Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookluna.

com

(eBook PDF) Web Development and Design Foundations

with HTML 7th

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-web-development-and-
design-foundations-with-html-7th/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookluna.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

(eBook PDF) Web Development and Design Foundations with

HTML5 8th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-web-development-and-design-
foundations-with-html5-8th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Responsive Web Design with HTML 5 & CSS 9th
Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-responsive-web-design-with-
html-5-css-9th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Web Development and Design Foundations with

HTML5 9th Edition by Terry Felke-Morris

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-web-development-and-design-
foundations-with-html5-9th-edition-by-terry-felke-morris/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Learning Web Design: A Beginner's Guide to

HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Web Graphics 5th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-learning-web-design-a-
beginners-guide-to-html-css-javascript-and-web-graphics-5th-edition/

ebookluna.com
(eBook PDF) Full Stack Development with JHipster: Build
modern web applications and microservices with Spring and
Angular
https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-full-stack-development-with-
jhipster-build-modern-web-applications-and-microservices-with-spring-
and-angular/
ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Product Design and Development 7th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-product-design-and-
development-7th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Translational Medicine in CNS Drug

Development, Volume 29

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-translational-medicine-in-cns-
drug-development-volume-29/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Basics of Web Design: Html5 & Css3 4th Revised

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-basics-of-web-design-
html5-css3-4th-revised/

ebookluna.com

Web design introductory. Sixth Edition / Jennifer T.

Campbell - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/web-design-introductory-ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com
Introduction

For educators, the challenge of ensuring a future workforce that is ready to compete in a global economy persists. Although
the graduation rate rose by nearly a percentage point from 2015 to 2016, from 83.2 percent to 84.1 percent, the United States
still suffers from a high school “drop out problem” and an overall achievement gap based on students’ ethnic and income
backgrounds (US Department of Education, 2018). Essentially, the achievement and/or opportunity gaps in the United States
have resulted in college enrollment gaps—low income students, and students of color (primarily African American, Native
American, and Latino/Hispanic students) attend and graduate from college disproportionately compared to their white, Asian,
and affluent peers (Baum & Payea, 2005; US Department of Education, 2018). This is a critical problem, given that many of the
fastest-growing jobs in the United States require some form of postsecondary education (US Department of Commerce,
2017). As such, a key factor in our nation’s ability to compete in an increasingly global economy is the rate in which we can
prepare students for entry into postsecondary institutions.

For educators, the challenge of ensuring a future workforce that is

ready to compete in a global economy persists.

In response to labor market needs, there has been an unparalleled development of college and career readiness initiatives
across the United States. A major component in these initiatives is the deployment of college counseling. The literature
contains a plethora of articles, books, and studies indicating the positive influence of counseling (if accessible) when
promoting college-going, college access, particularly for first-generation college students and students of color (Nikischer,
Weis, & Dominguez, 2016; Gandara & Bial, 2001; Woods & Domina, 2014). According to a study conducted by Velez (2016)
and published by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), 12th graders who talked to a school
counselor about their future plans were 6.8 times more likely to complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA);
3.2 times more likely to attend college and 2 times more likely to attend a bachelor’s degree program.
However, the empirical examination of college counseling in K–12 settings is relatively new. Major questions that arise when
discussing counseling to enhance K–12 students’ college and career readiness have to do with the accessibility of counseling,
who conducts the counseling, to whom counseling will be available, and the impact of counseling on actual student behavior
and progress (e.g., rate of college going, college retention). Additionally, with the increasingly diverse student population in
today’s K–12 schools, the notion what constitutes effective or good college counseling with diverse populations of students
and families is a critical question that must be answered in order to ensure equitable access to college for all (Holcomb-
McCoy, 2007; Savitz-Romer, 2012).
Given the urgency to address the aforementioned issues, a variety of contextual factors influence the efficacy of counseling,
particularly college counseling conducted in schools. The remainder of this chapter will provide a historical overview of
counseling, followed by a discussion of contextual factors that possibly impede effective college counseling. Trends and future
directions will also be discussed. As a note, most private schools and some public high schools have designated “college
counselors.” The “typical public high school” has a guidance department, consisting of school counselors who all perform
college counseling tasks in addition to other counseling-related duties (e.g., scheduling, crisis counseling, drop-out prevention
programming). There are also community-based “college counselors” and college preparation organizations that provide
college counseling and/or coaching. For the sake of clarity, in this chapter, college counseling refers to all of these scenarios.

Historical Overview of Counseling

Professional counseling continues to evolve in response to social, educational, political, and economic trends. In October
2010, the American Counseling Association (ACA) Governing Council approved the following definition of counseling:

Counseling is a professional relationship that empowers diverse individuals, families, and groups to accomplish mental
health, wellness, education, and career goals (American Counseling Association, 2019).

Several researchers have cited the evolution of vocational guidance and psychology to transformative school counseling
(Cobia & Henderson, 2003; Coy, 1999; Education Trust, 1997; House, & Martin, 1998; Schmidt, 2003). However, college
counseling as it relates to school counseling has a less defined path. The most notable and frequently cited influence that
initially heightened postsecondary awareness was the passing of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958. The
NDEA enacted by the federal government, provided funding to improve secondary school counseling, with emphases on high
school counselor preparation to subsidize training programs and professional institutes for guidance personnel. It was also in
the 1950s that the American Psychological Association and the American Personnel and Guidance Association (APGA)
introduced distinct standards and requirements for pupil personnel workers (e.g., psychologists, guidance counselors, and
social workers).
In the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, focus turned to education initiatives, such as the High Schools That Work and The
School Development Program, which were student-centered and developed to increase academic achievement and
postsecondary student preparedness (Board, 1999a). The High Schools That Work (Board, 1999a, 1999b) research visibly
placed school counselor roles in the practice of vocational guidance. Evidence based research on The School Development
Program demonstrated consistent and continuous student improvement, especially in urban settings; however, direct linkage
to school counseling services is vague (Smylie, Wenzel, & Fendt, 2003). During the concurrent era, state Department of
Education personnel and counselor educators began to evaluate the impact or absence of school counseling interventions on
education reform models, instructional environments, and college counseling. Inharmonious discussions centered on the role
of the school counselor and postsecondary advisement. Also, during this time, graduate counselor education programs were

7
grounded in clinical and community mental health models that viewed college counseling and academic advisement as
conflicting role identities for school counselors (McDonough, 2004). As a result, school counselors were being trained to be
highly skilled mental health counselors without an educational framework or perspective of which to guide their practice
(Kaplan, 1995).
Also, during this time (i.e., 1990s), the presence of community agency partnerships and federally funded opportunity
programs were downsized and some educators began to question if college counseling services were necessary to inform
and empower students to the path of college. McDonough (2004) acknowledges that prior to the 1990s, a significant segment
of college counseling was absorbed through self-help modalities as a guiding principle. That same focus continued during the
early 1990s as widening achievement gaps, astounding dropout rates, and declining test scores gave rise to the rethinking
and evaluation of school counselor roles and responsibilities in educational settings. Social challenges such as violence, teen
pregnancy, peer pressure, poverty, hunger, and homelessness suggested a need for school counselors to use systemic
approaches as an integral part of their counseling services (Capuzzi & Gross, 2000; Hossler, Schmidt, & Vesper, 1999).
The literature suggests that the aforementioned history led to the DeWitt Wallace-Education Trust’s national initiative to
transform school counseling (Education Trust, 1997). Both organizations were convinced that school counselors were not
prepared to contribute to equitable learning and college access for all students. Yet, they postulated that professional school
counselors were in the best position to identify barriers that impede academic success for all students. ASCA supported the
Education Trust’s initiative and principles (e.g., leadership, advocacy, and collaboration) and consequently, introduced the
ASCA National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003), as a guide for school counselors’
development of data-driven comprehensive school counseling programs. Currently, the Education Trust’s New Vision for
School Counseling promotes school counseling in which “school counselors advocate for educational equity, access to a
rigorous college and career-readiness curriculum, and academic success for all students” (Education Trust, 2009). The
Education Trust’s website lists 23 Transforming School Counselor Preparation programs. These programs are committed to
training school counselors in skills that are needed to remove barriers that impede student achievement (e.g., collaboration,
use of data). The number of practicing school counselors who ascribe to the principles of the Education Trust’s New Vision is
unknown.
More recently, the Reach Higher Initiative, launched by former First Lady Michelle Obama during her time at the White
House, worked to inspire every student in the United States to take charge of their future by completing their education past
high school. The former First Lady said that if we are to reach the former President Obama’s Northstar goal (to have the
highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020), schools and states must empower school counselors. That’s
why school counselors are a part of her Reach Higher Initiative, she told attendees at the American School Counselor
Association (ASCA) conference in June 2014.

