First off I must say that I never had any idea that there were so many different models of delivery systems out there. Chapter 6 in our textbook did a nice job of synthesizing the models. I enjoyed reading each one and found myself nodding in agreement to many of the components. They all have their pros and cons. I found myself agreeing to many aspects of the Developmental Guidance and Counseling Model. "The intent of a developmental guidance program is to promote awareness and learning about development and transition, provide support and skill development, and prevent problem situations from occurring in advance." (Dollarhide & Saginak, p. 89). This model is grounded in developmental theory (remember Erikson?) and I like that it has a preventive focus. I am just not sure that the focus on individual counseling is the way to go as it does not reach a large number of students. With counselors having caseloads of 500 or more and limited time, I wonder if group or classroom lessons might be a better route. I do want to learn more about the TAP focus (teacher-advisor program).
I appreciated Kelli Saginak's reflection moment on pg. 94 of our textbook. She asks what we think about teachers and school counselors collaborating with or co-delivering the classroom guidance lessons. This makes sense. The teacher knows his/her class best and is experienced in teaching. The school counselor has skills and lesson plans that compliment the class learning. I think this model encourages more teacher "buy in" to the counseling program and if the teacher and counselor work well together, this model could be really effective.
I enjoyed the Results-Based Program Delivery Model for many of the reasons Nakia wrote about in her blog. I love the question, "How are students different as a result of the school counseling program?" The use of assessment and evaluation data is key here too as it serves as an effective way to steer the counseling program.
The section on the DAP model was pretty comprehensive. Since it was designed by the authors of the textbook they were very knowledgeable about this model! I liked that it incorporated the three domains of academic, personal/social, and career development. The chart was helpful on pgs.98-100. I liked the emphasis on partners (student, parents and colleagues). The Advisory Board was intriguing yet intimidating. I once ran a Youth/Parent Advisory Board for my Youth group and it really never worked. Reflecting on that not so positive experience I see that I did not really understand the role of the board and I was also quite controlling of my programs and leadership. I like the idea of an Advisory Board that will "guide program efforts, advocate for change, and be a voice for school counseling in the district." (Dollarhide & Saginak, p. 102).
I blogged about the aspects of a Strength-Based School Counseling model last week and I think keeping the social justice piece in the forefront of our minds at all times (whatever model of delivery system we operate from) is crucial. "Our voices are essential in opposing bias, prejudice, oppression, marginalization, and inequity in our schools and communities to help students attain their educational aspirations." (Dollarhide & Saginak, p. 105).
While I gained a lot of different perspectives on the various models of delivery systems, I must admit I was a bit overwhelmed by it all. How to pick the right model for the school and students is a great task. Knowing yourself and which model you could operate out of and be most effective is important. I don't know what school I will be in or what they may have in place. I feel like the first year is just going to be about figuring it all out (although we never have it all figured out do we??). I hope I will have some space to do that so I can make the best decisions for the program and people it serves.
Dollarhide, C.T. & Saginak, K.A. (20120. Comprehensive school counseling programs. (2nd ed.) New York: Pearson, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment