik; (b) menganalisis, menafsirkan, dan berbagi hasil prestasi
siswa; (d) menawarkan nasihat akademik
178 Olcay Yavuz et al.

sesi; dan (e) melakukan pengembangan profesional staf untuk guru dan
orang tua di bidang yang sangat penting seperti motivasi, penilaian
siswa, perencanaan akademik, studi yang efektif, manajemen waktu, dan
keterampilan organisasi (Berger, 2014; Dahir & Stone, 2012; Lapan,
2012; Perna & Thomas, 2008).
Mirip dengan ASCA National Model (2012),Republik Kementerian
Pendidikan NasionalTurki mendorong konselor sekolah untuk
merancang dan memberikan layanan konseling untuk meningkatkan
pengembangan akademik siswa K-12. Khususnya sebagaimana
diberitakan dalam Jurnal Komunikasi Resmi Kementerian Pendidikan
Nasional (2009), pada saat lulusan siswa, bimbingan dan konselor
psikologis diharapkan dapat berkolaborasi dengan guru, orang
tua, siswa, dan administrator sekolah untuk mempersiapkan siswa yang
komprehensif. laporan penilaian yang mencakup rencana pembelajaran
dan pendidikan siswa, atribut siswa, dan saran konselor. Konselor
sekolah di Turki juga diharapkan dapat bekerja sama dengan wali kelas
dan membangun kepala sekolah dalam membimbing siswa ke jalur
pendidikan yang sesuai berdasarkan minat, keterampilan, dan prestasi
akademik mereka.
Camadan dan Sezgin (2012) meneliti persepsi Turki kepala sekolah
dasartentang layanan bimbingan sekolah. Formulir wawancara semi-
terstruktur yang dikembangkan oleh peneliti digunakan untuk
mengumpulkan data. Menurut hasil, kepala sekolah melaporkan bahwa
upaya bimbingan pendidikan terdaftar sebagai keterampilan belajar yang
efektif (n =13), bimbingan akademik yang dipersonalisasi (n= 6),
menangani kecemasan ujian (n =5), menasihati siswa untuk kompetisi
ilmiah (n= 4), manajemen waktu yang efektif (n =3), dan pendidikan
inklusi (n =1). Hal ini juga dianjurkan oleh para pemimpin sekolah yang
konselor perlu menghabiskan lebih banyak waktu pada individual
bimbingan akademik dan personal rencana pembelajaran (BaŞaran,
2008; Camadan & Sezgin, 2012). Terlepas dari negara atau budayanya,
pengembangan akademik semua siswa adalah salah satu bidang utama
yang diharapkan dapat disumbangkan oleh konselor.

Pengembangan Karir

Di Amerika Serikat, pada pergantian abad ke-20, tujuan karir, kejuruan

dan teknis pendidikan mulai mendapatkan arti penting yang signifikan.
Akibatnya, tujuan utama sekolah dipandang sebagai cara anak-anak
memperoleh pengetahuan dan keterampilan untuk karir masa depan
mereka (Gysbers, 2001).ada,
Kedepan konselor sekolah pertama, yang berstatus sebagai konselor
kejuruan hampir 100 tahun yang lalu, menekankan menghubungkan
pendidikan dengan pekerjaan. Oleh karena itu, selama tahun-tahun awal
konseling sekolah, tugas utama konselor kejuruan ini termasuk
mempersiapkan siswa untuk bekerja berdasarkan nilai, atribut, aspirasi,
dan minat pribadi mereka.
Sejak perguruan tinggi, karir, dan konseling kejuruan memainkan
peran penting dalam mempersiapkan siswa untuk pasar kerja yang
sangat kompetitif, sekolah terus-menerus fokus pada pentingnya program
konseling karir yang efektif. Dalam dunia sekarang ini, mendapatkan
gelar sarjana, karier, atau pelatihan kejuruan dapat dianggap
Meningkatkan Prestasi Mahasiswa melalui Penguatan Kepala Sekolah 179

investasi yang berharga karena pendidikan membantu individu

mengembangkan keterampilan tinggi dan mencari pekerjaan bergengsi
dan gaji tinggi. Oleh karena itu, sangat penting untuk menyediakan
program konseling perguruan tinggi dan karir komprehensif yang efektif
yang membantu semua siswa menjadi perguruan tinggi, karir, dan siap
kerja (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2012; ASCA, 2012).
Selain itu, di Amerika Serikat, Kantor Dewan Sekolah Nasional untuk
Advokasi Konselor Sekolah (NOSCA) (2010) mengkonseptualisasikan
peran dan tanggung jawab pemimpin sekolah dan konselor untuk
mempromosikan kesiapan kuliah dan karir semua siswa. Secara khusus,
NOSCA (2010) mendorong para pemimpin sekolah, konselor, dan
pemangku kepentingan utama lainnya untuk bekerja sama dalam: (1)
membangun dan mempromosikan aspirasi perguruan tinggi siswa, (2)
meningkatkan persiapan akademik siswa untuk masuk perguruan tinggi;
(3) meningkatkan perkembangan pribadi dan sosial siswa; (4)
memberikan dukungan dalam proses eksplorasi dan seleksi perguruan
tinggi dan karir, (5) melakukan penilaian kesiapan perguruan tinggi dan
karir; (6) mempersiapkan rencana keterjangkauan perguruan tinggi
individual; (7) mempermudah proses penerimaan perguruan tinggi; (8)
membantu transisi dari sekolah menengah ke perguruan tinggi.
Mirip dengan prinsip ASCA National Model (2012) dan NOSCA (2010)
di Amerika Serikat, Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Republik Turki
mendorong konselor sekolah untuk memberikan layanan dan kegiatan
menuju kesiapan perguruan tinggi dan karir. Secara khusus, bimbingan
dan konseling psikologis diharapkan dapat merencanakan dan
melaksanakanbimbingan pendidikan dan kejuruan yang sesuai
kegiatanuntuk semua siswa berdasarkan jenis dan kebutuhan sekolah
(Jurnal Komunikasi Dinas Pendidikan Nasional, 2009). Di Turki, seorang
konselor juga berfungsi sebagai pemandu, pemimpin, dan manajer
sumber daya untuk memberikan dan memimpin layanan konseling karir
individu dan sekolah. Bimbingan dan konselor psikologis juga didorong
untuk melakukan program yang diarahkan untuk mengenal siswa untuk
membantu
pengembangan pendidikan dan kejuruan mereka.
Meskipun Republik Turki Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional dan
penelitianberfokus pada pentingnya kegiatan konseling karir, tercatat
bahwa sebagian besar siswa K-12 tidak menerima layanan konseling
karir dan perguruan tinggi yang sistemik dan berkualitas tinggi dari
sekolah mereka. (Paskal, 2001). Camadan dan Sezgin (2012)
menunjukkan bahwa konselor sekolah di Turki memberikan beberapa
kegiatan terkait konseling karir untuk membantu siswa meningkatkan
pengembangan karir mereka mulai dari tingkat dasar. Mereka
menemukan bahwa area penekanan meliputi pengenalan sistem
informasi kejuruan (n =13), penilaian terkait karir (n = 10), lokakarya dan
konferensi tentang pengembangan karir (n = 12), lokakarya kesadaran
karir orang tua (n = 4), mengundang karir dan pebisnis (n =4), dan job
shadowing (n =4).