Factors Influencing College Counseling in Schools

There are multiple indicators that suggest a need for a shift in the foundational principles and practices of school counseling.
First and foremost, there are stark disparities in college enrollments across groups of students. Low-income students, students
whose parents have never attended college, and students of color (i.e., African American, Latino/Hispanic) are less likely to
attend college when compared to their more affluent, white, and Asian peers (Baum & Payea, 2005; Perna et al., 2008).
Although college enrollments have increased across all groups, there is still a persistent enrollment gap (US Department of
Commerce, 2017). Also, when students from underrepresented groups do enroll in college, they tend to enroll in public two-
year colleges and less selective and less-resourced four-year colleges and universities (National Center for Education
Statistics, NCES, 2010).
The lack of college counseling in high schools has been noted as an explanation for these disparities in college access and
choice; and consequently, school counselors have been blamed for their lack of engagement and gate-keeping practices
related to college advising (Murphy, 2016; Rosenbaum, Miller, & Krei, 1996). Obviously, school counselors are a logical source
of assistance for students who are likely to be dependent on school-based resources for college planning (Perna, 2004; Horn,
Chen, & Chapman, 2003; Radford, Ifill, & Lew, 2016).
Recent studies on the efficacy and long-term effects of school counseling services, have highlighted contextual factors that
can ultimately shape the extent of college counseling offered in schools. Not only do these factors affect the nature of college
counseling services offered to students and parents, they also affect college choice, preparation for college, transition to
college, and adjustment to the college environment.

Professional Commitment to College Counseling

Counseling organizations have always embraced career and academic development as dimensions of the counselor’s role
and in recent years, professional organizations have increasingly become more overt in their recognition of college counseling
as a significant role for counselors. However, prior to 2014, professional associations very rarely collaborated on efforts to
improve college counseling and advising strategies (McDonough, 2004). Instead, each organization has traditionally produced
their own professional and ethical standards, developed policies and practices for their role groups, provided resources,
sponsored annual conferences, and designed professional development programs for their members. The national focus to
increase equitable postsecondary opportunities for all students has renewed attention to align the professional organizations
and educational systems engaged in college access and completion work. Below are short descriptions of some of the
college counseling initiatives and associations that focus on college/career readiness.
During her tenure in the White House, former First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Reach Higher Initiative to increase
the number of American citizens who earn a postsecondary credential. The Reach Higher Initiative aimed to encourage all
students to graduate from high school and plan for their future by preparing to complete their education beyond high school,
whether at a four-year or two-year university or through a professional training program. Obama recognized that school
counselors and college advisers were instrumental partners in providing postsecondary support to students, especially those
who were first in their family to go to college (Reach Higher, n.d.). In conjunction with this initiative, Obama spoke at the 2014
ASCA Annual Conference in Orlando.

8
 Today, the Reach Higher Initiative is a part of the Better Make Room/Civic Nation Foundation. Reach Higher seeks to help
every student navigate the college going progress by (1) reaching students where they are at and celebrating their success on
social media and through flagship events like College Signing Day; (2) raising awareness about helpful college access tools
like FAFSA and Up Next and resources; and (3) enhancing student support systems by supporting school counselors and
college advisers. In 2015–2017, the School Counselor of the Year ceremony took place at the White House and was hosted by
former First Lady Michelle Obama. Her support continues as a co-host for the School Counselor of the Year Award ceremony
with the American School Counselor Association.
The Council of National School Counseling and College Access Organizations formed to create one unified body of college
access organizations. The Council members include representation from the American Counseling Association (ACA); ACT;
Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE); American School Counselor Association (ASCA); College Advising
Corps (CAC); The College Board; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP);
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC); National College Access Network (NCAN); and The
Southern Regional Education Board’s Go Alliance (SREB). The council members are committed to providing a comprehensive
multi-organizational, multi-institutional asset map of competencies, knowledge/skillset requirements, and resources for
advising students for postsecondary access and success.
The National Consortium for School Counseling and Post-Secondary Success (NCSCPS) was formed in response to
Obama’s call for improvements to school counseling and school-based college and career counseling systems and included
members with varied expertise in school counseling and college counseling. Dedicated to the goals of the Reach Higher
initiative, NCSCPS organized and implemented large-scale convenings focused on college and career counseling and
advising. In addition, the Consortium supported state teams in the creation of action plans, policies and legislation. In 2015,
the members of the NCSCPS conducted a study to examine the landscape of school counseling research and development.
Funded by the Kresge Foundation, the study included reviews of literature, school counselor and counselor educator surveys,
and practitioner and researcher focus groups. The study’s findings entitled, The State of School Counseling: Revisiting the
Path Forward, indicated that research on school counseling and college readiness counseling was emerging, but still lacked
the robust scholarship necessary to guide effective practice (Brown, Hatch, Holcomb-McCoy, Martin, Mcleod, Owen, & Savitz-
Romer, 2016). Based on their research, members of NCSCPS offered recommendations for the field of college counseling,
particularly school-based counseling [see Table 1].

In response to the Path Forward recommendations (Brown et al., 2016), the National Center for Postsecondary Readiness
and Success (CPRS) was launched at the American University in January 2018. The Center is specifically devoted to the study
of systems and processes (e.g., counseling, advising, financial aid practices) that influence college and career readiness in K–
12 settings as well as college persistence and completion. The center aims to document multi-disciplinary practices that
improve equitable student postsecondary opportunity—with implications for policy development (Center for Postsecondary
Readiness and Success, n.d.).

While ASCA’s focus is on the counselor as educator, the Association for Counselor Education and
Supervision (ACES), along with other counseling organizations, call for a unified professional
counselor identity.

The center will focus on research that addresses current gaps and identifies root causes of educational inequities, as well as
why some students succeed, and others do not. Research will not only represent a national perspective, but also clarify what

