Before this week, I was not aware of how many comprehensive
school counseling program models existed, outside from the ASCA National Model,
of course. It was interesting to compare
the models presented by Dollarhide and Saginak (2012) with the National Model
to see similarities and differences. Of
particular interest to me was the discussion on peer facilitation as a part of
the Developmental Guidance and Counseling Method. One word that I am very passionate about
embodying in practice is “empower.” I
believe that as we empower students to be leaders, they will benefit personally
and also be an asset to school counselors in that they are able to handle
issues that may arise with peers.
According to Dollarhide and Saginak, peer facilitator programs can train
students to do things such as “peer tutoring, peer mentoring, peers working
alongside in-school suspension programs, tutoring students who have missed
extended amounts of school…and peer mediation” (2012, p. 91). Often, they note, students are more willing
to talk to a peer than a parent, teacher, or other administrator. As counselors seek to “multiply themselves”
in order to reach more students, taking the time to invest in a small group of
peer facilitators might be the greatest asset of their program. Similarly, the emphasis on including teachers
as a vital part of the guidance program can provide a stronger sense of unity
in the school as counselors, administrators, and teachers work together to meet
the academic, career development, and personal/social development needs of
students. One potential problem to
implementing the Developmental Model would be a staff that is not united in this
vision. If that would happen, students
would not really be receiving equal access to resources and services.
The
Social Justice Approach to Comprehensive School Counseling was also interesting
to me. While I agree that it is very
important for all students to have equitable access to services, I am not sure
that focusing on those students with the most needs is the best way to reach
this goal. If we focus only on those
students who are “at risk” we risk allowing the majority of the students to “fall
through the cracks.” To me, social
justice means that EVERYONE gets what s/he needs. That may mean that we have to work more or
focus slightly more on the students with more needs, but it certainly DOES NOT
mean neglecting the rest.
Overall,
I felt that most of the CSCP models covered the same basic material or
elements, but simply called the elements different things or placed them in a
different order of preference. I feel
that it is hard to adequately evaluate these models without seeing how they
function first-hand, as we did with the ASCA National Model.
References
Dollarhide, C.T., & Saginak, K. A. (2012). Comprehensive school counseling programs:
K-12 delivery systems in action.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment