Reflections on multiculturalism, social justice, and empowerment groups for academic success: a critical discourse for contemporary schools.

Writing the article entitled "Empowerment Groups for Academic Success: An Innovative Approach to Prevent High School Failure for At-Risk, Urban African American Girls," I anticipated that there would be mixed reactions, given the unique and nontraditional approach to working with a difficult and typically underserved population. The development and implementation of the Empowerment Groups for Academic Success (EGAS) approach requires operationalizing the multicultural counseling competencies (see Arredondo et al., 1996) and working toward true empowerment and social justice. Although most of the responses supported these notions, there was some questioning and skepticism about actually implementing an approach of this nature in real practice. I would therefore like to begin this rejoinder by addressing five key issues that impede doing effective work with at-risk and marginalized students similar to the student population that was presented in the EGAS article in order to establish a framework for more direct reactions to my colleagues' responses regarding the EGAS approach.

FIVE KEY ISSUES INHIBITING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EGAS APPROACH WITH AT-RISK AND MARGINALIZED STUDENTS

One critical issue inhibiting school counselors from using the EGAS approach with students identified as being at risk is group work training. Historically, group counseling has emphasized more structured and controlled groups, avoiding difficult and emotionally painful issues that would more easily emerge in a less controlled group format. This is evident in the practice by many school counselors to control group content, agendas, and themes for discussion and to regulate behaviors in ways similar to classroom management, rather than to enlist and engage the group itself to establish and collectively develop and monitor group norms and participate in deciding about group content.

One example that I see regularly in my consultation and training in public schools is the overemphasis on group exercises and "ice breakers." School counselors regularly introduce structured exercises, ice breakers, and prepackaged "guidance" lessons that define the content and process about what should be talked about and how group members should communicate. Many of these activities commonly focus on happy and positive feelings and thoughts, at the expense of allowing an examination of more painful issues. This is especially problematic for disenfranchised and failing students, who, through this type of structure, receive direct and indirect messages from the group structure to not deal with the depths of their pain, anger, frustration, sadness, hurt, anxiety, or fear. This kind of approach is most often supported at the graduate training level where future school counselors do not learn how to apply the effective counseling skills they learn in classes, practicums, and internships with more difficult student populations, thus perpetuating the lack of attention, care, and unique skills needed by at-risk and marginalized students.

A second core issue that I have seen with school counselors is confusion and uncertainty about how to work cross-culturally. We are finally in an era where multicultural counseling is recognized as integral to our profession. Our national and regional demographics in terms of race and ethnicity are rapidly changing, there is a national platform and agenda to incorporate multiculturalism into our profession, many of the counseling graduate programs have a mission that includes a multicultural focus and with at least one course in this area, and our licensure standards require coursework in multicultural counseling. Even so, many graduate programs do not infuse the multicultural counseling competencies (Sue & Sue, 2003) throughout the curriculum nor require multicultural experiences in the practicum or internship classes. Rather, the requirement for one multicultural course becomes sufficient, without regard to the relationship of cross-cultural issues to career development, human development, practice in the field placement courses, group counseling, testing and appraisal, and so forth. Thus, although the multicultural counseling competencies exist, training and application of the competencies at the graduate level remain varied and in some cases minimal.

This issue becomes even more fragmented when multicultural counseling is considered when working with groups. Bemak and Chung (2004) recently highlighted concerns about incorporating multicultural concepts into group counseling, presenting 17 recommendations for teaching multicultural group work. It is my belief that these recommendations are not common practice in graduate training programs.

A third key issue relates to the demographics of professionals in the field. In the American Counseling Association (ACA), the membership denotes the limited number of counselors of color who currently belong to ACA. In May 2004, membership included only 5.9% African Americans, 1.5% Asian Americans, 3.4% Latinos, and 1.1% Native Americans (R. C.-Y. Chung, personal communication, October 23, 2004). The 13% of ACA counselors from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds is in sharp contrast with the overall U.S. population, which currently has a total of 31% African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and the 38% of students of color enrolled in public education in the United States (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003). Projections are that by 2050, African American, Asian American, Latino American, and Native American groups will make up 49% of the U.S. population (Aponte & Wohl, 2000).