9
works from one region and district, and from one student to the next.
The American School Counselor Association (ASCA), the only school counseling professional organization, provides
national standards and a framework for the practice of school counseling. Inclusive of comprehensive counseling programs,
the ASCA standards address accountability in counseling, particularly in relation to achievement and attainment gaps among
students (ASCA, 2017). Additionally, ASCA created a position statement on equity that states the following: “school counselors
are mindful of school and community perceptions of the treatment of underrepresented groups and understand the
importance of collaborating with school and community groups to help all students succeed” (2018b, p. 32).
In 2014, ASCA instituted ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors for Student Success: K–12 College- and Career-Readiness for Every
Student, which describe the knowledge, skills and attitudes students need to achieve academic success, college and career
readiness, and social/emotional development. The mindsets are based on a survey of research and best practices in student
achievement from a wide array of educational standards and efforts. Organized in three broad domains: academic, career and
social/emotional development, the mindsets and behaviors enhance the learning process and create a culture of college, and
career readiness for all students. The six ASCA (2014) Mindset Standards include the following:
• Belief in development of whole self, including a healthy balance of mental, social/emotional and physical well-being
• Self-confidence in ability to succeed
• Sense of belonging in the school environment
• Understanding that postsecondary education and life-long learning are necessary for long-term career success
• Belief in using abilities to their fullest to achieve high-quality results and outcomes
• Positive attitude toward work and learning
The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), a professional association including members from
schools, communities, and organizations, compiles a by-state report highlighting student-to-counselor ratios and conducts
yearly surveys of issues relevant to school counselors. NACAC supports reducing student-to-counselor ratios to 250:1 and
increasing ESEA funding allocations for programs such as the Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) grant
program (also known as Title IV, Part A), which is designed to ensure that high needs districts have access to programs that
foster safe and healthy students, provide students with a well-rounded education, and increase the effective use of technology
in our nation’s schools. The program provides block grants to states, which in turn can use the funding to hire more
counselors and/or provide professional development for counselors. NACAC recently developed a series of professional
development activities for school-based counselors and other college counselors.
In 1992, the College Board published the book, From Gatekeeper to Advocate, which challenged the role of school
counselors within the context of school reform and restructuring. More recently, the College Board’s National Office of School
Counselor Advocacy (NOSCA) provided leadership, as well as college counseling training, for school-based counselors.
NOSCA’s overall mission was to advance equitable educational access and rigorous academic preparation necessary for
college readiness for all students. In 2011, NOSCA published findings from its National Survey of School Counselors. The
findings highlighted counselors’ concerns within the profession and in the context of preparing students for college and other
postsecondary opportunities (Balfanz, Bridgeland, Bruce, & Fox, 2012). Based on the findings, the following actions were
suggested for schools and communities:
1. Align the mission of counselors with the needs of students
2. Focus counselors’ work on activities that accelerate student success
3. Target professional development dollars
4. Schools should pilot test measures of accountability
5. Coordinate initiatives with community-based organizations
Although College Board disbanded the National Office of School Counselor Advocacy (NOSCA) in 2015, they continue to
provide electronic copies of many of the publications that were developed by NOSCA. The College Board also provides fall
workshops, a Summer Online Institute for school counselors, and downloadable resources to help prepare students for
college. The College Board shares some of their resources on the National Council website.
In 2009, the New Vision for School Counseling (2009), the National Center for Transforming School Counseling (NCTSC)
advocated for educational equity, access to a rigorous college and career-readiness curriculum, and academic success for all
students. The NCTSC, established by the Education Trust and MetLife, provided professional development, program reviews,
and state department collaborative activities that promoted school counselor involvement in school reform initiatives. Although
the NCTSC is no longer an entity or division of Education Trust, Education Trust supports the profession of school counseling
and advocates for high quality school counselors for every student (Education Trust, 2018).
Another supportive organization, ACT, launched a new center in 2016, the ACT Center for Equity in Learning. The new
Center has recently convened a working group of national organizations to support four national campaigns designed to
support high school students as they navigate their college path. The campaigns include: (1) American College Application
Campaign, (2) High School to College Transition, (3) Form Your Future and (4) College Signing Day. Steps2College is
designed to be a one-stop website for everything high school counselors, students, and family members need to support
students through the college-going process. The partnership is composed of ACT Center for Equity in Learning, American
College Application Campaign from the American Council on Education (ACE), American University School of Education’s
CPRS, Better Make Room, and the National College Access Network (NCAN). Steps2College tools allow counselors, students
and their families to learn about key milestones students will face during their final year of high school as they transition to
postsecondary institutions (ACT Center for Equity and Learning, 2017).
The aforementioned initiatives and professional associations have demonstrated a commitment to college counseling and
collaboration. Future efforts to increase counselors’ knowledge and skills in college counseling will be dependent upon how
well these organizations move forward and agree to work together to provide professional development and training for pre-
service and existing college counselors.

Current Education Reform Initiatives

10
Prior to the College Opportunity Agenda and the Reach Higher Campaign, very few education reform initiatives mentioned or
recognized school counseling or college counseling as critical components in reform initiatives designed to provide
postsecondary support to first generation and low-income students. Although former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
voiced commitment to school counselors and college counseling in high schools, school counseling was not included in
President Obama’s Blueprint for Reform or the Race to the Top proposal guidelines. The Race to the Top and Blueprint for
Reform both focused on four core areas that guided the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
1. Enhance and reward principal and teacher effectiveness
2. Build data systems that inform parents and educators about student achievement and guide instruction
3. Develop college- and career-ready standards and assessments aligned to those standards
4. Implement effective interventions and support that will improve academic achievement in the lowest-performing schools
In particular, the Blueprint for Reform emphasized the importance of meeting the needs of students with the highest learning
needs, (i.e., culturally diverse learners, diverse English learners, children with disabilities, students of migrant families and
workers, homeless students, underprivileged children in rural and highest-need districts). The omission of counselors from
this reform initiative was concerning, and counseling associations responded. For instance, the ACA developed a School
Counseling Task Force to specifically address the unique needs of school counselors and to develop ways in which ACA
could partner and collaborate with school-reform organizations.
Some argue that school counselors are not primed for college access work, while others advocate for school counseling as
a means to close postsecondary opportunity gaps. Although schools have been advocating for lower ratios for decades, most
school counselors are burdened with huge caseloads and extra duties (Balfanz et al., 2012). The American School Counselor
Association recommends a school counselor to student ratio of 1 to 250, yet the average ratio is 1 to 482. To address this
concern, a number of state and philanthropic initiatives have arisen. In 2014, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Heckscher
Foundation partnered with the College Advising Corps, College Possible, Strive for College and The Jack Kent Cooke
Foundation to increase the number of high-achieving, low- and moderate-income students who apply to and graduate from
top colleges and universities. They used video chat, email, telephone, and text to create a virtual student support network for
students. In June 2018, Bloomberg committed $375 million to improve education by investing in cities and states, supporting
advocacy work and electoral campaigns and focusing on preparing students for high wage careers that do not require a four-
year degree.
The Lily Foundation awarded more than $49 million in grants to support a Comprehensive School Counseling Initiative for
Indiana K–12 Students. This multi-year program launched in 2016 and “seeks to significantly increase the number of Indiana
students who are emotionally healthy, realize academic success, graduate from high school, obtain valuable postsecondary
credentials necessary for meaningful employment, and are prepared to compete and prosper in the global society in which
they will live and work” (Comprehensive Counseling Initiative, n.d.). The grants have been awarded to Indiana public schools,
charter schools, and universities to strengthen school counseling programs and to better prepare the next generation of
school counselors and principals.
Since 2010, the Colorado School Counseling Corps Grant Program has provided $16 million to improve outcomes in low-
income high schools. The funding has supported the placement of an additional 220 school counselors in Colorado schools,
reducing the student to counselor ratio from 363:1 to 216:1. They saw a 3.5 percentage point reduction in the dropout rate
and a boost in Advanced Placement participation by 75 percent. They also found that for every $1 they invested in counseling,
the state saved $20 in costs related to students who may have otherwise dropped out of school (Colorado Department of
Education, 2016).
Analyzing data from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002, Belasco (2013) found that school-based counseling made
distinct and substantial contributions to the college enrollment and destinations of low socioeconomic students (SES).
Engberg and Gilbert (2013), examining the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, found that both school counselor norms
(average caseload and hours spent on college counseling) and resources (college fairs, college course offerings, and
financial aid) were important predictors of a school’s four-year college going rates. They also found that the number of hours
school counselors spend on college counseling is a strong predictor of four-year college going rates for that school. Hurwitz
and Howell (2014) found the addition of one extra high school counselor increased four-year college enrollment rates by 10
percentage points.
Again, although the aforementioned initiatives and professional associations have a commitment to college counseling,
they have historically worked separately with little collaboration. Future efforts to increase counselors’ knowledge and skills in
college counseling will be dependent on how well these organizations work together to provide professional development and
training for pre-service and existing college counselors.

