Blog # 5

Reading about the delivery systems in Dollarhide and Saginak’s (2012) text really started to bring together the ideas of the ASCA National Model and effective comprehensive school counseling programs.  I viewed the delivery systems as the main component of a school counseling program.  It deals directly with the students and how counselors provide their services; which will be our main focus as future school counselors.  After reading through the chapter, I did not feel that one delivery system was that much better than another one.  I believe that each one could be useful in reaching students and delivering certain interventions and services.  This relates to the prescriptive and nonpresecriptive modes of delivery models that are described in Dollarhide and Saginak’s (2012) text (p. 88-9).  Learning about the different models of delivery has allowed me to reflect on the recent interviews I had with school counselors.  Before this, I was unaware that so models of delivery systems existed.  I interviewed three separate counselors within the same school district.  Although all of them were adamant about aligning their programs with the ASCA National Model; all of the delivery systems seem to differ.  Due to recent budget cuts; building administrators are now acting supervisors over their buildings counseling department.  After talking to the counselors, it appears that the delivery system basically relies on the administrators and their understanding of the school counseling program.  For example; the counselor in the elementary school shared with me that her building administrator allows her to deliver the program as she sees fit.  On the other hand, the counselor in the intermediate building has a different delivery model because the administrator believes that’s how the program should run.  This fact worried me somewhat because it does not sound like the student’s needs are being taken into consideration at all levels within the school.

The domains/activities/partners model includes a lot of the information that we have been discussing in class; such as, collaboration, advocating, educating, and consulting.  When reading about this model, I thought back on the interviews I conducted recently.  It appears there is a disconnect between administrators and counselors.  This disconnect could be due to a lack of understanding about comprehensive school counseling programs.  Schwallie-Giddis, ter Maat and Pak (2003) offered a great solution for this issue in their article about initiating leadership.  A leadership summit has the potential to form true collaboration across many stakeholders within the school environment.  This collaboration would not only help students but also help stakeholders learn the true roles of school counselors and how the ASCA National Model provides the “four major domains of foundation, delivery system, management system, and accountability” (Schwallie-Giddis, ter Maat & Pak, 2003, p. 172).  A summit of this nature could lead to what Dollarhide and Saginak (2012) discussed as an advisory board under the DAP model (p. 102).  Collaborating and advocating for students and our roles as future school counselors will be important in delivering an effective comprehensive school counseling program.  Something as simple as a leadership summit may allow counselors to educate other stakeholders within the school and align themselves more with the ASCA National Model.    

Dollarhide, C. T., & Saginak, K. A. (2012). Comprehensive school counseling programs. (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson, Inc.

Schwallie-Giddis, P., tar Maat, M., & Pak, M. (2003). Initiating leadership by introducing and implementing the asca national model. Professional School Counseling, 6(3), 170-174.