Pengembangan Sosial-Emosional

Selain menganjurkan prestasi akademik dan perguruan tinggi dan

kesiapan karir, konselor sekolah di Amerika Serikat juga bertanggung
jawab untuk meningkatkan
180 Olcay Yavuz et al.

perkembangan sosial dan emosional seluruh siswa yang dapat menjadi

penghambat peningkatan prestasi dan aktualisasi diri siswa (ASCA,
2012). Konselor sekolah bekerja sama dengan kepala sekolah dan
pemangku kepentingan utama untuk menciptakan sekolah yang aman
secara fisik, sosial, dan emosional bagi semua siswa. Hubungan kerja
dan kolaborasi ini membantu sekolah membangun iklim sekolah yang
positif melalui penetapan kurikulum resolusi konflik, nasihat, pelecehan,
intimidasi, dan program intimidasi. Selanjutnya, konselor
mengembangkan dan memberikan sesi konseling kelompok kecil untuk
membantu siswa mengatasi masalah tertentu seperti stres, depresi,
hubungan yang sehat, kesedihan, dan kehilangan (ASCA, 2012).
Konselor sekolah juga memanfaatkan teori konseling dan strategi
konseling untuk membangun hubungan kerja yang saling percaya dan
rahasia dengan siswa atau kelompok siswa untuk membantu
menetapkan tujuan dan membuat perubahan perilaku. Untuk membantu
setiap siswa mencapai perkembangan sosial dan emosional,sekolah
konselormenggunakan keterampilan konsultasi mereka yang
memungkinkan mereka untuk berkolaborasi dengan pemangku
kepentingan utama internal dan eksternal seperti profesional kesehatan
mental, lembaga konseling, orang tua, dan anggota masyarakat (Myrick,
2003). Misalnya, konselor sekolah dapat berkonsultasi dengan konselor
penyalahgunaan zat atau lembaga komunitas eksternal untuk merancang
dan memberikan program dan intervensi pencegahan yang komprehensif
bagi siswa yang membutuhkan. Dalam sesi konseling sosial dan
emosional, konselor juga dapat fokus pada pemecahan masalah,
pencarian bantuan, hubungan yang sehat, pengambilan keputusan etis,
masalah pribadi, dan kekhawatiran yang berdampak pada pembelajaran
dan pengembangan (ASCA, 2012).
Mirip dengan harapan di Amerika Serikat, penasihat sekolah Turki
didorong untuk membantu siswa menghadapi masalah pribadi, sosial,
dan emosional karena ada peningkatan yang signifikan dalam
penggunaan narkoba, kecenderungan vandalisme, depresi, putus
sekolah dengan anak-anak dan remaja di Turki (Ultanis, 2005).
Khususnya, Camadan dan Sezgin (2012) menemukan bahwa Turki
konselormembantu perkembangan sosial dan emosional siswa melalui
pengumpulan data dan penilaian kebutuhan melalui pemberian tindakan
psikometri (n =11), melakukan konseling satu lawan satu (n =10),
mengajar keterampilan komunikasi (n = 5), mengorganisir sesi konseling
kelompok kecil (n =5), dan menyelenggarakan kegiatan ekstra kurikuler
(n =3). Hal ini juga melaporkan bahwa para pemimpin sekolah ditemukan
nasihat pribadi, sosial, dan emosional ing kegiatan yang sangat
membantu dan penting untuk keberhasilan siswa (BaŞaran, 2008; Polat,
2007). Lebih lanjut, dicatat bahwa untuk mengidentifikasi dan mengatasi
kebutuhan sosial dan emosional yang kompleks dari populasi siswa yang
beragam, konselor di Turki membutuhkan lebih banyak sumber daya dan
strategi yang didukung penelitian (Paskal, 2001).

Manajemen Program dan Akuntabilitas

Sebagai reformasi telah mempengaruhi struktur dan fungsi sekolah,

peran dan tanggung jawab dari konselor sekolah di Amerika Serikat
juga telah
Meningkatkan Prestasi Mahasiswa melalui Penguatan Kepala Sekolah 181

historis telah diubah oleh banyak kebijakan dan reformasi selama abad
terakhir. Misalnya, dengan penerapan standar akuntabilitas yang baru,
sekolah K-12 mendapat tekanan yang lebih besar untuk meningkatkan
prestasi siswa dan meningkatkan kualitas pendidikan (Wiliam, 2010).
Standar akuntabilitas dan evaluasi yang baru juga meningkatkan
kebutuhan akan dokumentasi untuk penyampaian program dan prestasi
siswa. Perubahan ini mendorong baik pemimpin sekolah maupun
konselor untuk menangani lebih banyak dokumen dan tugas administrasi
daripada yang biasa mereka lakukan 10 tahun lalu (Goodman-Scott,
Betters-Bubon, & Donohue, 2015).
Selain itu, dengan penerapan standar akuntabilitas baru, ada fokus
yang signifikan pada pengambilan keputusan berbasis data, pengujian
berisiko tinggi berbasis standar, kurikulum berbasis standar, dan
menutup kesenjangan pencapaian (Wilkerson, Pérusse & Hughes, 2013).
).). Selanjutnya, akuntabilitas dan manajemen program telah menjadi
kekuatan pendorong dalam merancang dan memimpin layanan konseling
sekolah dan rencana aksi yang komprehensif untuk menciptakan
lingkungan belajar yang positif bagi keberhasilan siswa (Dahir & Stone,
2012). Ketika pejabat pemerintah AS, pembuat kebijakan, dan pemimpin
distrik semakin berupaya untuk meminta pertanggungjawaban sekolah
atas prestasi siswa, perguruan tinggi dan kesiapan karir, penelitian
berfokus pada pentingnya membangun kemitraan kepala sekolah dan
konselor yang efektif (Dahir, Burnham, Stone, & Cobb, 2010). ; Ponec &
Brock, 2000).
Misalnya, di Amerika Serikat konselor sekolah berkolaborasi dengan
pemimpin sekolah sambil memanfaatkan dan mengelola data, teknologi,
dan sumber daya untuk memenuhi kebutuhan siswa yang beragam dan
kompleks (Dahir & Stone, 2012). Secara khusus, generasi konselor ini
diharapkan memiliki keterampilan dan keahlian dalam pengelolaan dan
akuntabilitas program yang efektif yang mencakup kalender, rencana
aksi, kesepakatan, formulir, audit program, survei komprehensif dan
permintaan umpan balik, laporan evaluasi dampak program, analisis
data, dan pengembangan profesional berkelanjutan (ASCA, 2012).
Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Republik Turki juga mendorong
bimbingan usia dan konselor psikologis untuk mempersiapkan dan
memelihara laporan kemajuan siswa untuk menangani manajemen
program dan akuntabilitas konselor sekolah. Namun, seperti yang dicatat
oleh Stockton dan Güneri (2011), sebagian besar peraturan dan regulasi
yang dikeluarkan oleh Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Turki tidak
secara memadai mendefinisikan peran dan fungsi konselor sekolah K-12.
Sayangnya, konselor sekolah Turki dianggap oleh guru dan administrator
sekolah sebagai personel istimewa dengan lebih banyak waktu dan lebih
sedikit pekerjaan karena konselor sekolah tidak memiliki tanggung jawab
mengajar (Stockton & Güneri, 2011).
Akibatnya, konselor sekolah di Turki sering diminta oleh administrator
sekolah untuk membantu melakukan tugas-tugas non-konseling dan
administrasi seperti petugas absensi, pemantauan lorong, penjadwalan,
sub-pengajaran, pencatatan administrasi, penandatanganan alasan bagi
siswa yang terlambat. atau tidak hadir, mengawasi, menguji, dan
melayani sebagai petugas entri data (Davis, 2014). Menghabiskan waktu
di
182 Olcay Yavuz dkk.