Pre-Service Training of School Counselors

School counselor educators and practicum/internship supervisors play a critical role in the preparation of school counselors
and college advisers/counselors in secondary schools. In fact, finding a consistent description of school counselor
responsibilities differs by school and by district, making it even more difficult to determine the best preparation content and
practices for training or preparation programs. Having fully equipped and prepared school counselors has been seen as
essential for all involved. Trolley (2011) found that “very little research exists that pertains to the adequacy of school counselor
preparation, given the current demands of the job” (p. 21).
According to ASCA, there are hundreds of school counselor preparation programs (graduate-level) across the United States
(2019b). For many years, the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) was
the only accrediting body of pre-service graduate counselor training programs. However, in 2018, ASCA announced that their
School Counselor Preparation Program Standards, a unified set of principles guiding school counselor preparation programs,
would be in effect for programs seeking accreditation. The ASCA School Counselor Preparation Program Standards will
establish ASCA as a Specialized Professional Association (SPA) under the Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP) (2019a). School counseling graduate programs are also designed to comply with state and/or national
counselor certification and licensure requirements. Below are short descriptions of CACREP and ASCA preparation standards.

11
 The 2016 CACREP Standards are organized into six sections. Section 1, The Learning Environment, includes standards
pertaining to the institution, the academic unit, and program faculty and staff. Section 2, Professional Counseling Identity,
includes foundational standards and the counseling curriculum, comprising the eight required core content areas. Section 3,
Professional Practice, refers to standards required for entry-level practice, practicum, internship, supervisor qualifications, and
practicum and internship course loads. Section 4, Evaluation in the Program, provides standards relevant to evaluation of the
program, assessment of students, and evaluation of faculty and site supervisors. Section 5, Entry-Level Specialty Areas,
provides standards relevant to specialty areas offered by the program. These include addictions; career; clinical mental health;
clinical rehabilitation; college counseling and student affairs; marriage, couple, and family; school counseling; and
rehabilitation counseling. For each specialty area, standards pertaining to foundations, contextual dimensions and practice are
provided. Section 6 contains the Doctoral Standards for Counselor Education and Supervision, including learning
environment, professional identity, and doctoral-level practicum and internship requirements.
Programs accredited by CACREP include course work in the following eight areas: professional orientation and ethical
practice, social and cultural diversity, human growth and development, career development, helping relationships, group work,
assessment, and research and program evaluation. School counseling programs accredited by CACREP also must align their
program to meet standards that specifically address school-based issues and client populations. The 2016 CACREP School
Counseling standards require programs to equip graduates with postsecondary preparation knowledge and skills. For
example, graduates are expected to be able to implement “strategies to promote equity in student achievement and college
access” (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, 2015, p. 34).
Revised in 2018, the ASCA School Counselor Preparation Standards consist of seven standards: Foundational Knowledge;
Core Theories and Concepts; Instructional and School Counseling Interventions; Student Learning Outcomes; Designing,
Implementing and Evaluating Comprehensive School Counseling Programs; Professional Practice; and Ethical Practice.
College and career readiness, as a topic, is included under Standard 3—Instructional and School Counseling Interventions
(ASCA, 2018a). Standard 3.2 states, “Identify individual counseling, group counseling, and classroom instruction techniques to
ensure equitable access to resources promoting academic achievement, college/career readiness, and social/emotional
development for every student” (ASCA, 2018a, p. 1).

School Counselor Identity

There continues to be role ambiguity in professional school counseling, which ultimately influences the extent to which college
counseling occurs in secondary schools. According to Lambie and Williamson (2004), there is incongruence between what is
learned in pre-service training and the actual duties most professional school counselors perform. In addition, the literature is
replete with illustrations of how school counselors are perceived as ancillary professionals in school districts and remain on
the “outside” of important decision-making and policy development.
For many years, counselors have advocated for a stronger identity and a desire for others to understand their role and
capabilities (Johnson, 2000). Administrators, parents, community members, teachers, and other stakeholders consistently
view the role of school counselors differently. While ASCA’s focus is on the counselor as educator, the Association for
Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) along with other counseling organizations, call for a unified professional
counselor identity.
Astramovich, Hoskins, Gutierrez, and Bartlett (2013) suggest that the school counseling profession suffers from role
diffusion in addition to role ambiguity. Role diffusion is defined by the authors as the process of assuming or being appointed
to roles and duties that individuals from other fields or specialties are equally qualified to perform. For instance, role diffusion
occurs when a school counselor is assigned by an administrator to be responsible for school-wide achievement testing—
something that teachers, teacher specialists, or even school registrars may be equally competent to organize.

Counselor to Student Ratios

According to recent data, school counselors across the country managed caseloads of about 455 students each during the
2016-2017 school year (ASCA, 2019c). The report highlights a disparity that exists across America. Arizona had the highest
ratio with 905 students for every one school counselor, and Vermont had the lowest ratio, 202 students to each school
counselor (ASCA, 2019c).
Although there is no simple solution to increasing college and career readiness, numerous case studies indicate that school
counselors can play an instrumental role in increasing college enrollment rates, if given the time to work with students. Sink
and Stroh (2003) have even found a linkage between comprehensive school counseling programs and academic
performance. And, Lapan, Gysbers, and Sun (1997) found that schools with more fully implemented guidance programs had
positive effects on high school students’ self-reporting of grades, preparation for the future, career and college resources, and
perceptions of school climate. And, Carrell and Carrell (2006), using data provided by Florida’s Alachua County School
District, found that lower school counselor to student ratios decrease both the recurrence of student disciplinary problems and
the share of students involved in a disciplinary incident. Given these studies, albeit limited, the American School Counselor
Association recommends that there be no more than 250 students to each school counselor (ASCA, 2017). However, as
evidenced above, a majority of school districts do not adhere to this recommendation.

Further Considerations

The recent surge of attention and focus on the importance of college and school counseling has resulted in an abundance of
initiatives and new organizations, centers, and councils. Although there’s evidence illustrating that school counselors, when
accessible and able to provide direct college counseling to students and their families can be highly influential in the college
admission process, there’s still less clarity regarding best practices and the structural constraints in schools (e.g., counselor-
student ratios) still impede the availability of high school counselors (Holland, 2015; McDonough, 2004). Counselors are few in
number, often have large student caseloads and are limited in the amount of time they have to implement college counseling.
According to the National Association for College Admission Counseling, in 2008, public school counselors spent 23 percent

12
of their time on postsecondary counseling, while their private school counterparts spent 54 percent of their time on college
counseling. This inequitable focus on college counseling in schools is directly linked to inequitable achievement gains and
overall economic and wealth attainment.
Over the past decade, higher education researchers and professionals have recognized the influence of a strong college-
going culture in schools on students’ college-going rates (Govan, 2011; MacDonald & Dorr, 2006; McDonough, 2012).
College-going culture theory is a developing theory introduced by McClafferty, McDonough, and Nunez (2002). The idea of a
school with a “college-going culture” evolved from partnerships between UCLA and a group of urban schools that wanted to
create a college-culture in their schools. Since 2002, the principles, conditions and assessment of college-going culture has
grown, and the College Board has endorsed it, giving it credibility in the field. McClafferty et al. (2002) suggest that there are
nine principles of a college-going culture: college talk, clear expectations, information and resources, comprehensive
counseling model, testing and curriculum, faculty involvement, family involvement, college partnerships, and articulation.
Despite the inclusion of a “comprehensive counseling model” as one of the principles, counselors, for the most part, have not
fully embraced a role in developing college-going cultures in schools. This is evident by the lack of counseling literature on
college-going culture theory, practice and/or assessment.
Another future consideration in college counseling is undermatching. Undermatching refers to the phenomenon in which
well-qualified students, often from less affluent households, are not matched with competitive colleges. Undermatched
students attend less-demanding colleges such as two-year colleges or don’t attend college at all. Hoxby and Avery (2012)
found that more than half of the most talented potential applicants from low-income families never apply to a competitive
college. In a more recent study, Kang and Garcia Torres (2018) found that undermatching is still prevalent and students who
are under-matched—many of them minority students—are less likely to graduate on time than are those who attend colleges
that match their abilities.
There’s no doubt that undermatching occurs, but solutions to the problem are far less clear. College leaders and
foundations have vowed to fight undermatching and to take steps to make sure that more of these talented students found
their way to elite institutions. Nevertheless, their efforts have not made a significant impact on college going trends. Future
research on college counseling and undermatching is clearly warranted to decrease college opportunity gaps.