A fourth key issue relates to the number and breakdown of high school students who are at high levels of risk in public education, which is reflective of our work with these students. Although a total of 13% of students do not finish high school, almost one-third of Latino students are dropping out of school, which is more than 4 rimes the comparable rate for White students (Donahue, Daane, & Grigg, 2004). Students of color are receiving inferior educations, with 61% of African American, 53% of Latino, and 46% of Native American eighth graders performing below basic math levels (Braswell, Daane, & Grigg, 2004). One of three African American children is poor, and 28% of Hispanic children are poor; while pregnancy rates for students of color between the ages of 10 and 17 are high, with 41% of the total of unplanned pregnancies by African American youth, and 30% by Hispanic youth (Hamilton, Sutton, & Ventura, 2003).

Substance abuse is also a significant problem. Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman (2003) found that almost 10% of eighth graders reported having had more than five drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks. This number increases as students move to 10th grade (almost 20%) and 12th grade (24%). The researchers also found an alarming use of illicit drugs by students, with usage in the past 30 days at 12% for 8th graders, increasing to 22% for 10th graders, and 28% for 12th graders. Problems such as teen pregnancy, poverty, substance abuse, school dropout, and poor academic performance are all correlated with the cycle of high-risk behaviors and, in my opinion, require unique interventions by educational systems and school counselors.

In line with our educational system failing some students, many of our educators are negatively predisposed to students at risk who present problems. An example of this was when I met with 15 principals in an urban, middle-sized city to discuss the development of a major urban initiative to reduce academic failure. The principal of the "elite" and prized school in the system, when he felt free to talk, blurted out, "I don't know what all this talking is about. I have 600 students in my school. One hundred and fifty of them are thugs. If you could just remove them, I would be in good shape." His attitude about the "problem" students, who brought down his performance scores and attendance records in the school district, is, unfortunately, an attitude that I fear is shared by many other school personnel.

I would suggest that his attitude is shared by other educators, and that we have neglected and continue to ignore those students who are most in need, especially after they do not favorably respond to our well-intentioned programs. Rarely do we hold programs accountable for failure, but rather we regard the students as fairing. This was evident when a colleague was consulting for an urban school established especially for "problem" students. Within the first week at the recommendation of my colleague, 25% of the "troubled" student population was dismissed for poor behavior from the school, with no regard to possible failures in the structure or counseling services for this type of school.

Finally, the fifth core issue relates to empowerment. Empowerment is a word that is now very much in the mainstream with little discussion about its meaning. Yet, I have found myself oftentimes crossing paths with colleagues who are more controlling than empowering, causing me to wonder about their understanding of this concept. In my opinion, empowerment requires that an individual or group of individuals gain control over their lives and decisions. In order to accomplish this, those who typically make the decisions must relinquish their power and authority, as the previously disempowered gain greater control to manage their own lives. When this truly happens, it may mean that the growth and development of people who are becoming more self-defined and self-directed may begin to contradict those who previously had the power and made the decisions.

An example of this can be seen when a professional school counselor running a group for children of divorced families facilitates the empowerment of this group of students by moving with the flow of the group to discuss the violence that happened in their neighborhood the night before rather than insisting that the group stay "focused" on divorce. The themes of loss, fear, and being out of control underline the topic of community violence and parallel feelings that may be associated with divorce. Frequently, I have seen the school counselor inhibit and dismiss this highly charged and important discussion about a current event and refocus on the agenda at hand, in this case, divorce. The paradox here is that a deeper discussion about divorce may be generated by allowing the students to set the agenda and talk about the incident that deeply affected them, rather than disempowering them by maintaining the school counselor's agenda.

One byproduct of disempowerment is the perpetuation of an external locus of control. This can be seen when the school counselor assumes the role of an authority figure in a group, being the sole enforcer of rules and maintaining control of and for the group. You have seen it a number of times--when the students leave the group and go into the hallways, the lunchroom, the playground or recreational field, or places within the school environment where the counselor or teacher is not present, there is little or no carryover from the group counseling experience. This is in contrast to groups that foster an internal locus of control, whereby the group members participate in setting the agenda, monitoring and evaluating each other's behaviors, and consensually determining norms for the group: They generalize new behaviors, attitudes, and social skills beyond the group experience.