tugas-tugas non-konseling ini tidak hanya menambah kesalahpahaman

tentang peran konselor sekolah, tetapi, yang lebih penting, membuat
konselor sekolah memiliki lebih sedikit waktu untuk dihabiskan untuk
kesejahteraan siswa (Dogan, 2000; Stockton & Güneri, 2011).
Tampaknya karena Turki tidak memiliki model nasional dan kompetensi
serta standar konseling sekolah yang jelas untuk konselor sekolah dan
siswa, kesalahpahaman mengenai istilah bimbingan dan konseling serta
tujuan, peran, dan fungsi konselor akan terus menjadi tidak jelas.

Layanan Konseling Sekolah menurut Jenis Sekolah dan Tingkat

Sekolah Jenis sekolah (yaitu, sekolah swasta dan negeri) dan tingkat
sekolah (yaitu, sekolah dasar, menengah dan tinggi) adalah dua faktor
utama yang berpotensi mempengaruhi desain dan pemberian layanan
konseling. Selama tujuh dekade terakhir, pendaftaran siswa di sekolah
swasta mengalami
peningkatan yang signifikan di seluruh dunia. Selain sekolah swasta
agama dan non-agama, saat ini orang tua ditawari lebih banyak pilihan
pilihan sekolah seperti sekolah charter, sekolah magnet, dan pendaftaran
terbuka dan voucher yang didanai publik (Glenn, 1998). Secara khusus,
menurut Statistik Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional 2014-15, sekitar satu
juta siswa K-12 terdaftar di sekolah swasta yang merupakan sekitar 5%
dari seluruh populasi siswa di Turki.
Meningkatnya jumlah sekolah swasta dan pilihan sekolah mendorong
peneliti, pembuat kebijakan, dan pendidik untuk membandingkan
program dan keberhasilan siswa sekolah swasta dan negeri. Secara
umum, tercatat bahwa Turki dan AS sekolah swastamengungguli
sekolah umum dan mereka lebih mempersiapkan siswa untuk kuliah
daripada sekolah umum (Braun, Jenkins, & Grigg, 2006; Lubienski &
Lubienski, 2006; Sulku & Abdioglu, 2015).
Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh studi-studi sebelumnya, ada faktor
internal dan eksternal yang mungkin menjelaskan mengapa tingkat
keberhasilan akademik siswa sekolah swasta lebih tinggi daripada siswa
sekolah negeri. Secara khusus, Coleman, Hoffer, dan Kilgore (1982)
menyatakan bahwa sekolah swasta menyediakan lingkungan yang lebih
aman, lebih disiplin, dan teratur daripada sekolah umum. Selain itu,
Greeley (1982) mencatat bahwa prestasi akademik siswa minoritas di
sekolah swasta melampaui prestasi akademik siswa minoritas di sekolah
negeri karena sekolah swasta lebih menekankan pada keterampilan
belajar dasar, dan menumbuhkan nilai-nilai moral pada siswa mereka.
Karena prestasi siswa secara langsung bergantung pada pengajaran,
kurikulum, pengajaran, dan layanan siswa yang efektif, tampaknya
sekolah swasta menyediakan lingkungan pendidikan yang lebih baik,
kualitas layanan akademik dan konseling yang lebih tinggi bagi siswanya
dibandingkan dengan sekolah umum (Sulku & Abdioglu, 2015).
Selain faktor internal seperti iklim yang lebih aman, ukuran kelas kecil,
nilai-nilai moral, lebih baik dan lingkungan pendidikan yang fleksibel
(Aslan & Bakir, 2014), sekelompok peneliti menggunakan faktor eksternal
untuk menjelaskan mengapa sekolah swasta
Meningkatkan Prestasi Mahasiswa melalui Penguatan Kepala Sekolah 183

publik mengungguli sekolah-sekolah di Amerika Serikat. Misalnya,

Lubien ski dan Lubienski (2006) menemukan bahwa perbedaan prestasi
siswa antara sekolah swasta dan negeri sepenuhnya dijelaskan oleh
perbedaan latar belakang keluarga. Sejalan dengan temuan penelitian
ini, Coleman dan Hoffer (1987) berfokus pada organisasi sosial Amerika
sekolah-sekolahyang mencakup komunitas dan keluarga mereka. Karena
sebagian besar sekolah swasta tidak gratis, keluarga kelas atas dan
menengah atas dengan pendapatan tinggi
mencari peluang sekolah swasta untuk anak-anak mereka (Greene,
2000). Selain itu, keluarga kaya yang lebih mungkin memiliki gelar
sarjana juga lebih mungkin untuk memainkan peran proaktif dalam
pendidikan anak-anak mereka (Bai ley, 2001). Keterlibatan orang tua
yang aktif dan peduli dapat dianggap sebagai modal sosial yang
memainkan peran penting dalam memungkinkan siswa untuk
mendapatkan akses ke sumber daya institusional dan dukungan yang
mempromosikan prestasi akademik tingkat tinggi (Cates & Schaefle,
2011). Oleh karena itu, dibandingkan dengan sekolah umum, siswa di
sekolah swasta memiliki keuntungan dari keterlibatan orang tua yang
lebih banyak, dan komunitas fungsional lebih mungkin untuk berhasil.
Selain keterlibatan orang tua yang positif, Chubb & Moe (1990)
menyatakan bahwa sekolah swasta adalah organisasi dan manajemen
yang lebih efektif karena mereka cenderung tidak terpengaruh oleh
kontrol eksternal dan kendala birokrasi.
Selain jenis sekolah (negeri dan swasta), penelitian sebelumnya juga
indi cate bahwa ada beberapa perbedaan utama antara tingkat sekolah
(SD, tengahnya dan sekolah tinggi) layanan konseling (TaŞkaya & Kurt,
2010). Misalnya, seperti yang ditunjukkan ASCA (2012), konselor sekolah
dasar dan menengah lebih fokus pada hubungan teman sebaya, strategi
mengatasi, komunikasi keterampilan sosial yang efektif, pemecahan
masalah, resolusi konflik, organisasi, keterampilan belajar dan
mengerjakan ujian, perencanaan akademik, penetapan tujuan. , dan
pendidikan untuk memahami diri sendiri dan orang lain. Secara umum,
konselor sekolah dasar dan menengah membantu siswa
mengembangkan pengetahuan, sikap, dan keterampilan yang diperlukan
agar mereka menjadi pembelajar yang sehat, kompeten, dan percaya
diri. Di sisi lain, konselor sekolah menengah bekerja sebagai tim dengan
staf sekolah, orang tua, dan masyarakat untuk menciptakan iklim yang
peduli dan mendukung yang membantu kesiapan kuliah, karir, dan kerja
siswa (ASCA, 2012).
Hal ini juga mencatat bahwa dibandingkan dengan sekolah-sekolah
tinggi, sekolah dasar dan menengah memiliki rasio mahasiswa-konselor
yang lebih tinggi di kedua Turki dan Amerika Serikat (ASCA, 2012;
TaŞkaya & Kurt 2010; Carrell & Carrell, 2006). Selain siswa dan konselor
yang lebih tinggi rasio, TaŞkaya dan Kurt (2010) menegaskan sekolah
yang layanan konseling tidak memadai untuk sebagian besar sekolah
dasar untuk memenuhi kebutuhan siswa. Selain itu, dikatakan bahwa
beberapa SD tidak menawarkan layanan konseling di tingkat sekolah
dasar karena kurangnya konselor sekolah.
Meskipun ada penelitian tentang menjelajahi pelaku persepsi pada
layanan konseling sekolah di K-12 sekolah, diketahui bahwa ada
kurangnya penelitian tentang membandingkan dan membedakan
pemimpin sekolah swasta dan publik opini yang objektif tentang
memberikan layanan konseling sekolah dengan tingkat sekolah
184 Olcay Yavuz dkk.

