It is incomprehensible that school districts are rushing to hire social workers while educational standards are dropping across the nation. In some districts, the budgets for social services staff are higher than those for hiring additional instructional staff; or for purchasing new science books for sixth grade classes; or for funding quality training in reading instruction for teachers.
Some schools have gone so far as to replace school guidance counselors, who are trained in educational testing, advising and counseling; with young social workers lacking any background in the field of education. Some districts allow first-year social workers to train intern social workers. Some districts allow the various social and vocational activities planned by these young and inexperienced social workers, to take priority over the educational needs of the students, and the instructional plans of the teachers. In some districts, students are traveling to neighboring schools to beg assistance from real high school counselors who actually know who to file forms and fill out applications.
Many wonder what lies behind such decisions, made during this time of crisis in American education; in this time of grade inflation and academic deflation. The lack of student knowledge and thought processes puts the nation greatly at risk. Our freedoms, and the future decisions for this country, rest upon the shoulders of poorly educated students coming out of our schools. American students are failing to learn…and the districts hire social workers. Go figure. Or rather, “Fiddle, Nero, fiddle.”
High school counselors have traditionally handled high school counseling responsibilities in effective, reasonable ways. They have known how to assist students in filing applications for colleges, scholarships, ACT/SAT testing. They have known how to be alert to potential scholarships and have kept seniors aware of opportunities and filing dates. Guidance counselors have been trained in testing and evaluation procedures so that test taking, and test results, can be handled with integrity and professionalism. For example, counselors are trained to put space between test takers, and to walk the aisles, monitoring to prevent talking or cheating.
I used to proctor for MENSA, so have experience with group testing procedures, and I do extensive individual testing and evaluation at my clinic. However, when I noticed students seated side-by-side while taking the Michigan MEAP test, I made the mistake of offering assistance to a young social worker. I thought that this counselor-replacement must be stressed at having to seat three students at each small, round table, making it difficult for students NOT to cheat, so I stopped to help. I explained that the retired high school counselor had always found the custodial staff very nice about setting up long tables for test days. The new employee made it clear that she was not worried about the seating or cheating, and she complained to the principal that my ‘behavior’ was pressuring her. I received a stern reprimand and inadvertently learned that the district’s hiring change, from educational guidance counselors to social workers, was not based on any criteria that included skill and integrity in administering precision test instruments.
Some might wonder if this hiring change could have come about because of a shortage of trained school guidance counselors, but that seems not to be the case. I know of one tenured, caring, capable, teacher who spent years commuting to a state university to take classes for a master’s degree in high school counseling. Everyone in her building knew that counseling was her deep interest, and that she was doing the degree on a timeline that would coincide with the retirement of a senior counselor. The teacher completed the new degree in time to apply for the vacant position, but she lost the job to an inexperienced social worker, untrained in school-related needs. So I learned another lesson – that not even loyalty to long-term, well-trained, hardworking staff members was reason enough to avert the district’s new policy of filling the ranks with social workers.
Stress and dissatisfaction grows among and between staff, since these new social workers, and their social agendas, are becoming priorities in some districts. One soon learns to never question the usefulness of these new employees, their positions or their projects. Many are almost joined-at-the-hip with the young principals, while teachers who have lovingly taught students for decades are treated as liabilities; as used goods; as unnecessary and unwelcome staff members. Teachers sense that plans are secretly being made to replace we old knowledge-based dinosaurs with more social workers, or at least with the new kind of educators – those who believe in social leveling more than in teaching knowledge, and thinking skills to students.
So – if these decisions to hire social workers, rather than instructional staff or guidance counselors, are not based on the need to improve the educational standards and academic achievements in American schools; if these decisions are not based on possession of special skills in proctoring the increasing number of standardized tests now required by law; if these decisions have not been forced by an inability to find certified and trained guidance counselors; – then what could possibly explain hiring decisions that not only detract from, but further harm American schooling?
MONEY! Yes, I suspect that if one knew exactly where to look, one would learn that all reasons lead back to funding. I suspect that somewhere within the Clintons’ “Goals 2000” attempt to implement the cradle-to-grave agenda within the schools; one can find federal funds for partial, even total, reimbursement for any expenses involved in hiring school social workers. Consider the savings for a school district – they save the cost of a guidance counselor’s salary and benefits, while receiving a ‘free’ social worker – a warm body, at least; a gain in adult-to-child ratio; at least ‘on paper.’
Might the Clintons’ School-to-Work program be funding the new social workers being hired as career counselors? Where else would school districts get such funding? If schools could truly afford additional personnel, why would they not, considering the shocking and embarrassing rates of illiteracy and failure in American schools, hire reading specialists, instead?
Schools are not meant to be altruistic institutions; they are meant to be educational establishments. It simply does not make sense that school boards would willingly, without federal financial bait, hire social workers, untrained in any aspect that would contribute to the improvement of academic standards. Money. Federal Money. Nothing else explains such seemingly inexplicable expenditures made by supposedly financially strapped school districts.
February 17, 2003