The EGAS approach aims at true empowerment, fostering group dynamics that generate a greater internal locus of control for students. The approach incorporates attention to the concerns of group members, allowing them to determine the group agenda and to establish and maintain many of the norms for behavior. Some school counselors may consider the empowerment of a group of students to set the agenda as being inappropriate, as being "off task" and thus taking the group away from planned activities and the counselor-established agenda. Yet, ignoring group members' pressing concerns that are relevant to the group goals, and that are not directly in line with a planned activity or guidance lesson, in effect disempowers members. I would suggest that true empowerment is when the school counselor accepts and at times follows the group as members assume control over their experience, which, in many instances, is for the first time in their lives. It means that the school counselor honors the group members' collective and individual will as long as it is consistent with the group goals, without maintaining control of the agenda.

RESPONSES TO MAJOR ISSUES RAISED BY COLLEAGUES

The mixed reaction from my colleagues about the EGAS approach is fascinating and provokes an important discourse in our field. Courtland Lee notes the need for a different type of approach and innovation to reach hard-to-reach students and speaks to the EGAS approach as a methodology that has the potential to do so. In turn, Curly Johnson and Sharon Johnson are favorably supportive of the EGAS approach, noting the importance of results and linkage with the mission of schools. Deryl Bailey talks about his belief that all students are at risk and the need to work across cultures given the low numbers of school counselors of color. Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy speaks with great concern about ethnic and gender match in working across cultures, while Kent Butler and Lela Bunch raise a concern about using data to measure the outcomes. In this section, let me address these and other points raised by my colleagues.

Lee, a leader in the field of counseling and multicultural counseling, is highly supportive of the EGAS approach. He found the work "groundbreaking," understanding that at-risk youth, urban youth, and youth of color are frequently casualties of failed systems. Lee, who has written extensively about empowering African American males, notes the following:

   Counselors do not empower the people they
   work with ... counselors merely provide the
   facilitative conditions that allow people to discover
   the internal resources to move their lives
   in positive directions.... In other words, people
   empower themselves and the counselors
   merely support the process.

He adds, "The EGAS model could be the archetype of a true empowerment model for urban youth ... a nurturing and safe place.... [It] represents the essence of empowerment." Finally, he comments on the importance of including process as a dimension in offering a "valuable alternative to structured group approaches to youth empowerment." In contrast with Holcomb-McCoy, Lee sees the critical need for "counselor awareness, sensitivity, and competence," which he notes "often are far more important than racial/ethnic similarity in counseling encounters." Similar to the other authors, he cautions that more evidence is needed about the impact on academic performance.

Lee's reaction is highly compatible with my own views. Moving toward a "true empowerment" with the EGAS approach is critical in working with disenfranchised youth. Using process creates a very different way to connect and, in my experience with this and other groups of youth, has been very powerful and is substantiated by the literature that supports group process as an intervention of choice in schools and as effective with at-risk youth. (For a more comprehensive discussion, see the "Empowerment Groups for Academic Success" article in this issue.) I began using a group process approach almost 4 decades ago as a summer counselor and later director of an Upward Bound program with youth identified as being at high risk for failure. Since that time, I have utilized the EGAS approach with disenfranchised youth in a vast number of school settings, consistently generating high degrees of interest, engagement, and improved academic performance. Finally, I agree with Lee's emphasis on the multicultural counseling competencies as the key to working across cultures, and having the potential to transcend and acknowledge differences, while maintaining the integrity and importance of one's own ethnic, racial, and gender identity and culture.

Johnson and Johnson also have been leaders in the field of school counseling for decades. They highlight the importance of group counseling to reach students and emphasize the need for a paradigm shift in urban schools. Given their model on results-based school counseling programs, they view positively the emphasis of EGAS going beyond traditional practices and focusing on academic success. They note, "These girls responded to EGAS whereas they hadn't responded to other interventions." I am in full agreement with the Johnsons, believing that to reach youth who remain consistently out of reach despite numerous interventions, we must introduce new methodologies and emphasize results. My premise in introducing EGAS is to present a new and different paradigm that is outside of mainstream practices that have had a track record of failure with youth identified as being at high levels of risk. The ultimate aim of the EGAS approach is academic success.

