Collaboration is a very interesting topic. So much depends on our ability to collaborate with others. It is necessary for us to communicate idea, to garner support and to achieve the best results. There are so many people within a school staff that are in their positions because they want to help children grow to be the best citizens possible. But with so many different ideals and frames of reference, it is important that we understand the individual roles within a school system as well as how the pieces fit together. The book talks a lot about the importance of understanding the roles of all pupil services members. This would be a very good topic of conversation within course work for all educators, including principalship curriculum. So many roles overlap, it would be beneficial to have some idea of the breadth of our roles. However, we are still defining our own roles in our national program, let alone locally. Coordinating support program goals in the school would help maintain a cohesive schema. In graduate studies, our shared coursework is a valuable, yet underutilized forum where SC, clinical and school psych could collaborate and discuss school systems and roles. It would be advantageous to make use of these opportunities to create connections which will serve us in the field. Perhaps creating a community within our fields on the professional training level would further enhance the school communities.
On a larger, meso-systemic level is
community asset mapping. Counselors I have spoken with have said they invite
professionals from area service providers to join SC meetings to
inform the suite of their services. They tell me however, this happens only
every few years. This is not often enough because of policy changes and that the
personnel turnover rate is relatively high in social services. I am aware of a
local agency which informs community citizens of aids and services. I feel this
would be a beneficial group to connect with. Counselors work closely with area
agencies for referrals and collaboration.
The book speaks of the vast majority
of students whose needs go unmet because they are not at either extreme, high
achievers or at-risk. As one of the average students, it is very frustrating to
be overlooked, set aside and considered good enough. This is one population
which I am drawn to counseling to help. I don’t want to see these kids fall
through the cracks. I believe, the TAP program model does address this matter
to a good degree; allowing each child to be seen as a unique individual. The
relationship with the teacher advisor can be somewhere around 1:20 or less,
as opposed to 1:400. Ideally, through this format each child is provided
opportunity to connect to the school and an advisor on some level, regularly.
As the Kahn (2000) article suggests,
collaborating with individuals from these groups and students can include a
solution focused and positive approach. Each agency service provider and school
support personnel’s ideas are motivated by student betterment and reflect our
frame of reference and expertise. SFC is based on searching for common ground and
success within the existing system, individual and relationship. SFC supports a
respectful framework for integrating ideas and reflecting on the small changes
that will lead to bigger improvements.
Dollarhide, C.T., & Saginak,
K.A. (2012). Comprehensive school counseling programs (2nd Ed.). New York:
Pearson, Inc.
Kahn, B.B., (2000). A model of solution-focused consultation for school counselors.Professional School Counseling, 3 (4), 248-54.
No comments:
Post a Comment