Summary

Despite the many contributions of counselors, there may be dire consequences for counselors if they do not show their
contributions to helping students with postsecondary planning and college counseling. With the increased need for a new,
more educated workforce, initiatives such as Reach Higher and organizations such as ASCA and NACAC become even more
important for the building of a strong pipeline of effective and well-trained school and college counselors for today’s most
vulnerable youth. Yet, school counselors and college counselors are tasked with illustrating their attention to college and
career readiness for all students especially those with the highest learning needs. If not, school counselors and school
counseling programs risk being obsolete and forgotten in the world of education reform. For instance, in many districts,
counselors have been replaced with other models of student support (e.g., a deans model). Clearly the need for counselors to
be advocates for their profession is needed and the College Board has coined the term “Own the Turf” to illustrate a national
campaign to mobilize counselors to own the knowledge and skills related to college and career counseling and to take the
lead in establishing a college-going culture in their schools, districts, and communities.
The arena of college counseling represents one of the most dynamic areas of contemporary education reform and policy. In
this chapter, a series of topical, conceptual, and analytical issues pertaining to counseling have been raised in order to
introduce counseling to the reader but also to spark dialogue and discourse about the future of counseling in light of the
needs of the US economy, and current trends in education reform. All in all, there is no better time than now for counselors to
engage and become major players in our country’s future economic and education planning.

About the Authors

Dr. Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, PhD, joined American University in 2016 as the Dean of the School of Education. In concert with
her colleagues in the College of Arts and Sciences, she concentrates her efforts on recruiting and supporting a more research-
active and diverse faculty, developing outstanding new curricula in education, and building bridges to school districts and
education industries around the globe.
Previous to this role, Dr. Holcomb-McCoy served as the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and Vice Dean of Academic Affairs
and Chair in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University. She has held appointments as Associate Professor of
Counselor Education at the University of Maryland, College Park and Assistant Professor and Director of the School
Counseling Program at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York.

Laura Owen, PhD, is the Director, Center for Postsecondary Readiness and Success and Research Associate Professor at
American University. She focuses on evaluating the impact of interventions and programs designed to address the persistent
equity and access issues that so many students across the country face.

References

American Counseling Association. (2019). 20/20: Consensus definition of counseling. Retrieved from https://www.counseling.
org/about-us/about-aca/20-20-a-vision-for-the-future-of-counseling/consensus-definition-of-counseling
American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
American School Counselor Association. (2014). Mindsets and behaviors for student success: K-12 college- and career-
readiness standards for every student. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/
asca/home/MindsetsBehaviors.pdf

13
American School Counselor Association. (2017). The school counselor and comprehensive school counseling programs.
Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_ComprehensivePrograms.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2018a). ASCA standards for school counselor preparation programs. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/ASCA-CAEP-SPA-Standards.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2018b). The school counselor and equity for all students. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_Equity.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2019a). ASCA school counselor preparation program standards. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/school-counselors/professional-development/learn-more/asca-school-counselor-
preparation-program-standard
American School Counselor Association. (2019b). School counseling degree programs. Retrieved from https://www.
schoolcounselor.org/school-counselors-members/careers-roles/school-counseling-degree-programs
American School Counselor Association. (2019c). Student-to-school-counselor ratio 2016-2017. Retrieved from https://www.
schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/Ratios16-17-lowest-highest.pdf
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Bruce, M., & Fox, J. H. (2012). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high
school dropout epidemic. Retrieved from https://www.americaspromise.org/resource/building-grad-nation-progress-
challenge-ending-high-school-dropout-epidemic-annual-update
Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2005). The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals And Society, Revised Edition, 2005. New York:
The College Board.
Board, S. R. E. (1999a). Improving teachers, parents, and the community in guiding all students into a challenging program of
study. Site Development Guide, 5, 1–25.
Board, S. R. E. (1999b). School strategies: Motivating students to work hard to meet high performance standards. High
schools that work site development guide: Extra help and time, 6, 381–698.
Brown, J., Hatch, T., Holcomb-McCoy, C., Martin, P., Mcleod, J., Owen, L., & Savitz-Romer, M. (2016). The state of school
counseling: Revisiting the path forward. Washington, DC: National Consortium for School Counseling and Postsecondary
Success.
Capuzzi, D., & Gross, D. (2000). Approaches to prevention. In D. Capuzzi & D. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention
resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (3rd ed.,pp. 23–40). Alexandria: American Counseling Association.
Carrell, S. E., & Carrell, S. A. (2006). Do lower student to counselor ratios reduce school disciplinary problems? Contributions
to Economic Analysis & Policy, 5, 1–24.
Cobia, D., & Henderson, D. (2003). Handbook for school counseling. Upper Saddle: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2016-Standards-with-Glossary-5.3.2018.pdf
Coy, D. (1999). The role and training of the school counselor: Background and purpose. NASSP Bulletin, 83, 2–8.
Education Trust. (1997). Working definition of school counseling. Unpublished manuscript, Washington.
Education Trust. (2009). The new vision for school counseling. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org/resource/the-new-vision-for-
school-counselors-scope-of-the-work/
Education Trust. (2018). Equality isn’t equity: Every student needs a great school counselor. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org/
resource/equality-isnt-equity-every-student-needs-great-school-counselor/
Gandara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K–12 intervention programs for underrepresented
youth. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001205.pdf
Govan, R. H. (2011). The soul of a school: An ethnographic study of college-going culture at an urban high school. Retrieved
from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/1313
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2007). School counseling to close the achievement gap: A social justice framework for success.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Holland, M. M. (2015). Trusting each other: Student-counselor relationships in diverse high schools. Sociology of Education,
88, 244–262.
Horn, L. J., Chen, X., & Chapman, C. (2003). Getting ready to pay for college: What students and their parents know about the
cost of college tuition and what they are doing to find out. U.S. Department of Education. Washington DC: National Center for
Education.
Hossler, D., Schmidt, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college; How social, economic, and educational factors influence the
decisions students make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
House, R., & Martin, P. (1998). Advocating for better futures for all students: A new vision for school counselors. Education,
119, 284–291.
Hoxby, C. M, & Avery, C. (Spring, 2012). The missing “one-offs”: The hidden supply of high achieving, low-income students.
Washington DC: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
Johnson, L. (2000). Promoting professional identity in an era of educational reform. Professional School Counseling, 4, 31–40.