(SD, SMP, dan SMA). Banyak penelitian penelitian (Aslan & Bakir, 2014;
Braun, Jenkins & Grigg, 2006; Kagan, 2010; Sulkua, & Abdioglub, 2015)
mengkaji persamaan dan perbedaan data prestasi akademik dan kondisi
kerja siswa negeri dan swasta. Namun, studi-studi ini tidak melakukan
analisis yang ekstensif untuk mengeksplorasi dan membandingkankepala
sekolah
persepsidalam memberikan layanan konseling dalam rangka
meningkatkan perkembangan akademik, karir, sosial, dan emosional
siswa. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini menjembatani kesenjangan literatur
dengan menggali pendapat kepala sekolah tentang pelaksanaan program
konseling sekolah di sekolah negeri, swasta, SD, SMP, dan SMA.

Pertanyaan Penelitian

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menggali 1466 pendapat kepala
sekolah negeri tentang praktik konseling sekolah untuk meningkatkan
efektivitas layanan siswa. Penelitian ini juga mengkaji prioritas penting
konseling sekolah, persepsi kepala sekolah terhadap kegiatan konseling
yang dilakukan di K-12 sekolah negeri dan swasta. Secara khusus,
penelitian ini menyelidiki pertanyaan penelitian berikut: Bagaimana
persepsi kepala sekolah tentang praktik konseling sekolah (yaitu, prioritas
konseling sekolah, persepsi pengaturan sekolah, manajemen program,
sosial-emosional, karir dan pengembangan akademik) bervariasi
berdasarkan sekolah jenis (yaitu, sekolah swasta dan negeri) dan tingkat
sekolah (yaitu, SD, SMP, dan SMA)?

Metodologi Penelitian

Peserta

Semua kepala sekolah negeri dan swasta di Istanbul, Turki, diundang

untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini dan 1466 kepala sekolah
menanggapi survei. Di antara peserta, 253 (17,3%) adalah kepala
sekolah dasar, 721 (49,2%) adalah kepala sekolah menengah, 492
(33,6%) menjabat sebagai kepala sekolah menengah. Selain itu, sampel
sebanyak 1184 (80,8%) adalah kepala sekolah negeri dan 282 (19,2%)
adalah kepala sekolah swasta.

Instrumen

Kuesioner survei (Dahir & Stone, 2003, 2010) awalnya dirancang untuk
menilai kesadaran dan pemahaman konselor sekolah dan kepala sekolah
AS tentang prioritas, persepsi, dan kegiatan konseling sekolah yang
kritis, dan telah digunakan secara luas oleh departemen pendidikan
negara bagian. dalam sistem sekolah besar dan kecil. Untuk tujuan
penelitian ini, survei tersebut diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Turki.
Setelah terjemahan selesai, untuk memeriksa keakuratan setiap item
yang diterjemahkan, proses peer review dilakukan.
Meningkatkan Prestasi Siswa melalui Penguatan Kepala Sekolah 185

Sebuah terjemahan yang sukses dari setiap item survei ditinjau oleh para
profesional yang merupakan konselor sekolah profesional praktisi dan
sarjana dari Turki dan Amerika Serikat.
Selain meminta informasi demografis tertentu, survei ini memiliki lima
subskala. Pertama, Prioritas Konseling Sekolah yang memiliki 18 item
untuk menilai pendapat kepala sekolah tentang tingkat kepentingan relatif
dari kegiatan tertentu untuk konselor sekolah. Kedua, pertama adalah
School Setting Perception
yang memiliki 20 item yang menilai keyakinan kepala sekolah tentang
peran yang tepat untuk konselor sekolah. Subskala ketiga terdiri dari 18
item yang berfokus pada pendapat kepala sekolah tentang program
konseling pada pengembangan akademik, karir, dan sosial-emosional
siswa.
Subskala keempat yaitu Harapan Bangunan dan Distrik terdiri dari 12
item dan menilai keterlibatan konselor dalam kegiatan dukungan sistem
yang memberikan dukungan berkelanjutan kepada lingkungan sekolah
serta harapan administratif tentang tugas, beberapa di antaranya
dianggap sebagai tanggung jawab non-konseling (Dahir , Burnham,
Stone, & Cobb, 2010). Akhirnya, subskala kelima, Fokus Perubahan
Konselor Sekolah, yang terdiri dari 16 item, menilai fokus tradisional dan
transformasi konselor sekolah. Dalam artikel ini, data mengenai
perubahan fokus konselor sekolah tidak disajikan dalam hasil.

Analisis

Dalam studi ini, total skor dari setiap subskala (yaitu, prioritas konseling
sekolah, persepsi pengaturan sekolah, pengembangan pribadi-sosial,
pengembangan karir, pengembangan akademik, dan manajemen
program) ditentukan dan digunakan sebagai variabel dependen
berkelanjutan. Di sisi lain, tiga variabel independen diidentifikasi untuk
dieksplorasi jika mereka menyebabkan semacam perubahan dalam
layanan konseling sekolah yang diubah dan tradisional. Variabel bebas
pertama yang bersifat kategoris adalah jenis sekolah yang dikodekan
 swasta dan negeri. Kedua, jenjang sekolah yang merupakan variabel
ordinal dikelompokkan menjadi SD, SMP, dan SMA. Variabel bebas
terakhir, yang kontinu, ditentukan oleh pengalaman kepala sekolah
selama bertahun-tahun (yaitu, 0–3, 3-5, dan 5+ tahun).
Statistik deskriptif sederhana, termasuk mean dan standar deviasi
untuk setiap subskala survei disajikan untuk kategori yang berbeda dari
kedua variabel independen (yaitu, jenis sekolah dan tingkat sekolah)
pada Tabel 1. Analisis kovarians dua arah (ANCOVA) digunakan untuk
menguji efek utama dan interaksi variabel bebas tingkat sekolah dan
jenis sekolah pada masing-masing variabel terikat, dengan menggunakan
pengalaman tahun kepala sekolah
sebagai kovariat.
Dalam penelitian ini, hasilnya dilaporkan berdasarkan tes ANOVA
individu karena pertanyaan penelitian kami difokuskan pada skala
individu daripada skala total. Faktanya, MANOVA tidak berlaku untuk
kumpulan data kami karena
186 Olcay Yavuz et al.

