this criterion in any exact way, however, because there are no reliable figures with regard to it. Standards for certification vary from State to State, so that numbers of certified counselors in different places cannot be meaningfully compared. In high schools where part-time teacher-counselors constitute most or all of the guidance staff, both the amount of time devoted to counseling and the level of training of the counselors vary so widely that it is difficult to combine available data in meaningful ways. Therefore, while the U.S. Office of Education representatives, in making decisions about contracts, know in a general way the areas of greatest need, they have no means for evaluating this factor precisely.

Table 6.-Institute Participation Ratios Compared With Proportion of 18-21 Age Group in College

Table 6.—Institute Participation Ratios Compared With Proportion of 18-21 Age Group in College—Con.

1 Figures in this column were taken from material presented on Feb. 27, 1958, to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 85th Cong., by Dael Wolfle, Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Hearings before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, "Science and Education for National Defense," 85th Cong., 2d sess., 1958, p. 574.

What cannot be done on a national scale, however, can often be done accurately in a limited region. Thus the burden of responsibility for making sure that need for counselors is given its proper weight must fall mainly to the institutions sending in proposals for institutes. Whatever evidence a college or university can collect on this point can become an important element of the "needs" section as presented in its proposal. If the proposed institute seems to meet the needs for guidance services in an area, this fact will carry considerable weight in the final decision on the proposal.

mm

It would not have been possible, within the framework of the cooperative, several-stage procedures in making decisions, to insure that the distribution of institutes and enrollees would be completely equitable during the first year of the program. It will be more possible to work this out over the total 4-year period for which the NDEA legislation provides. It is the responsibility of the persons administering this program in the U.S. Office of Education to make good decisions about the location of institutes, taking all relevant factors into consideration. A fair geographical distribution is just one of these factors. What the enrollment data for the first summer's Counseling and Guidance Training Institutes do indicate clearly is that all parts of the country were served and that there was no serious overconcentration of benefits in any one area.

CHAPTER 5

Staff and Program

Faculties

TH

HE FIRST CONSIDERATION of the actual operation of the Counseling and Guidance Training Institutes might be the information about the faculties: the directors were persons with excellent professional qualifications; all held doctor's degrees, and 86 percent held academic positions at the associate professor level or higher; 94 percent were members of the American Psychological Association, the American Personnel and Guidance Association, or both.

The total number of regular faculty members listed in the technical reports of the institutes is 254, not including consultants and special lecturers. In some cases, the reports do not make clear just what fraction of each person's time was devoted to institute activities. Thus our estimate of the number of full-time staff positions required for the total program is only approximate, somewhat more than 200. By dividing the number of enrollees, 2,210, by this figure, an overall student-staff ratio of about 10 or 11 to 1 is obtained. This is a rather meaningless index, however, as the objectives of the individual institutes were so different that staff needs varied widely. One large institute without a practicum, for example, handled 100 enrollees with a staff of 5 faculty members and 5 graduate students. Another institute of a different type, with a very heavy emphasis on supervised practice, used 5 faculty members to instruct 24 enrollees.

The academic fields represented by the faculty members are also of some interest. With regard to their regular teaching appointments, by far the largest number came from college of education faculties, and the next largest from departments of psychology and educational psychology. Academic appointments of some faculty members were in departments specifically labeled "counseling" or "guidance," and a few whose appointments were in administration, testing, or actual counseling work.

It must be recognized, however, that the department in which a person holds his academic appointment is not a very accurate indicator of his professional affiliation. The administrative patterns of colleges and universities are so different that the same background of education and experience may in one place go with the title professor of education; in another, professor of psychology; and in still another, director of counselor training. Psychologists actually played a larger part in the institute program than suggested by their second-place rank based on department affiliation. Of the 254 faculty members in the institutes, 161 are members of the American Psychological Association. The kind of training most of the institutes were trying to provide seems to fall within an area where psychology and education. overlap. Persons who possess this kind of specialized knowledge, whether they identify themselves with psychology or with education faculties, have the most to contribute to counselor education. As suggested in a later chapter of this report, the bridging of what in some colleges is a large gap between education and psychology departments may be one of the significant indirect effects of the institute program. The consultants and special lecturers were drawn from a much wider variety of backgrounds and positions. Almost all of the institutes made use of such special contributors, but there was great diversity in the extent to which they were used. Some listed only 1 or 2, others more than 20 supplementary speakers.

The great majority of these auxiliary faculty members were college professors. As with the regular staff, there were more representatives from education than from any other school or department, but psychologists, if we include educational psychologists, again made up almost as large a group. The numbers from any one area or department, other than education and psychology, are very small, but the areas themselves are numerous. Sociology and anthropology, chemistry, agriculture, physics, mathematics, engineering, zoology, genetics, psychiatry, finance, political science, speech, foreign language, music, drama, and art, as well as a number of other fields of knowledge, were represented in one institute or another. Other nonteaching members of university staffs were also widely used for supplementary lectures. Many of them were counselors or student personnel workers, but deans, directors of testing programs, and directors of speech and reading clinics—to name only a few—were among these participants. The next most numerous category of the auxiliary faculty included public school workers of many kinds. Directors of guidance services were often called upon, and principals and superintendents, school psychologists, and directors of special programs, some of whom were local, and some State officials.