14
Kang, C., & Garcia Torres, D. (2018). College undermatching, degree attainment and minority students. New York: AERA
Annual Meeting Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/Study-Snapshot-College-Undermatching-Degree-
Attainment-and-Minority-Students
Kaplan, L. S. (1995). Principals versus counselors: Resolving tension from different practice models. The School Counselor,
42, 261–267.
Lambie, G. W., & Williamson, L. L. (2004). The challenge to change from guidance counseling to professional school
counseling: A historical proposition. Professional School Counseling, 8, 124–131.
Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., & Sun, Y. (1997). The impact of more fully implemented guidance programs on the school
experiences of high school students: A statewide evaluation study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75(4), 292-302.
MacDonald, M. F., & Dorr, A. (2006). Creating a college-going culture: A resource guide. Retrieved from http://apep.gseis.ucla.
edu/bestla/BEST-CreateCollegeCultResourceGuide.pdf
McClafferty, K. A., McDonough, P. M., & Nunez, A. M. (2002). What is a college going culture? Facilitating college preparation
through organizational change. UCLA: Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
McDonough, P. (2004). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and organizational commitment in college preparation. In
W. Tierney, Z. Corwin, & J. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 69-88). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
McDonough, P. (2006). Overview of college going culture theory. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies.
Murphy, J. S. (September 16, 2016). The undervaluing of school counselors. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/
education/archive/2016/09/the-neglected-link-in-the-high-school-to-college-pipeline/500213
Nikischer, A. B., Weis, L., & Dominguez, R. (2016). Differential access to high school counseling, postsecondary destinations,
and STEM careers. Teachers College Record, 118(11). Retrieved from http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1871580218?accountid=8285
Perna, L. (2004). Understanding the decision to enroll in graduate school: Sex and racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of
Higher Education, 75(5), 487-527.
Perna, L., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Thomas, S., Bell, A., Anderson, R., & Li, C. (2008). The role of college counseling in shaping
college opportunity: Variations across high schools. Review of Higher Education, 31(2), 131–159.
Rosenbaum, J. E., Miller, S. R., & Krei, M. S. (1996). Gatekeeping in an era of more open gates: High school counselors’ views
of their influence on students’ college plans. American Journal of Education, 104, 257–279.
Savitz-Romer, M. (2012). The gap between influence and efficacy: College readiness training, urban school counselors, and
the promotion of equity. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51(2), 98–111. Retrieved from http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?
url=https://search-proquest-com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1037907412?accountid=8285
Schmidt, J. J. (2003). Counseling in schools: Essential services and comprehensive programs (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2003). Raising achievement test scores of early elementary school students through
comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 6(5), 352–364.
Smylie, M., Wenzel, S., & Fendt, C. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Lessons on leadership for school
development. In J. M. A. Datnow (ed.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
US Department of Commerce. (2017). Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 2000 through
2016.
US Department of Education. (2018). Immediate college enrollment rate. Washington DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cpa.asp
Velez, E. D. (2016). How can high school counseling shape students’ postsecondary attendance? National Association for
College Admission Counseling.
Woods, C. S., & Domina, T. (2014). The school counselor caseload and the high school-to college pipeline. Teachers College
Record, 116(10).

15
Chapter 2: The Dynamic Ecosystem of Higher Education: Implications for College
Admission Counseling
James Dean Ward and William G. Tierney, PhD

16
A quarter of a century ago, no one predicted the challenges that higher education would face today. Throughout much of the
last generation, there have been periods of optimism and periods of decline. State legislatures have, on occasion, provided
less public monies than an institution’s leaders and faculty may have liked, for example, but until recently, tomorrow was not
that different from yesterday. Although the last quarter of a century has not seen the emergence of numerous new brick and
mortar institutions, which occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, very few traditional colleges or universities that existed in 1990
have died. In many respects, the majority of postsecondary institutions function much like they did a quarter of a century ago.
In this light, the ecosystem of higher education, the various types of postsecondary institutions and how they interact with
one another and the larger environment, has not changed very much. There also was not much anticipation that the
ecosystem would undergo significant changes. Consider, for example, that 40 years ago the vast majority of students in the
United States attended public institutions. A small, but significant number of liberal arts colleges catered to a specific clientele
that had been developed over time. Elite private and public universities were the best in the world; they received fiscal support
not only from tuition, state public subsidies for the publics, and largesse from donors for the privates, but also from significant
federal funding of research. The for-profit sector was a tiny organism in the postsecondary ecosystem, a minor irritant for
some, but ignored by most. The clientele for postsecondary education were still thought to be traditionally aged, full-time
students, although by 1990, the demographic was beginning to become what it has become today—increasingly older and
largely part-time. The lion’s share of energy, effort and research, however, focused on the 18–21-year-old clientele. Additional
efforts were focused on increasing the participation and completion rates of underrepresented students in all sectors of higher
education.
Thus, in 1990, there was little assumption that the postsecondary sector would shift from full-time teenagers to part-time
adults or that the representation of students of color would still remain at alarming levels both in attendance and completion.
Few predicted that some, if not many, liberal arts colleges might become an endangered species or that for-profit institutions
would grow so rapidly and engender so much antipathy.

State legislatures have, on occasion, provided less public monies than an institution’s leaders and
faculty may have liked, for example, but until recently, tomorrow was not that different from
yesterday.

What also had not been anticipated is the disruption to how one thought about a college education. Students came to a
campus. They took classes defined by “seat-time.” When students had accumulated a certain number of credits, then they
were ready to graduate. Full-time, tenure-track faculty were the arbiter of student quality, defined by the grade provided to the
student. When students graduated from college, it was incumbent upon them to find employment; the link between curricula
and jobs was indirect, at best. College completion was not a topic of conversation. Remediation was a concern, but not a
crisis. Transfer between two- and four-year institutions was a nuisance, but not worthy of much effort on the state level or in
policy sectors. The relationship between the secondary and postsecondary sectors was largely nonexistent.
In the larger environment, there was a general agreed-upon lament about the weaknesses of public education in the United
States. The largest amount of hand-wringing and reform, however, was aimed at improving K–12 education by creating
options—vouchers, charter schools, and the like. Higher education received occasional commentary, but by and large, the
public viewed a college education as valuable and postsecondary institutions as providing a quality product. Whereas
governors, legislatures, newspapers, and think tanks had a great deal to say about schools, when it came to higher education,
the same groups largely exhibited a hands-off attitude, deferring to college and university presidents and the faculty.
If one had gone to sleep in 1990 and awakened today, there would certainly be a great deal of surprise about the changes
that have occurred and the tenor of discussions about the academic environment. The media offers a daily drumbeat about
the weakness of the postsecondary sector and the costs of college for students and families. The cumulative amount of
student loans is now roughly $1.5 trillion—something that could not have been imagined a quarter of a century ago. Liberal
arts colleges as a specific species within the general ecosystem now seem at risk for survival. The federal government is
considering reducing support for basic research. After significant growth during the early years of the 21st century, for-profit
institutions now enroll nearly 10 percent of students (Ginder, Kelly-Reid, & Mann, 2017), and have garnered a great deal of
criticism for their often-questionable recruiting practices and frequently dismal placement rates. Of consequence, all of higher
education is now being assessed for the utility and quality of learning.
Public community colleges continue to fail to graduate or transfer sizeable numbers of students (Shapiro et al., 2016); for
example, fewer than 40 percent of the students beginning community college in 2010 earned a degree or certificate at their
initial or a transfer institution. Rather than a nuisance, such issues are now of central concern. Policies aimed at increasing
college completion and reducing remediation across all sectors are now discussed in most states and in multiple think tanks
and foundations. This may be most exemplified by the resurgence and strengthening of performance-based funding. More
than half the states are now funding postsecondary institutions based on outcomes metrics, such as degree production and
credits earned, rather than the number of students enrolled. The underlying theory of action for the policies is that basing
funding on outcomes will incentivize institutions to improve their educational services and better serve students. Although
seemingly logical, performance-based funding has been largely ineffective at meeting its intended goals (Dougherty et al.,
2016).
The majority, 70 percent of American adults (Jones, 2016), think a postsecondary education is very important, but many
Americans are questioning the value of a degree. Given increasing tuition prices and the perceived disconnect between
college curricula and workplace skills, 47 percent of Americans do not think college is worth the investment (Hart Research
Associates, 2017). It is not unsurprising the hands-off attitude that society had shown has been replaced by a demand for
significant changes—although what those changes are, or should be, is entirely unclear. Large changes in regulation,
accountability, and financial aid are being proposed across the political spectrum to address the growing insecurity in
American higher education.

17
 Perhaps trying to chart the future is a fool’s errand. And yet, systems, like organisms in an ecosystem, always evolve. At
times such as these, change occurs more dramatically than during times of stability. One ought not to look to the future as if
every step is certain, but based on the history of higher education and the recent trajectory of the system, there are reasonable
conjectures one might make about how to think about higher education in general and college admission in particular.
Accordingly, our purpose here is neither to suggest that the challenges higher education faces are amenable to quick fixes
nor to lament that they are unsolvable. However, there are four key issues that need to be dealt with over the next decade that
will not only inform how to think about college admission specifically, but also higher education in general. We point out that
these issues will force and enable us to think of new ways of delivering and evaluating teaching and learning and how to
define postsecondary organizations in the 21st century. We conclude with what these issues might portend for college
admission.