Tabel 1. Statistik Deskriptif untuk Enam subskala untuk Tingkat Sekolah dan
Sekolah Jenis subskala School Jenis tingkatSekolah NX SD
Sekolah Akademik privat 3.37 3.58 4.47 3.94
Konseling Pengembangan total 3.54 2.58 3.46 3.43
Prioritas swastaUmum Tinggi Publik privat 2.80 3.41
Dasar total
Total 187 66
Negeri 253 615 106 721
Tengahswasta 382 110 492 187
Total 66
Tinggi 253 615 106 721
Umumswasta 382 110 492 187
PengaturanSekolah Total 66
Persepsi 253 615 106 721
Dasar Negeri
swasta 382 110 492 187
total 66
Menengah Publik 253 615 106 721
privat 382 110 492 187
total 66
Tinggi Publik privat 253 615 106 721
total 382 110 492
Sosial Dasar publik privat 66.84 72.35 68.28
Emosional total 68.33 75.4166.20
Pengembangan Menengah Publik 69.37
privat 69.416668.0374
total 74,85 70,85 70,42
Tinggi Publik privat 78,82 71,66 67,12
total 77,54 69,45 33,99
Dasar publik privat 32,11 33,50 33,97
total 34,07 33,99 34,05
Karir Menengah Publik 34,97 34,26 12,46
Pengembangan privat 9,50 11,69 12,54
total 13,02
Tinggi Publik privat
total
Dasar Publik privat 4.09 3.14 3.06 3.13
total 3.41
Menengah Publik 2.81
 Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 187

Program total total 253 615 106 721 11.40 12.38 11.62
Management Middle Public High Public private 382 110 492 5.14 5.20 5.15 5.24
Elementary Public private total 12.33 13.41 12.61 5.07 5.21 5.17 5.19
private 187 66 12.10 12.69 12.18 5.18

one of the central assumptions of MANOVA (ie, homogeneity of variance

covariance matrices) was violated. We found that Box's M was significant
(M = 344.79, p < .001, df = 140). It made more sense to use ANOVAs for
theoretical and statistical reasons.

Results

Series of two-way ANCOVAs were conducted in order to test the impact

of school type and school level of the principals' perspective on school
counsel ing activities by controlling school principals' years of experience.
The first analysis focused on school counseling priorities (SCP). A
significant main effect of school type was found (F(1,1458) = 55.29, p< .
001, η2= .04). School level (F(2,1458) = 1.83, p = .16) and the interaction
of school level and school type (F(2,1458) = .59, p = .56) was not
significant. Principals' experience, which was controlled in this analysis,
was not significant (F(1,1458) = 1.58, p = .21). As seen in Figure 1,
principals of the private schools prioritize and value counseling
significantly more than the principals of the public schools.
The second analysis tested the differences on the school setting
perceptions (SSP). Similar to the school counseling priorities, a significant
main effect of school type was found (F(1, 1458) = 49.93, p< .001, η2=
0.03). School level (F(2, 1458) = 2.10, p = .12) and the interaction of
school level and school type (F(2, 1458) = 1.43, p = .24) was not
significant. Principals' experience, which was controlled in this analysis,
was not significant (F(1, 1458) = .23, p = .63). As seen in Figure 2,
perceptions of the private school principals were signifi
cantly more positive than the public school principals.
When school type and school level were compared on personal–social
development (PSD), there was a significant main effect of school level
(F(2, 1458) = 3.18, p= .04, η2= .01) and marginally significant interaction
effect of school type and school level (F(2, 1458) = 2.88, p= .06, η2= .01).
No sig
nificant effect was found for school type (F(1, 1458) = .11, p = .74) and
prin cipals' experience (F(1, 1458) = 2.90, p = .09). The significant main
effect of school level indicated that emphasis in social-emotional
development signifi cantly increases from the elementary to middle and
high school levels. The
188 Olcay Yavuz et al.
Figure 1. Changes in School Counseling Priorities by School Level and School Type.

Figure 2. Changes in School Setting Perceptions by School Type and School Level.
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 189

significant interaction effect indicates that change in the emphasis in

personal and social development occurs differently in private and high
schools. As seen in Figure 3, there is a remarkable increase in private
schools across school levels whereas the trend is quite stable in the K-12
public schools.
Both school-level main effect (F(2, 1458) = 79.28, p< .001, η2= .10) and
the interaction of school level and school type (F(2, 1458) = 33.07, p< .
001, η2= .04) were significant on career development (CD). No significant
effect was found for school type (F(1, 1458) = .41, p = .52) and principals'
experience (F(1, 1458) = 1.23, p = .27). These findings indicated that
career counseling gets more attention at higher grade levels in both
public and private schools. Additionally the pattern of change in attention
and importance of career counseling varies in public and private schools.
As seen in Figure 4, in the private schools a linear increase was observed
across school levels whereas increase was observed at the high school
level only in the public schools.
Both school type (F(1, 1458) = 5.38, p = .02, η2= .01) and school level
(F(2, 1458) = 30.09, p< .001, η2= .04) had significant main effects on
academic development (AD) activities. Additionally, there was a
significant interaction effect of school type and school level (F(2, 1458) =
26.18, p< .001, η2= .04). No significant effect was found for school
principals' experience (F(1,

Figure 3. Changes on Social and Emotional Development by School Type and

School Level.
190 Olcay Yavuz et al.
Figure 4. Changes in Career Counseling by School Type and School Levels.

1458) = 1.31, p = .25). Focus on academic development is significantly

higher in private schools than in the public schools and in middle and high
school levels than at the elementary school level. Also, academic
development activi ties follow a relatively stable trend in different grade
levels of public schools whereas a remarkable increase was observed
from the elementary and middle and high school levels in private schools
(Figure 5).
Finally, a significant main effect of school type was found for the pro
gram management (F(1, 1458) = 4.40, p= .04, η2= .01). School level (F(2,
1458) = 2.34, p = .10) and the interaction of school level and school type
(F(2, 1458) = .17, p = .84) was not significant. Principals' experience,
which was controlled in this analysis, was not significant (F(1, 1458) =
3.30, p = .07). As seen in Figure 6, principals of the private schools rate
management-related counseling activities significantly more than the
principals of the public schools.

Discussion and Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings are quite striking in terms of the principals' perceptions of

counselors and counseling programs provided to elementary, middle and
high school students in public and private schools. Perceptions of school
counseling priorities, school setting perceptions, academic development,
and
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal
191

Figure 5. Changes in Academic Development by School Type and School Levels.

program management were significantly higher in the private schools

than in the public schools. Perceptions regarding social-emotional
development, career development, and academic development
significantly increased with grade levels. Significant interaction effects of
school type and school level were found for career development and
academic development. A marginally significant interaction effect of
school type and school level was found for social-emotional development.
The results revealed that importance given to school counseling
priorities were significantly higher in the private schools than the public
schools. This finding indicates that based on the principals' perceptions,
counselors serving at the private schools perform better on the set of
activities and tasks defined by the ASCA National Model (2012) than the
public schools. Particularly, the survey results showed that private school
counselors are more likely to work closely with administrators and
teachers on school improvement issues by developing and implementing
prevention programs and professional devel
opment activities. This might imply that private school counselors are
better aligned with the expected counseling functions and probably
provide better service to the students and schools.
192 Olcay Yavuz et al.

