An experiential and systemic approach to encourage collaboration and community building.

School counselors have been encouraged to adopt a family systems perspective in schools (Amatea, 1989; Amatea & Brown, 2000; Carns & Carns, 1997; Fish & Jain, 1997; Hinkle, 1993; Widerman & Widerman, 1995). A major concept of this approach suggests that problems demonstrated by individuals are often a reaction to distress in the family unit (Carter & McGoldrick, 1999) and the consequence of patterns of interactions with others rather than singular events (Carns & Carns, 1997). Gladding (1995) suggested that individuals do not develop or interact in isolation from significant others, while others have noted that the unit of intervention is the social context rather than the individual (Haley, 1986, 1987; Hinkle, 1993; Peeks, 1993). Since individuals impact and are impacted by the systems of which they are a part (Minuchin, 1974), an appropriate strategy for working with students is to analyze problems from a systems perspective.

The school is conceptualized as a system, and students are members of a family system. Schaef and Fassel (1992) described a school district as a mega system, a school as a system, and classrooms as subsystems. Several authors described families and schools as a coupled system (Amatea & Brown, 2000; Caffery, Erdman, & Cook, 2000). They saw each as a system in its own right with distinctive memberships and predictable ways of interacting. Thus, students bring to school the dynamics of their family systems, and they must function in another system. This larger ecosystem provides the environment in which student problems evolve and the social context in which they can be analyzed and addressed by school counselors (Peeks, 1990). Finally, family systems and school systems are subsystems of yet a larger ecosystem--the community (Walsh, 1982).

The American School Counselor Association (1997, 1999) encourages a developmental approach to working with students and advocates that school counselors understand how academics are related to the world of work, the family, and the community. Thus, a systemic perspective appears to be an effective framework for delivering guidance and counseling services in schools (Davis, 2001; Hinkle & Wells, 2001; Keys, Bemak, Carpenter, & King-Sears, 1998; Keys & Lockhart, 1999; Kraus, 1998; Nicoll, 1992; Sink & Yillik-Downer, 2001). The challenge is to help school counselors approach their work through such a perspective. The purpose of this article is to describe an approach used at Seattle Pacific University to provide school counseling students with a systemic perspective for delivering guidance and counseling services to schools and to suggest ways this type of learning experience could be adapted by school counselors to enhance school- and district-wide collaboration in implementing and managing a comprehensive school counseling program.

The Blakely Island Learning Experience

At Seattle Pacific University, future school counselors are provided an opportunity to implement and analyze an ecosystem of their own making by creating a new community at the university's science field station on Blakely Island. As one student said, "When we landed on the island, it became obvious that we were the only ones around. We had to develop relationships with each other."

The need for students to develop relationships with each other begins with a boat trip to the island. Students soon distinguish several subgroups on board--fellow students, faculty members, families of faculty, and the boat's crew. Upon arrival at Blakely Island, the field station resident managers welcome everyone to the island and take them to the facility. Thus, another subsystem is introduced and comes into play. Without their consciously knowing it and analogous to a family and school working together to resolve a problem (Amatea & Brown, 2000), students are becoming members of an emerging ecosystem.

Elements of the Learning Experience

This island experience is designed to provide an introduction to systems theory and encourage students to create and maintain an open and collaborative community (i.e., system). Primarily experiential in design, activities are completed with minimal instructions being provided as the weekend progresses. All activities evolve deliberately and at a relaxed pace consistent with the surroundings of the island and the students' need to integrate what they are learning. Time is allotted to discuss what has been learned following each planned activity.

Students first learn they must negotiate their lodgings with little direction including the selection of a roommate. Students report that this decision is facilitated greatly by the initial interactions they experience with other members of the cohort aboard the chartered boat. Here they experience an important concept of systems thinking. Decisions are made according to a system of rules and boundaries created by each family in order to maintain stability within the system (Fish & Jain, 1997).