Understanding the Value of a College Education

Historically, the value of education has rarely been disputed in the United States. Since the time of Horace Mann in the early
19th century, the citizens of the United States have assumed that education enhances the economic and social prospects of
the individual and improves the larger democratic public sphere. The importance of education has been so critical to the
country’s well-being that elementary and secondary education has been a free public good, and postsecondary education has
been heavily subsidized through grants to public institutions and to students.
The overwhelming evidence remains that the more education one has, the greater prospects there are for better-paying
jobs. Earnings over a lifetime of a college graduate are nearly double that of a high school graduate, and the gap is increasing
over time. Predictions are that close to 60 percent of the workforce will have to have some form of postsecondary degree—a
certificate, AA or BA degree (Lumina Foundation, 2012). Numerous studies conclude that more access to higher education is
imperative for the well-being of the nation. The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, the Public Policy Institute
of California, the Lumina Foundation, and the Gates Foundation all have suggested that college-going and graduation rates
need to be increased (Carnevale, Jayasundera, & Gulish, 2016). The United States once ranked at the top of OECD (The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) rankings for college attainment, but today, the country has been
ousted from the top 10 countries.
Some, but not many, have argued that the status quo is sufficient (Schalin, 2010; Vedder, Denhart, Denhart, Matgouranis, &
Robe, 2010). The underpinning of the argument is that employers hire individuals with college degrees, but the job only
requires a high school degree. In effect, college graduates deliver pizza because there are not enough college-degree-related
jobs (Vedder et al., 2010). The assumption is that credentialing helps the higher education industry but not the economy. The
problem of such an analysis is that, for example, by 2030 nearly 70 percent of the jobs in California are expected to require
what one learns in college (Johnson, Mejia, & Bohn, 2015). California will fall short by more than one million students based
on current estimates. Such a shortfall has dire consequences for the well-being of the state. The problem is that students are
not learning the right sorts of skills in college in order to be ready for the job market upon graduation. In fact, less than half of
employers think students are prepared in key workforce skills including working in groups and written and oral
communication.
A related critique is that too many students graduate from high school and are not college-ready, and then they graduate
from college and are not career-ready. The evidence seems to bear out the claims. An estimated 80 percent of community
college students enter the system underprepared for college-level coursework (Rodriguez, Mejia, & Johnson, 2016). For years,
just under half of California State University’s entering students need to take at least one remedial class. However, in 2017
Chancellor Timothy White dropped remediation requirements in order to help students move through degree programs faster.
It remains to be seen whether this policy will be effective in graduating more students, and if these students will develop key
workforce skills employers seek.
The challenges that the higher education sector faces are multiple. If more students need to participate in higher education,
where will they go? What will they study? What sorts of relationships need to be forged between secondary and
postsecondary institutions so that high school graduates are better prepared for going to, and graduating from, college? If the
country accepts the status quo, then the United States will have become an island of mediocrity encumbered with an
uneducated workforce.

Examining the State’s Role in Higher Education

Based on the commitment to education by the citizenry, a state’s role in higher education has been relatively straightforward
until recently; the states had different kinds of public institutions for different kinds of students. The primary job of these
institutions has been to educate individuals, and that has been defined by the attainment of a degree. The idea of education as
a socializing agent, or as a way to instill civic values in individuals, has largely been downplayed for a generation.
Community colleges have always offered certificates for working-class jobs (e.g., plumbing), but they also have been
frequently criticized because of their high drop-out and non-completion rates, as well as their low transfer rates to four-year
institutions. Second-tier state universities also have offered master’s degrees and research universities have focused on
graduate education. Most states also have had a medical complex devoted to the training of physicians; a teaching hospital
and medical complex also have contributed to the health and economic welfare of a state. Research, as an economic engine
for a state, has played a significant role in some states, such as California, and much less in other states, such as Mississippi.
Although variations have occurred across states, the general principle throughout most of the 20th century was that the
state-funded public institutions, and a relatively small portion of a postsecondary institution’s budget was dependent upon
tuition or other revenue. Trends also existed by sector; virtually all of a community college’s and state university’s budget
derived from state support, whereas the elite public research universities have a history of attracting federal research dollars,
primarily for science, and foundation support for a variety of research areas.
Over the last generation, public institutions also have become involved in capital campaigns, similar to those at private
universities, in order to generate revenue from alumni and wealthy philanthropists. The assumption has been, however, that if
public research universities are to maintain their status as world-class institutions, then they must raise revenue from private

18
sources insofar as the state will no longer provide enough support. Such an assumption is widespread today, whereas a
generation ago, most states funded most public institutions.
Although state funding has decreased as an absolute percentage of overall revenue, state regulatory control has increased.
Until recently, the state had been relatively uninvolved in the regulation of postsecondary institutions. Regulation had been
ceded to accrediting bodies—both institutional and professional. What a college or university offered and how quality was
defined had been granted to the institution, in general, and the faculty, in particular. Regional accreditation, although critically
important, simply demonstrated minimal levels of institutional competence. Without accreditation, an institution’s degree was
relatively worthless, although many institutions, especially for-profit institutions, have existed without it. The lack of
accreditation, however, meant that the students could not receive federal or state loans and grants, and that if they wished to
transfer to another institution, their degree and institutional credits would not be accepted.
Although state legislatures always have taken on hot-button curricular issues from time to time, in general, the state has
stayed away from regulatory control. Presidents created budget requests, and the legislature approved all or some portion of
it. Line-item vetoes or oversight on a particular course offering was generally not done. To be sure, at times, special requests
occurred. The state may have decided that a particular focus was important, or a legislator simply wanted some particular
center or institute at the postsecondary institution in his or her political district, but the overarching assumption was that the
postsecondary institutions knew best how to lead their institutions.
Over the last generation, that assumption has gradually changed. Accreditation has come under attack as being too weak
and too slow, and technological changes have challenged geographically based accrediting agencies. If a public, private or
for-profit institution is based in Nebraska, but has an online master’s degree that students in New York are taking, from which
region of the country should the degree be given accreditation? If someone wants to be a veterinarian, is it more important for
the institution to have accreditation from a state agency or one with broader reach, possibly beyond national borders? As
Duderstadt and Womack (2003) have pointed out, “Higher education is breaking loose from the moorings of physical
campuses, even as its credentialing monopoly begins to erode” (p. 76). The result is that, on the one hand, we are seeing the
market replace regulatory control, while, on the other, the state is asking for greater oversight of those diminishing public
dollars that they provide.
Higher education, then, is evolving like other deregulated industries, such as healthcare, where we see public and profit-
making hospitals; we also experience all the strengths and weaknesses of the market and deregulation, such as we have
recently experienced in the banking and housing industries. The general winner of deregulation is for-profit companies who
have viewed accrediting bodies as exclusionary gatekeepers. While the for-profit sector contracted under the Obama
Administration’s crackdown on gainful employment and student loan defaults, President Trump and Secretary DeVos have
begun rolling back these regulations and vowed to limit federal government oversight. Critics charge, however, that the state is
adding regulatory burdens to public institutions precisely at the time they are weakening their oversight capacity of other
institutions. As a result, the consumer is put at risk.
The shift away from the creation, sustenance and support of a public good reflects shifts with other goods and services for
the state such that the state no longer sees itself as a purveyor of public goods. A consistent and radical line of thinking is that
the state and federal government’s regulatory role should also be negligible. The subprime mortgage loans that contributed to
the housing crisis in the United States reflect a philosophy that says markets need to be unregulated for capitalism to flourish.
For-profit colleges and universities (FPCUs) have made the same sort of argument and have largely succeeded. They have
persistently argued, as most proponents of such arguments reason, that there is still too much regulation. They charge that if
problems exist, market demands will fix the problems, and they do not need regulation to hamper their efforts. The consumer
(the student) only buys “good” products, so it is in the organization’s interest to police the quality of the product. Although
there is some admitted truth to such an assertion, it also does not take into account a history of malfeasance by companies
that have shown little regard or concern for the customer. Under the Obama Administration, the federal government worked to
curb these abuses. Similarly, state attorneys general have played a large role in regulatory enforcement but have primarily only
taken action against the most egregious violators (Ward & Tierney, 2017). With Trump’s commitment to deregulation, the onus
to protect consumers will fall increasingly on state governments. Despite the uptick in state-level enforcement, FPCUs have
still largely flown under the radar because they are not beholden to the state for funding.
Ironically, public institutions have faced a twofold problem. They have been criticized as the opposite of consumer-friendly.
Because they presumably receive a steady stream of revenue that is impervious to consumer demands, the argument has
been made that they are out of touch and exist to support the faculty, rather than the students. Because of this perception,
steps have been made to regulate them and to make demands with regard to admission, retention, graduation, time-to-
degree, and a host of other issues.