Figure 6. Changes in Ongoing Support by School Type and School Levels.

Survey findings also showed that based on school principals' opinions,

private school counselors are more likely to counsel students who have
social and emotional problems in classes. In addition, as perceived by the
school principals, compared to public school counselors, private school
counselors are also more likely to work with faculty and administrators to
improve the school climate. In general, these inconsistent roles of school
counselors among private and public schools support the claim of
Lieberman (2004) that ambiguity and confusion in school counselors'
roles continue to be major issues for school administrators, counselors,
parents, and students. While the majority of school counselors work at
schools with very high student ratios, because of lack of standards in
delivery of counseling services, counselors are more likely to feel
overwhelmed when providing non-counseling activities (Gysbers &
Henderson, 2006).
Since there is very limited published research on investigating the
public and private school principals' perceptions on school counseling
services, the significant differences in principals' priorities and
perceptions on school counseling activities can be explained by both
internal and external factors.
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 193

Compared to public schools, school counselors in private schools have

several advantages. For instance, school counselors can be more
productive in pri vate schools, because these schools usually have a
safer climate, smaller–class sizes, higher moral values, better and flexible
educational environment (Sulku & Abdioglu, 2015). Second, private
schools mostly have upper and upper middle class families with higher
income, and therefore, the private schools' wealthy and educated parents
provide better support for their child's college and career readiness
through collaborating with school counselors and staff (Greene, 2000;
Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006).
Similar to counseling priorities, principals' beliefs and perceptions regard
ing counselors' roles were significantly higher in the private schools than
the public schools. Counselors in the private schools demonstrate the
presumed counselor roles more than the counselors at the public school.
In particular, as it is indicated by the survey results, public school
counselors are less likely to work with teachers and administration to
improve the school climate and they are less likely to be part of key
decision-making teams compared to pri vate school counselors. It is also
reported that public school administrators tend to work less with school
counselors to increase student academic per formance. In other words,
counselors are more likely to be involved in shared decision-making
processes in private schools. These results seem to be con sistent with
Kagan's (2010) findings that compared to the counselors in public schools
private school counselors have significantly higher job satisfaction.
This finding can be also interpreted from the perspective of clarity of
roles and functions defined in private and public school settings. Because
of insuf ficient number of counselors in Turkey, increased amount of
bureaucracy and lack of clear job description in public schools,
counselors are more likely to omit the essential goals and roles of their
profession (Stockton & Güneri, 2011). Even though the American School
Counselor Association recom mends a student and counselor ratio of
250:1, the high counselor-student ratio is a major challenge for many
countries including Turkey. Particularly, based on the Ministry of
Education's statistics, in 2011, the ratio of students to counselors in
elementary and high school appears to be typically about 941:1 and
589:1, respectively. With this very high student and counselor ratio, in
public schools, designing comprehensive student services and providing
ongoing individualized support to prepare every student for college and
career do not seem to be a realistic and feasible practice.
Therefore, because of insufficient number of school counselors, many
schools tend to have poor quality of school counseling services (ASCA,
2012). As Candan and Sezgin (2012) recommended, the Ministry of
National Education should take this situation into consideration. School
leaders and policy makers are encouraged to minimize the student and
counselor ratios to improve academic, career, social, and emotional
development of students. If it is not possible in a short term because of
the budgetary constraints, they are encouraged to explore alternative
ways to maximize the effectiveness of their
194 Olcay Yavuz et al.

current counselors through (a) preparing annual principal and counselor

agreement, (b) designing counseling programs based on the
comprehensive need assessment results, and (c) building strong program
management and accountability systems.
Counselors' involvement in academic development was significantly
stronger in private schools than public schools, and in higher-grade levels
than in lower-grade levels. The significant interaction effect indicated that
the nature of change in emphasis on academic development was different
in the public and private schools. Public school principals emphasized
academic development equally across school levels whereas there was a
linear increase with grade levels in the private school. These results can
be approached from two different perspectives that are of high
socioeconomic status, high parent education level, and high academic
expectations. In other words, since the affluent parents have higher levels
of education and high financial investment on their children's education,
private school leaders, teachers, and counselors might feel themselves
more responsible to set up higher academic expecta tions for the
students than those in public schools.
Furthermore, increase in academic development with grade level could
be related to the fact that pressures of standardized, nation-wide exams,
become more obvious in the higher grades levels. The stakes and
outcomes of such standardized tests are much higher and high school
students' critical career decisions are influenced by their academic
performance. Moreover, the com
petition in the tests shows an increasing trend (Owen, Cayirdag, Yalim, &
Demirli, 2015). This validates the survey results which indicated why coun
selors in private schools spend more time in academic development
activities such as educational program planning, improving students'
school success, study skills, and test-taking strategies.
With the implementation of new faculty evaluation and accountability
standards in education, there has been a significant focus on data-based
decision-making, standardized testing, common core curriculum, and
closing the achievement gap. Furthermore, accountability has become a
driving force in designing and leading comprehensive school counseling
services and action plans to create a positive learning environment for
student success (Dahir & Stone, 2012). The implementation of
standardized testing and accountability standards can be considered as
another contributing factor why school coun
selors are encouraged to focus on improving academic development.
Based on the study's findings, career development also showed an
interest ing pattern. The emphasis in career development increased
significantly with grade levels, but this difference was more clear in
private schools. There was a linear and marked change on career
development in the private schools whereas public schools showed a
stable pattern between the elementary and middle schools and an
increased pattern at the high school level. It seems that the standardized
nation-wide tests and the competition in college and career readiness
encourage both public and private school counselors on the area
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 195

of career development. Since many students make serious college and

career decisions at the high school level, it is not surprising to see that
high school counselor are significantly more likely to help students
identify their future educational and career options than middle and
elementary level counselors. In high school years, counselors also work
with students individually or in groups on college and career planning
activities (ASCA, 2012).
Moreover, since many schools are accountable to improve students' col
lege readiness, school counselors are expected to collaborate with school
principals to serve as advocates for improving college and career
readiness of all. Providing comprehensive school counseling programs
and removing barriers to access to learning paths for college and career
readiness for all students can be considered as building skills that are so
important for student success (Holcomb-McCoy 2011). Developing these
skills for all students' achievement is not an easy task. Preparing all
students to become college and career-ready and establishing a college-
going culture require effective partnership as well as high-qualified and
trained counselors and leaders who are knowledgeable in evidence-
based counseling services (Sexton, 1999; McDonough & McClafferty,
2000; Yavuz, 2014). Unfortunately, in Turkey, instead of having high-
qualified school counselors, the insufficient number of school counselors
has led to the need for other professional fields such as sociology,
education, and philosophy to try to fulfill the role of professional
counselors (Stockton & Güneri, 2011).
Recently, instead of requiring extensive school counseling education in
undergraduate, master's and professional development degrees, Ministry
of Education in Turkey requires individuals only to attend short training
pro grams to become a school counselor. While the Turkish education
system is increasing the number of counselors in K-12 schools through
recruiting educators from other field without having proper counseling or
training, they have been significantly decreasing the quality of counseling
services because these individuals do not possess the necessary
knowledge and skills to pro vide proper help to meet the academic,
career, social, and emotional needs of students. Therefore, in order to
meet the demands of the next generation, to prepare all students for
college and career. The Turkish Ministry of National Education is
encouraged to provide a framework, a national model such as the ASCA
National Model, and develop high standards for both counselor educators
and K-12 school counseling programs.
Besides academic and career development activities, findings showed
that counselors' social-emotional development–related activities also
increased with grade level and the interaction effect indicated that this
change is confined to private schools. Public schools indicated a stable
pattern. This finding can be approached in different ways. First, it could
be argued that counselors at the private schools become more
responsive to the personal and social needs of their students as they
grow. Second, it could also be asserted that counselors follow an
interventionist and crisis management approach
196 Olcay Yavuz et al.

