{"title":"从制度理论的角度理解推荐学生与咨询师比例的持久性","authors":"Tara P. Nicola","doi":"10.1177/00220574231182328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades the American School Counselor Association has recommended that schools employ one counselor for every 250 students, but there is limited evidence the policy promotes student success. This article investigates the origins of the 60-year-old recommendation, examining how and why it has persisted. Drawing on historical documents, it reconstructs how the 250 number was derived during the 1950s and then uses a framework of institutionalization within organizational fields to explain how the ratio became cemented within and beyond the counseling field. By highlighting how the 250-to-1 recommendation is an anachronism, this article raises questions about its continued relevance.","PeriodicalId":15568,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the Recommended Student-To-Counselor Ratio’s Persistence: An Institutional Theory Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Tara P. Nicola\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00220574231182328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For decades the American School Counselor Association has recommended that schools employ one counselor for every 250 students, but there is limited evidence the policy promotes student success. This article investigates the origins of the 60-year-old recommendation, examining how and why it has persisted. Drawing on historical documents, it reconstructs how the 250 number was derived during the 1950s and then uses a framework of institutionalization within organizational fields to explain how the ratio became cemented within and beyond the counseling field. By highlighting how the 250-to-1 recommendation is an anachronism, this article raises questions about its continued relevance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574231182328\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574231182328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
几十年来,美国学校顾问协会(American School Counselor Association)一直建议学校为每250名学生聘请一名顾问,但这项政策促进学生成功的证据有限。本文调查了这个已有60年历史的建议的起源,研究了它是如何以及为什么被坚持下来的。根据历史文献,它重建了250这个数字是如何在20世纪50年代产生的,然后使用组织领域内的制度化框架来解释这个比例是如何在咨询领域内外得到巩固的。通过强调250比1的推荐是多么的不合时宜,本文提出了关于其持续相关性的问题。
Understanding the Recommended Student-To-Counselor Ratio’s Persistence: An Institutional Theory Perspective
For decades the American School Counselor Association has recommended that schools employ one counselor for every 250 students, but there is limited evidence the policy promotes student success. This article investigates the origins of the 60-year-old recommendation, examining how and why it has persisted. Drawing on historical documents, it reconstructs how the 250 number was derived during the 1950s and then uses a framework of institutionalization within organizational fields to explain how the ratio became cemented within and beyond the counseling field. By highlighting how the 250-to-1 recommendation is an anachronism, this article raises questions about its continued relevance.