Assessing Privatization in the Ecosystem

The shift from the idea that an organization should be the provider of a public good has opened the door to a significant
increase in private providers and the privatization of public institutions.
For-profit colleges grew immensely in the early 21st century but have experienced decreasing enrollment over the last few
years. Although FPCUs have existed for more than a century in the United States, until recently they were relatively small
companies that offered one specific skill or trade, such as cosmetology or welding. However, for-profit institutions, such as the
University of Phoenix, now rank among the largest in the United States. This new iteration of FPCUs all have a similar funding
model. They outsource the vast majority of their services and standardize their curricula, teaching and learning across
campuses. Courses are offered in areas that are convenient to students, such as shopping malls, and at convenient times for
the working adult—evenings and weekends. Faculty are part-time; in general, they do not receive health or retirement benefits,
and they will be dismissed if there is a drop in enrollment in the classes that they teach or if their teaching evaluations are not
excellent. While many of these behemoth institutions have survived the contraction of the market, although they have still
experienced dips in enrollment, others, such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges, have shuttered due to charges of fraud and
abuse.
One key aspect of FPCUs is that they rely on their ability to fill out paperwork for a student to apply for grants and loans from
the federal and state governments. Their admission staff can be quite large, and rather than have students wait several months

19
from the time they apply until they are admitted and start their program, a for-profit institution may admit and enroll a student in
a matter of days. The result is that more than 90 percent of the institution’s income is generated from fee-paying students, and
the students’ fees derive from the government (Klor de Alva & Rosen, 2012). Ironically, then, the most private of our institutions
thrive, and most likely could not survive, without public funding. One significant difference between FPCUs and traditional
providers is that these private, for-profit companies pay taxes to the government and generate revenue for the owners or
corporate boards. Students graduate with greater debt loads than at comparable public and private nonprofit institutions, the
retention and graduation rates tend to be lower than at comparable institutions, and default rates on loans have been a
significant issue.
The argument for for-profits has been made succinctly by Weisbrod, Ballou and Asch (2008): “Services that can be sold
profitably do not need public subsidies” (p. 4). From this perspective, education, as defined as preparation for the job market,
is a good that can be sold, and a for-profit college can do it as well as, or better than, a publicly subsidized institution. The
alternative argument, of course, is that education is more than vocational training and that the purpose of a public university is
more than simply the selling of a service. Moreover, as an experience good, the quality and value of an educational program
are difficult to assess prior to purchasing it. Consumers are particularly vulnerable to fraud and misinformation when obtaining
such a product, the effects of which are compounded by the high price and singular purchase of postsecondary education. If
we believe providing a quality education requires monetary resources, the profit motive of proprietary institutions may be in
direct contrast to the expensive enterprise of providing postsecondary training.
The result is that the public landscape is significantly different in the second decade of the 21st century than it was a quarter
of a century ago. Privatization also has had an impact on the working conditions of the institutions. The United States now
hires more non-tenure-track faculty than tenure-track; part-time faculty are more common in many institutions than full-time
(tenure-track or non-tenure-track) faculty. Because public institutions still relied on a part of their revenue from the state when
the economic crisis of 2008–2009 erupted, public institutions had more significant problems than private, nonprofit institutions
and especially for-profit colleges and universities. Many faculty at public institutions were furloughed, as were public
employees, which resulted in a loss in many states of about 10 percent of a professor’s salary (Turner, 2014). The result is that
private nonprofit research institutions seem to be eclipsing public research universities.
Public institutions, becoming decreasingly reliant upon public funds, are becoming more private in their operations. The
need to reduce costs to account for losses in state revenue has resulted in increased outsourcing of tasks previously done
internally. Basic aspects of operations, such as janitorial or food service operations, are now completed by contracting with
external companies. Some institutions are going as far as outsourcing academic advising to private companies in order to
reduce administrative costs. The increased privatization of operations puts the mission and purpose of an institution at risk. In
extreme cases, whole colleges have forgone public funding and completely privatized, including the Anderson School of
Management at UCLA. By cutting financial ties with the state, individual colleges are seeking to usurp power from legislatures,
but run the risk of undermining the public mission under which these schools were chartered.
Certainly, private institutions faced economic problems during the Great Recession; however, because their losses were
largely restricted to endowment income, they did not face a crisis with regard to their operating revenue. In the years since the
downturn, college costs continued rising, but Americans’ salaries have not kept pace with rising tuition. The high tuition prices
at many private nonprofit colleges have kept students from enrolling. Institutions have responded by severely discounting their
prices through institutional aid (National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2017). Moreover, institutional
debt has risen as a result of increased expansion and decreased revenues. Small colleges unable to meet these debt
obligations have continued to dig a deeper financial hole, causing some to close and leaving many more on the precipice of
closure (Ward, 2016). Small private colleges are under financial strain similar to public institutions, although the causes are
quite different.
Because for-profit institutions have a low set cost for personnel, they were not greatly impacted during the recession. Very
few of the institutions faced a decrease in applicants; the result was that those institutions that relied on tuition revenue—for-
profit and private nonprofits—did better than those institutions that still existed in part through public funding. More recently, as
we shall discuss, small liberal arts colleges, as well as some public institutions, have faced enrollment declines, but that has
less to do with a downturn in the economy and more to do with the changing needs and preferences of the consumer.
A consequence of privatization is greater managerial power and decision-making authority. Although private universities also
function under the academic model of shared governance, it is fair to say that the diminution of the “public” nature of an
institution increases the voice of administrators and decreases that of the faculty. As Douglass (2009) has observed, the
consequences of globalization are “broader authority for university presidents, including greater authority in budget
management and administrative authority” (p. 9). Democratic principles of decision-making are not so much eschewed or
repudiated, but simply overlooked in the rush to make decisions so that the organization is more efficient.

Interpreting the Rise in Disruptive Conditions Within the Ecosystem

Traditional organizations, whether they are profit-making companies or nonprofit institutions, such as colleges and universities,
generally try to adapt to the times and meet the needs of their customers. They do so by calling upon what Clayton
Christensen has defined as “sustainable technology” (Christensen et al., 2011). A sustainable technology improves upon the
current technology that exists in a traditional organization. The clearest example of a sustainable technology is when
typewriter companies moved from manual to electric typewriters. Anyone who can remember the days of manual typewriters
will remember the excitement of the adoption of the electric typewriter. What we were doing suddenly got easier and faster.
The movement from a push lawnmower to an electric lawnmower and going from black and white television to color are
additional examples of sustainable technologies that improve upon a product.
A sustainable technology improves performance for the existing market and conceivably brings in additional customers who
may desire the current product. The customer has a variety of companies to choose from, and if the product does not stay up-
to-date, then the company will find itself in trouble or out of business. Obviously, companies that only sold manual typewriters,
black and white television sets, and push lawnmowers a decade after its competitors had introduced electric typewriters, color
televisions, and electric lawnmowers would find themselves in trouble.

20
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for

the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,

the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.