rather than developmental and preventive approach given the fact that
per sonal and social issues become more common at the higher school
level. For example, during high school years, students are more likely to
face personal and social issues such as substance abuse, harassment,
intimidation, bullying
issues, and youth suicide (Coskun, Zoroglu, & Ghaziuddin, 2012). Since
starting from kindergarten, every child needs a professional support and
guidance for his or her academic, career, social, and emotional develop
ment. It is essential that in collaboration with key stakeholders, school
leaders design and lead comprehensive K-12 school counseling services
that support every student's success. Therefore, the results suggest that
instead of focusing solely on high school students' academic and career
development, public school policies should be established to provide K-
12 pipeline in delivering standard based academic and counseling
services. Second, starting from the elementary school, besides school-
wide activities, school leaders, and counselors should find strategies to
deliver personalized student learning plans and academic advising for
each and every student. Finally, as both College Board (2012) and
Educational Policy Improvement Center (2011) recommend all students'
academic plans, college and career aspirations should begin to crystallize
in elementary and middle school years, ongoing and systemic K-12
training series should be offered to school leaders, counselors, and key
stakeholders to establish K-12 ongoing comprehensive school counseling
programs. Program management and system support were also
significantly higher in the private schools. It seems that private school
counselors are more involved in non-counseling responsibilities than
public schools. School leaders in the private schools might not properly
balance the counseling and non-counsel ing tasks of school counselors
because of their lack of information about com prehensive and
transformed school counseling activities. Therefore, private school
counselors are more likely to involve in non-counseling tasks such as the
coordination of assessments and exams and the clerical aspects of
record keeping and scheduling.
Instead of assigning non-counseling responsibilities, Turkish school
leaders should encourage school counselors to design and implement
comprehensive school counseling programs to meet the diverse
developmental needs of all students. If counselors do not waste their time
on non-counseling assign
ments, they will be more likely to respond effectively to the crises or peer
conflicts occurring during the routine school day. If counselors have
proper support from school administrators, they can also collaboratively
design and lead comprehensive school counseling programs to help
students' academic, social-emotional development (Yavuz, 2016).
Overall, the results described in this article support the assumption that
private schools provide more proactive school counseling activities than
do public schools to improve their students' academic, career, social and
emotional, development. Since private school principals reported higher
scores than the public school principals for the school counselors'
delivery of
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 197

academic, career development, priorities and perceptions on school

counsel ing activities, the study suggests building systemic partnership
among K-12 public and private schools. For instance, the Turkish Ministry
of National Education can encourage school leaders and counselors to
establish school counseling mentoring programs among public and
private schools. Also, a platform could be established for common
planning time among public and private school leaders and counselors. In
these platforms, both public and private school leaders can have the
opportunity of sharing their best practices and resources. The Ministry of
National Education can also deliver common professional development
series among public and private schools on design
ing and leading effective comprehensive student services. At the end, all
these efforts could contribute to build common policies, standards,
protocols, accountability system, action plans, and calendars for delivery
of effective counseling services in both Turkish K-12 private and public
schools. IJER

References
American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA national model: A
frame work for school counseling programs (3rd edition). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Aslan, M., & Bakir, AA (2014). Resmi ve özel okul öğretmenlerinin paylaşılan
liderliğe ilişkin görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1). Bailey,
DB (2001). Evaluating parent involvement and family support in early inter vention
and preschool programs. Journal of Early intervention, 24(1), 1–14. Başaran, M.
(2008). İlköğretim okullarındaki yönetici ve sınıf rehber öğretmenlerininpsikolojik
danışma ve rehberlik faaliyetlerinden beklentileri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans
Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul
Berger, SL (2014). College planning for gifted students: Choosing and getting into
the right college. Sourcebooks, Inc..
Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). Comparing Private Schools and Public
Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. NCES 2006–461.National Center
for Education Statistics.
Bruce, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2012). 2012 National Survey of School Counselors:
True North—Charting the Course to College and Career Readiness. College
Board Advocacy & Policy Center.
Burnham, JJ, & Jackson, CM (2000). School Counselor Roles: Discrepancies
between Actual Practice and Existing Models. Professional school counseling,
4(1), 41–49.
Camadan, F., & Sezgin, F. (2012). İlköğretim Okulu Müdürlerinin Okul Rehberlik
Hizmetlerine İlişkin Görüşleri Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma. Türk Psikolojik
Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(38), 199–211.
Carrell, SE, & Carrell, SA (2006). Do lower student to counselor ratios reduce
school disciplinary problems?. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,
5(1). Cates, JT, & Schaefle, SE (2011). The relationship between a college
preparation program and at-risk students' college readiness. Journal of Latinos
and Education, 10(4), 320–334.
198 Olcay Yavuz et al.
Chubb, JE, & Moe, TM (1990). America's public schools: Choice is a panacea.
The Brookings Review, 8(3), 4–12.
College Board, American School Counselor Association, & National Association
of Secondary School Principals (2009). A closer look at the principal-counselor
relationship a survey of principals and counselors. Authors: New York.
Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and
pri vate schools. Sociology of Education, 65–76.
Coskun, M., Zoroglu, S. & Ghaziuddin, N. (2012): Suicide Rates among Turkish
and American Youth: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, Archives of Suicide
Research, 16:1, 59–72
Dahir, C., Burnham, J., Stone, C., & Cobb, N. (2010). Principal as partners and
coun selors as collaborators. NASSP Bulletin, v.94(4), 286–305.
Dahir, CA, & Stone, CB (2003). Accountability: A MEASURE of the impact school
counselors have on student achievement. Professional School Counseling, 6(3),
214–221. Dahir, CA & Stone, CB (2012). The transformed school counselor, (2nd
edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Davis, TE (2014). Exploring school counseling. Cengage Belajar. Dogan, S.
(2000). The historical development of counseling in Turkey. International Journal
for the Advancement of Counselling, 22(1), 57–67.
Glenn, EE (1998). Counseling children and adolescents with disabilities.
Professional School Counseling, 2(1),
Goodman-Scott, E., Betters-Bubon, J., & Donohue, P. (2015). Aligning Compre
hensive School Counseling Programs and Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports to Maximize School Counselors' Efforts. Professional School
Counseling, 19(1), 57–67.
Greeley, AM (1982). Catholic high schools and minority students. Penerbit
Transaksi. Greene, JP (2000). The effect of school choice: An evaluation of the
charlotte chil dren's scholarship fund program. Civic Report, 12, 1–15.
Gysbers, NC, & Henderson, P. (2001). Comprehensive guidance and counseling
programs: A rich history and a bright future. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
53, 647–652.
Henderson, P., & Gysbers, NC (2006). Providing administrative and counseling
supervision for school counselors. VISTAS: Compelling perspectives on
counseling, 161–163.
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2011). A smoother transition for black teens. Educational
Lead ership, 68(7), 59–63.
Hooker, S., & Brand, B. (2009, October). Success at Every Step: How 23
Programs Support Youth on the Path to College and beyond. In American
Youth Policy Forum. American Youth Policy Forum. 1836 Jefferson Place NW,
Washington, DC 20036.
Janson, C., & Militello, M. (2009). Ke mana kita pergi dari sini? Eight elements of
effective school counselor-principal relationships. In F. Connolly & N. Protheroe
(Eds.), The school principal field manual for working with counselors (pp. 159–
164). Washington, DC: Educational Research Service and Naviance, Inc.
Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of
Educa tion, 84(3), 318–330.
Kagan, M. (2010). Research on school counselors' job satisfactions working at
state and private elementary schools, and guidance and research centers in
Ankara. Journal of Education Faculty, 12(1), 39–55.
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 199

