Blog 5

Blog 5 Chapter 5

For this blog I will focus on a piece of all the reflection questions from chapter five, by extracting what I think are some of the strengths of each model and some areas of improvement.

First the Developmental Guidance and Counseling model, focuses on learning behaviors, tasks, skills, and necessary developmental experiences (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).  I love that this model works to promote awareness of the developmental stages and gives kids the tools to work through stages of transition and crisis.  I also think this model can be easily integrated into the school’s mission.  This model gives students the opportunity to learn valuable life skills that will promote growth and success throughout their life.  One area of improvement that I can see is a lack of focus on advocacy and multiculturalism.  Neither is mentioned in the description of the model.  Some marginalized students may not be reached in this model.  Also I would like if some considerations would be made for students in longer periods of crisis, students who are at-risk are more likely to experiences additional hardships in their life that may slow down their maturity.  Responsive services and individualized attention is important. 

Next the Essential Services Model is based on the trait and factor approach and the context of environments (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012). Some strengths of this model are the counselor’s ability to delineate tasks, make referrals, coordinate services and otherwise same time.  I also think some of the strengths are also weaknesses of the model.  With the counselor making so many referrals and providing consultation, the counselor could lose providing individual services.  I see the potential for losing relationships with students by outsourcing counseling services to social services agencies.  Also it may leave administrators wondering what the counselor actually does if everything the counselor is supposed to do is being done by a third party, parent, or teacher. 

The Results-Based Program Delivery Model integrates counseling services into the academic curriculum (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).  The counselor utilizes teaming which is a great way to utilize collaboration to meet the needs of at-risk students.  The counselor also spends a considerable amount of time collecting data to determine interventions that will be applicable to the needs of the students.  Again marginalized students and individuals in crisis may not be reached when the counselor is focused on the needs of the majority.  In this model students may lose important individual and responsive services from the counselor. Overall this approach seems fairly sterile to me and I would least like to design a counseling program with this framework. 

Next, The Strategic Comprehensive Model focuses on assessing student needs first and then providing appropriate services based upon those needs (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).  This model balances facilitating normal development, serving at-risk students, life-skill acquisition, educational/ career planning, leadership, and program management, and citizenship (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).   This model is well balanced with the exception of community involvement and a strong focus on evidence-based practices.  School counselors need to utilize the community and collaboration if he/ she is going to meet the expectations of this model.  Also, there wasn’t much mention of data collection and evidence-based practices.  This model is too losey-goosey for me. 

The authors’ Domain/ Activities/ Partners Model focuses on the role of the counselor, student activities, student competencies, and partnerships (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).  I think the concept of outlining the roles of the counselor and how to effectively function in that role with the goal of student-centeredness makes perfect sense.  However, I found the table they used to describe the model to very confusing. 

Next, the Strengths- Based School Counseling Model focuses on the positive attributes of students rather than student deficits.  I really connected with this model because of evidence-based practices such as Positive Discipline and The Incredible years.  This interventions and others are showing counselors, teachers, and parents that if you want to see an increase in the desired behavior that it’s best to focus attention on what you want to see rather than giving attention to what you do not want to see.  This model is empowering as well as practical.  One downside may be school wide implementation and choosing strengths of individuals while reaching the student population as a whole. 

Lastly, the Social Justice approach gives considerable attention to advocacy.  The Social Justice approach takes into account the student’s family, culture, and environment (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).  As counselors we must be willing to speak up against bias and be willing address our own.  However if the counselor’s primary focus is speaking out against injustice, the counselor may end up picking a lot of battles and damaging key relationships with decision makers.  The phrase, thread lightly but carry a big stick comes to mind.  A counselor much advocate in constructive ways by using his/ her relationship building skills, leadership, and expertise. 

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