By Dr. Kimberlee Ratliff
Program Director, M.Ed. School Counseling at American Public University
As a counselor educator, I prepare future professional school counselors who are committed to improving the lives of children. I was therefore alarmed to learn of a decision by the Ohio State Board of Education to remove a rule that required at least five student support personnel for every 1,000 students. Equally troubling was that school counselors were listed among a limited menu of roles administrators could choose from—alongside school nurses, library media specialists, elementary art teachers, music or physical education teachers, social workers, and visiting teachers—forcing a false choice among essential supports.
Framing these roles as interchangeable ignores the reality that children have multiple, simultaneous needs: medical, academic, career, social, and emotional. They also need opportunities for creativity and physical activity. The goal of K–12 education is to help students grow into productive, well-rounded citizens. Reducing the presence of services that support students’ whole development because their impact is not directly measured by a single standardized test undermines that mission.
Research over recent years consistently shows that school counselors improve student outcomes. Carey and Harrington (2010) found associations between school counseling and gains in math and reading proficiency, higher attendance and graduation rates, reduced disciplinary incidents, and increased participation and scores on the ACT. These outcomes are meaningful indicators of student success beyond narrow test metrics.
What matters most for positive outcomes? The research points to factors practitioners already recognize: lower student-to-counselor ratios, faithful implementation of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) National Model, and a stronger emphasis on career development. These elements form a blueprint for effective school counseling programs and for supporting students’ academic, career, and social-emotional growth.
Despite clear guidance from the ASCA National Model and evidence of impact, school counselors still face inappropriate role assignments and threats to their positions. Many are tasked with non-counseling duties that limit their ability to deliver interventions aligned with the National Model. In far too many schools, caseloads far exceed the recommended ratio of 1 counselor to 250 students, which undermines counselors’ capacity to produce meaningful change.
This situation calls for action at multiple levels. School administrators must support counselors in developing and implementing comprehensive programs that follow the ASCA National Model. State legislatures and education policymakers should fund and prioritize hiring school counselors rather than treating them as optional. Schools should expand career counseling services so students receive guidance that prepares them for postsecondary education and the workforce. School counselors are not merely “student support personnel”; they are essential staff who contribute directly to academic and career achievement as well as to students’ social and emotional development.
There would likely be significant public outcry if a school were expected to operate without a principal. A similar response should arise when districts consider operating without professionals who attend to students’ health, emotional, and developmental needs. Even if policy changes claim to provide flexibility, signaling that roles such as nurses, counselors, social workers, librarians, and arts and physical education teachers are optional sends a damaging message about their value.
Moreover, removing staffing safeguards risks widening inequities. Less affluent districts, already constrained by limited budgets, are most likely to forgo hiring counselors, nurses, or social workers first. That outcome would create a social justice concern: access to comprehensive school counseling might become available only to schools that can afford it, deepening disparities in supports and outcomes across communities.
Leaving critical staffing decisions solely to building administrators also raises concerns. Without clear expectations and adequate resources, many counselors will continue to be diverted to non-counseling tasks, limiting their positive impact on students. As educators committed to evidence-based practice, we should prioritize strategies that the research shows work—reducing student-to-counselor ratios, fully implementing the ASCA National Model, and expanding career development programming.
In short, school counselors matter. Investing in qualified counselors and supporting comprehensive, data-driven counseling programs is a practical, research-supported direction for education reform. It will help schools meet students’ academic, career, and social-emotional needs and promote equitable opportunities for all learners.
References
Carey, J. C., & Harrington, K. M. (2010). Nebraska school counseling evaluation report. Amherst, MA: Center for School Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation.
Carey, J. C., & Harrington, K. M. (2010). Utah school counseling evaluation report. Amherst, MA: Center for School Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation.
About the Author
Dr. Kimberlee Ratliff holds an Ed.D. in Counseling Psychology, an M.Ed. in School Counseling, and a B.S. in Psychology. She has been with American Public University since September 2010 and serves as an associate professor and program director of School Counseling. She is a National Certified Counselor (NCC), a National Certified School Counselor (NCSC), a K–12 certified school counselor (VA), and a Trauma and Loss School Specialist with 12 years of experience as an elementary and middle school counselor.