Once roommates are chosen, rooms selected, and luggage stowed, students and faculty participate in an icebreaker in the dormitory atrium. Widerman and Widerman (1995) suggested that interactional games provide an understanding of the ways individuals interact in their environment. Although this activity provides faculty the opportunity to observe the interaction patterns of individuals in the new cohort, what is more important is that the activity enables all members of the emerging ecosystem to develop in the presence of significant others (Gladding, 1995).

Dinner is served in the lodge followed by a brief introduction to the science field station by one of its resident managers. Rules to follow at the station are described, and system boundaries are explored. For example, students learn important safety rules since there is no medical facility on the island. Guidelines for exploring the island are provided since some homeowners on the island do not welcome visitors. Such information indirectly identifies a larger ecosystem surrounding the science field station community.

The culminating activity of the initial evening is the showing of the film Parenthood (Grazer & Howard, 1990). Students are asked to watch how the nuclear and extended families in the film impact each other. This nonacademic, humorous, insightful film keeps the attention of students after a long day while effectively demonstrating how subsystems influence the entire system and how the whole system impacts its subsystems. Following the film, students are divided into small groups, given poster paper and markers, and asked to create a graphic metaphor representative of what they saw in the film.

The following morning, each group presents its graphic metaphor. As the presentations are made, it is evident that individuals within each group have begun to establish roles (e.g., leaders, collaborators, risk-takers). This occurrence is consistent with Carns and Carns (1997) suggestion that individual members of an ecosystem play specific roles. Without hearing a formal presentation regarding systems theory, students begin describing several of its elements minus the vocabulary of systems thinking. In fact, they typically make vague references that they themselves are members of an emerging community (i.e., system).

It is only after these student presentations that a formal lecture on systems theory is given by faculty. Theory, vocabulary, key ideas, illustrations, and application in schools are all explored. For example, students explore four major elements of an ecosystem as described by Amatea and Brown (2000). First, an ecosystem is the social context in which an individual's behavior is developed and demonstrated as a result of the ongoing communication of system members regarding the individual and her or his problem. Second, an individual's problem often is maintained by the responses of others. Third, responses to the problem may become the problem. Finally, changing the patterns that give rise to and maintain the problem is the goal of a systemic approach to working with individuals.

A number of systems theory concepts are explored and experienced by students throughout this learning experience. They include linear and systemic approaches (Haley, 1986); family structure (Nichols & Everett, 1986); rules and boundaries (Carns & Carns, 1997; Fish & Jain, 1997; Gladding, 1995; Horne, 1991; Minuchin, 1974); equilibrium/homeostasis (Carns & Carns; Horne; Kerr & Bowen, 1988); system stressors (Carter & McGoldrick, 1999; Guerin & Katz, 1984; Kerr & Bowen; Rutter, 1985); triangulation (Guerin & Katz), first and second order changes (Carter & McGoldrick), and reframing (Bowman & Goldberg, 1983; Carns & Carns). Each of these concepts serves to inform students of the nature of systems and how they impact those with whom they will work in schools.

Efforts are made throughout the weekend to assist students to integrate theory, research, ideas in Parenthood (Grazer & Howard, 1990), and their own experience creating a representative metaphor with others. Examples using a systemic approach to working with children in K-12 schools are given. Such an orientation leads them to recognize there are times when it is appropriate and potentially more effective to work with the significant others in a student's ecosystem than it is to work with that individual directly.

Following this brief instructional period, our experience is that students begin to conceptualize the science field station and its subsystems as the emerging ecosystem. Before thinking this for too long, students are loaded into vans for a drive to an unannounced destination. It is on this ride through the forest, that they begin to recognize that the system and its subsystems they have created and defined is but a subsystem of an entire island, a small part of something much larger that impacts their system. However, they are in for one more surprise.

After parking the vans and taking a short walk through the trees, students suddenly arrive at Blakely Peak, the highest point on the island. Just when they are beginning to see the science field station as a subsystem of an island's system, they visualize this island is but a subsystem of an even larger system. Before them and in the distance are the islands that make up the archipelago known as the San Juan Islands.

While at Blakely Peak, students are provided a time in which to discuss their experience by articulating and applying what they have been learning. As school counselors, they will be working with students representing many family systems in a school system that is part of a community system. At the top of an island, they are able to "see" what they have been learning.

Following a ride back to the science field station and lunch, students are given several hours of free time. They decide how they will spend this time and with whom they will spend it. The purpose of this unstructured period is to provide students an opportunity to explore additional elements of their ever-expanding ecosystem, interact with significant others in the system, and integrate and apply what they have learned.

Through one last activity, the students' newly acquired systems perspective is reinforced by having them form a circle and asking them to connect themselves with a rope. Each student throws the rope to another student regardless of where that student is positioned in the circle. After every student is connected to every other student, they are asked to pull on the rope. Each feels the pressure and impact of others. In a simple but concrete way, they experience how each individual impacts all others and how all others impact individual students.

Before loading up the vans for the trip back to the dock and the boat home, students sharing a suite (i.e., a subsystem) clean their rooms. Interacting together, they prepare the science field station for the next occupants and thus impact a future ecosystem. Already having recognized the significant role the resident managers played in their emerging system, students see the crew differently on the boat ride home. Later analysis by students informed the faculty that they also consider the crew an important subsystem to the success of the entire ecosystem they have experienced.

Follow-Up Activity

Upon returning to campus, students are given a final assignment to assist professors evaluate what they have learned. First, they are asked to view the film Mindwalk (Cohen & Capra, 1992). In contrast to Parenthood (Grazer & Howard, 1990), this film provides a theoretical discussion, exploration, and application of systems theory. Students are encouraged to watch this film with others who attended the class on Blakely Island.

Goldenberg and Goldenberg (1991) suggested the importance of reading the professional literature regarding family counseling theory. Therefore, students are required to read several articles about systems theory and write a formal paper in which they analyze the weekend on Blakely Island from a systemic point of view. They are directed to use a descriptive metaphor and apply systems theory to their experience. Finally, students are asked to attach a graphic presentation of their metaphor to their paper. Watching the film Mindwalk (Cohen & Capra, 1992), the development of their paper, and a graphically presented metaphor enables students to synthesize all they have learned and experienced on Blakely Island.

Outcomes

To what degree does this experiential weekend encourage students to use a systems approach in their work? Many students follow the suggestion to watch the film Mindwalk (Cohen & Capra, 1992) with other students. This indicates their continued interaction with members of the system, serves to strengthen a collaborative mindset, and helps maintain the system they created.

Members of the faculty particularly note the degree to which a systems perspective is applied by students in their subsequent courses. For example, one of the first courses students complete following this learning experience is Advanced Developmental Foundations. Almost without exception, students apply a systems perspective as they explore the fact that students do not develop in isolation but within the context of a family system. Likewise, at the end of the program when students are completing their school counseling internship, students often remind each other during group supervision to think about including the family or community resources when working with a challenging student.

With the exception of the required final paper, we have primarily chosen to measure student performance by noting the degree to which students apply a systems perspective throughout the school counseling program. We believe this is consistent with teaching systems theory using an experiential approach.

Implications for School Counselors

There are many ways in which this type of learning experience could be adapted by school counselors to enhance district- and school-wide collaboration in the implementation and management of a comprehensive school counseling program (Dahir, 2001). In our view, for comprehensive programs to be effective and fully operational, district and school-level staff, faculty, and administrators need to work well together. That is, they must adopt a systems perspective (e.g., Carns & Carns, 1997; Keys & Lockhart, 1999). Parents and community members need to be involved as well. Open communication must, therefore, be encouraged and program ownership shared by all educators (Rowley, 2000; Sink & Yillik-Downer, 2001). In short, educators operating within a comprehensive program must see their individual and common responsibilities in helping students master various competencies across various developmental domains (e.g., personal/social, educational, and career).