Karatas, Z., & Baltaci, H. Ş. (2013). Ortaöğretim Kurumlarında Yürütülen

Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Hizmetlerine Yönelik Okul Müdürü, Sınıf
Rehber Öğretmeni, Öğrenci ve Okul Rehber Öğretmeninin (Psikolojik
Danışman) Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi*. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2).
Lapan, TR (2012). Comprehensive School Counseling Programs: In Some
Schools for Some Students But Not in All Schools for All Students. Professional
School Coun seling, 16(2), doi: 10.5330/PSC.n.2012–16.84.
Lieberman, JE (2004). The early college high school concept: Requisites for
success. Retrieved from
http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/publications/ECHSConcept.pdf. Lotkowski,
VA, Robbins, SB, & Noeth, RJ (2004). The Role of Academic and Non-Academic
Factors in Improving College Retention. ACT Policy Report. American College
Testing ACT Inc.
Lubienski, ST, & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement:
A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. AERA, 43(4), 651–698. Myrick,
RD (2003). Accountability: Counselors count. Professional School Counseling,
6(3), 174–179.
National Office for School Counselor Advocacy. (2010). Eight components for
college and career readiness. In Martin, P. (p. 6). New York, NY: College Board.
Owen, D., Cayirdag, N., Yalin, D., & Demirli Yoraz, A, (2015). Western
Counseling Models in Modern Turkey [Modern Türkiye'de Batılı Psikolojik
Danışma Model leri]. In F. Kurter & JS Mattis (Eds.) Practitioners' View of Multi-
Culturism in Turkey, (pp. 87–113), Istanbul: Bahcesehir University Press.
Özabacı, N., Sakarya, N., & Dogan, M. (2008). The evaluation of the school
adminis trators' thoughts about the counseling and guidance services in their
own schools. Balıkesir University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences,
11(19), 8–22.
Perna, LW, & Titus, MA (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as
social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group dif
ferences. Journal of Higher Education, 485–518.
Perna, LW, & Thomas, SL (2008). Theoretical perspectives on student success:
Understanding the contributions of the disciplines (Vol. 34). San Francisco,
CA:Wiley Periodicals
Ponec, DL, & Brock, BL (2000). Relationships among elementary school counsel
ors and principals: A unique bond. Professional School Counseling, 3(3), 208.
Sexton, TL (1999). Evidence-based counseling: Implications for counseling
practice, prepa ration, and professionalism. Clearinghouse on Counseling and
Student Services. Sulkua, SN, & Abdioglub, Z. (2015). Public and Private School
Distinction, Regional Development Differences, and Other Factors Influencing the
Success of Primary School Students in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 2, 419–431. Stockton, R., & Güneri, OY (2011). Counseling in Turkey:
An evolving field. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(1), 98–104.
Taşkaya, SM, & Kurt, Y. (2010). The opinions of primary school teachers about
school guidance services at primary schools. In Paper was presented at the
Inter national Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications,
Antalya, Turkey.
The Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education (2009), The Roles and
Respon sibilities of Psychological Counselor and Guidance, Official
Communications Journal, Ankara.
200 Olcay Yavuz et al.

The Council of Higher Education (2014). Higher Education System in Turkey,

Ankara.
Ultanis, Emel (2005). Türkiye'de Psikolojik Danisma ve Rehberlik (PDR) Meslegi
veP sikolojik Danisman Egitimi, Mersin Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt
1, Sayi 1, Haziran 2005, ss. 102–111.
Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational
Psy chologist, 45(2), 107–122.
Wilkerson, K., Pérusse, R., & Hughes, A. (2013). Comprehensive school
counseling programs and student achievement outcomes: A comparative
 analysis of RAMP versus non-RAMP schools. Professional School Counseling,
16(3), 172–184.
Yavuz, Olcay (2014). Yavuz, O. (2014). Improving college readiness, pursuit,
access and persistence of disadvantaged students (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data base. (UMI No.
3637774)
Yavuz, Olcay (2016). Exploring the Impacts of School Reforms on
Underrepresented Urban Students' College Persistence. Educational Research
and Evaluation. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2016.1261715.

�
Olcay Yavuz is assistant professor and EDL 092/6th Year program
coordinator in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies at Southern Connecticut State University. He has extensive
teaching, counseling, and leadership experience in K-12 public school
settings. Dr. Yavuz's research focuses on improving school ef
fectiveness and student success through innovative school reforms and
comprehensive PD models. Dr. Yavuz worked at New York University
and Rutgers University and helped many schools to implement and
assess research-supported educational programs.

Nur Cayirdag received her PhD in counseling psychology and earned her
second MA degree in Gifted and Creative Education. Her most recent
works appeared in the Journal of Adolescence, Encyclopedia of
Creativity, Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children,
and Researching Creative Learning: Methods and Approaches. She
contributed several projects organized by the Torrance Center for
Creativity and Talent Development and Counseling and Human
Development Services at the University of Georgia as well as
International Center for Studies in Creativity at the Buffalo State College.

Carol Dahir, chair of School Counseling at NYIT, has extensive

experience working with state departments of education, school systems,
school counselor associations, and organizations. She served as the
project director for the ASCA's National Standards and Planning for Life
initiative and on the governing boards for the ASCA and the NCDA. Dr.
Dahir continues to focus her writing, research, and presentations on
comprehensive school counseling programs, college and career
readiness, accountabil
ity, principal–counselor relationships, cultural competence, and
continuous improve ment for school counselors.
Improving Student Achievement through Strengthening Principal 201

Ali İlker Gümüşeli is professor and founding dean of School of Education

at Okan University and his research focuses on instructional leadership
and conflict management in schools. As a school leader educator, for
over three decades, he has extensive experience in preparing and
training school leaders for effective leadership and school improvement.
Besides his university and departmental leadership roles, Dr. Gümüşeli
also served as an executive board member and vice president of the
Ministry of National Education in Turkey.