Consequently, we propose that a Blakely-like experience could be devised, where key educators across the district (or within a particular school) join the counseling staff (e.g., school counselors, mental health practitioners, drug and alcohol specialists, school psychologists) for some concentrated time away from the day-to-day routine. In consultation with representatives from each school building, K-12 counselors would take the lead in formulating a "hands on" learning experience that include these overarching goals: (a) to build consensus, cohesiveness, and a sense of community among all attendees, (b) to encourage everyone impacting students to work systemically, and (c) to harness this collaborative energy and spirit to further the aims of the comprehensive program.

Obviously, logistical considerations will need to be "hammered out" in several planning meetings. For instance, administrators will need to consult with their staff and faculty to determine a good time to hold such an extended gathering. Consider implementing this approach early in the school year to enable participants to carry the energy created by this experience into their work with students and families. A Friday afternoon experience that stretches at least into the evening could be arranged. It may even be possible for participants to remain at a retreat center overnight, enhancing the community-building process.

The optimal number of attendees should be explored in light of budget constraints and other pragmatic concerns (e.g., food, size of the facility, number of group facilitators needed). Because a level of intimacy is required, we suggest up to 25 participants be involved at one time. Depending on the level of comfort and extravagance desired, the costs for staging such an event can range between $65 and $150. Release time costs will also have to be factored into the budget. If the experiential process lasts only through the evening, the resources required might be fairly minimal.

Selecting the right location is also vital. Going off to some inviting locale enhances the motivational level of potential attendees. We have found that several relatively isolated and low-cost facilities that encourage a systemic perspective are available to the public within city limits. Where travel time is a major determinant of whether people participate or not, the planning committee might look for some community center or park facility; where attractive meeting rooms are available.

Counselors should refresh the potential attendees on systems theory, and if needed, on the fundamentals of comprehensive school counseling programs. This information could be included either in the first few hours of the experience or, if possible, given in a preliminary in-service or staff meeting. In order to build interest in attending the actual event, the in-service's content should be basic and practical, but the presentation needs to be lively, engaging, and enjoyable. Perhaps, an outside speaker could be brought in to facilitate these discussions.

An important element of this learning approach is its experiential nature. In addition to exploring systems from a theoretical perspective, participants spend the majority of time actively collaborating with others and experiencing their impact on the system and the system's impact on them. Therefore, providing some time to debrief what they have learned can serve to enhance the learning experience. This can be accomplished as a culminating activity or in a follow-up meeting scheduled at school or a district facility.

Finally, it is important to monitor and assess the degree to which an increased sense of community and collaboration among key educators has resulted from this experience. This can be accomplished through observation, anecdotal records, or survey data.

Concluding Remarks

Using a systems perspective has been advocated as an effective approach for helping students solve problems. Similarly, comprehensive school counseling programs that incorporate systems thinking appear to assist students to meet various educational, career, and personal/social standards (Lapan, 2001). The experiential approach described may provide school counseling students as well as K-12 educators with a better understanding of systems theory, while enhancing staff and faculty collaboration and cohesiveness. Recommendations for the effective implementation of such a learning experience are specified as well. If these experiences are productive for educators, they may also be extended to students. Counselors could develop off-campus, full-day; or overnight events that focus on relevant and collaborative community-building experiences. Other hands on experiences, for example, could be more specifically aimed at reducing racial and ethnic tensions, implementing a school-wide sexual harassment policy, a cross-age mentoring program, or training peer helpers.

References

Amatea, E. S. (1989). Brief strategic intervention for school behavior problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Amatea, E. S., & Brown, B. E. (2000). The counselor and the family: An ecosystemic approach. In J. Wittmer (Ed.), Managing your school counseling program: K-12 developmental strategies (2nd ed., pp. 192-203). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media.

American School Counselor Association. (1998). Position statement: The school counselor and comprehensive guidance. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (1999). Role statement: The role of the professional school counselor. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bowman, P., & Goldberg, M. (1983). Reframing: A tool for the school psychologists. Psychology in the School, 20, 210-214.

Caffery, T., Erdman, P., & Cook, D. (2000). Two systems/one client: Bringing families and schools together. The Family Journal, 8, 154-160.

Carns, A. W., & Carns, M. R. (1997). A systems approach to school counseling. The School Counselor, 44, 218-223.

Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (1999). Expanded family life cycle (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

iCohen, A. (Producer), & Capra, B. (Director). (2001). Mindwalk [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.

Dahir, C. A. (2001). The national standards for school counseling programs: Development and implementation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 320-327.

Davis, K. M. (2001). Structural--strategic family counseling: A case study in elementary school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 4, 180-186.

Fish, M. C., & Jain, S. (1997). Using systems theory in school assessment and intervention: A structural model for school psychologists. In W. M. Walsh & G. R. Williams (Eds.), Schools and family therapy: Using systems theory and family therapy in the resolution of school problems (pp. 43-57). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Gladding, S. (1995). Family therapy: History, theory, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. (1991). Family therapy: An overview (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove: CA: Brooks/Cole.

Grazer, B. (Producer), & Howard, R. (Director). (1990). Parenthood [Motion picture]. United States: MCA Home Video.

Guerin, P., & Katz, A. (1984). The theory in therapy of families with school related problems: Triangles and a hypothesis testing model. In J. C. Hansen & B. F. Okum (Eds.), Family therapy with school related problems (pp. 29-45). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.

Haley, J. (1986). Behavior modification and a family view of children. In H. C. Fishman & B. L. Rosman (Eds.), Evolving models for family change (pp. 41-61). New York: Guilford.

Haley, J. (1987). Problem solving therapy (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hinkle, J. S. (1993). Training school counselors to do family counseling. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 252-257.

Hinkle, J. S., & Wells, M. E. (2001). Family counseling in the schools: Effective strategies and interventions for counselors, psychologists, and therapists. Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS.

Horne, A. (1991). Social learning family therapy. In A. M. Horne & J. I. Passmore (Eds.), Family counseling and therapy (2nd ed., pp. 463-496). Itaska, IL: Peacock.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: W.W. Norton.

Keys, S., Bemak, F., Carpenter, S., & King-Sears, M. (1998). Collaborative consultant: A new role for counselors serving at-risk youths. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 123-133.

Keys, S. G., & Lockhart, E. J. (1999). The school counselor's rote in facilitating multisystemic change. Professional School Counseling, 3, 101-107.

Kraus, I. (1998). A fresh look at school counseling: A family systems approach. Professional School Counseling, 1(4), 12-17.

Lapan, R. T. (2001). Results-based comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: A framework for planning and evaluation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 289-299.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Nicoll, W. G. (1992). A family counseling and consultation model for school counselors. The School Counselor, 39, 351-361.

Nichols, W. C., & Everett, C. A. (1986). Systemic family therapy: An integrative approach. New York: Guilford.

Peeks, B. (1990). A family approach for treating behaviorally impaired students in the schools. Oregon Counseling Journal, 12, 12-15.

Peeks, B. (1993). Revolutions in counseling and education: A systems perspective in the schools. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 245-251.

Rowley, W. J. (2000). Expanding collaborative partnerships among school counselors and school psychologists. Professional School Counseling, 3, 224-228.

Rutter, M. (1985). Family and school influences on behavior development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 349-368.

Schaef. A. W., & Fassel, D. (1992). The addictive organization. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Sink, C. A., & Yillik-Downer, A. (2001). School counselors' perceptions of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: A national survey. Professional School Counseling, 4, 278-288.

Walsh, F. (Ed.). (1982). Normal family processes. New York: Guilford.

Widerman, J. L., & Widerman, E. (1995). Family systems-oriented school counseling. The School Counselor, 43, 66-73.

William J. Rowley, Ed.D., is an associate professor, School Counseling and Psychology, Seattle Pacific University, WA. E-mail: [e-mail]

Christopher A. Sink, Ph.D., is a professor, School Counseling and Psychology, Seattle Pacific University.

Ginger MacDonald, Ph.D., is a professor and director, Education Program, University of Washington, Tacoma.