Bailey believes that all children are at risk and that it is important that "facilitators be representative of the students for whom the group is designed," although he acknowledges that "this may not always be possible in a school setting, especially in light of the low number of school counselors of color." Bailey also raises the issue of abandonment, suggesting that the group members may need longer-term interventions and relationships.

My experiences in directing a federal anti-poverty program for youth, directing state-funded mental health and educational programs for youth, and working and consulting around the world with numerous schools and populations (such as Brazilian street children, Nicaraguan war orphans, and on those on Native American reservations) lead me to emphatically state that not all children have the same level of risk, as proposed by Bailey. Given economic, social, and political factors, I would suggest that children are at different levels of risk that require different types of interventions and that the school counseling profession is one of many culprits in failing to provide relevant, effective services for the more marginalized and disenfranchised student.

Bailey also raises the important issue of a school counselor ethnic and racial match with the girls in the group, although he acknowledges that this may be difficult to achieve. I would ideally agree with him on this point, but given the fact that there were very few African American school counselors in the entire city system, and none in the high school where we implemented the EGAS approach, what is the alternative? In my opinion, we must rise to the calling and work with all students while adhering to, living, and breathing the multicultural counseling competencies.

Finally, Bailey points out the potential difficulty in leaving the students after the group experience. His point is well taken--closure must be handled carefully because part of any effective and powerful group is how members deal with termination. The group spent significant time reviewing the group experience and discussing the ending of both the academic year and the group. I would propose that the end of the group is part of the whole experience, especially in schools that are defined by the academic year. Thus, the critical issue, in my experience, is how the group and its members handle closure, rather than sustaining long-term groups that in the school environment may be unrealistic.

Holcomb-McCoy presents a strong argument for an ethnic and gender match. Although, again, I would agree that this would be ideal, when one looks at the ACA membership in terms of race and ethnicity and contrasts the racial and ethnic demographics of students in public schools, the likelihood of ethnic and gender match is highly improbable in most parts of the country. Contrary to Holcomb-McCoy's line of reasoning and given the demographic realities, I would thus strongly advocate that we must work across cultures using the multicultural counseling competencies as fundamental guidelines in order to be effective multicultural counselors and subsequently to be able to reach all students.

To reject using the multicultural counseling competencies eliminates 15 years of work done developing the multicultural counseling competencies (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992), operationalizing the competencies beginning in 1996 (Arredondo et al., 1996), and getting the resulting endorsements by the American Psychological Association, ACA, and all the respective divisions and branches. Clearly, the profession (e.g., Boyd-Franklin & Garcia-Preto, 1994; Constantine, 2002; Harley, Jolivette, McCormick, & Tice, 2002) has been actively engaged in a concerted attempt to educate and train professionals and establish standards regarding multicultural work.

Holcomb-McCoy's response that to implement the EGAS approach with African American girls requires an African American female counselor negates 15 years of work in the multicultural counseling field. "Based on this opinion, I believe that empowerment groups for African American girls should be led by at least one African American female," she comments. As previously mentioned, I fully agree with her that ideally there would be an African American woman running this group, and with other groups there would be an ethnic, racial, and gender school counselor match who also would be best suited to be a role model. Yet, to insist that an ethnic, racial, and/or gender match is a necessity for understanding and identifying with the experience of someone from a different cultural background or gender ignores and devalues decades of work by leaders in multicultural counseling and denies the realities of the dramatically changing ethnic/racial demographics and the limited number of school counselors of color.

My concern here is that if we wait for the ethnic and gender matches, we would leave behind hundreds of thousands of students at high levels of risk. I would suggest that the key here is not the match, but rather the knowledge and true understanding of how the multicultural counseling competencies affect one's work as a counselor, and the deep level of understanding about how one's own heritage, biases, privilege, prejudices, beliefs, stereotypes, values, and limitations affect counseling across cultures. After all, isn't this the intent of developing and operationalizing the competencies?

Holcomb-McCoy writes about the "missed element of an Afrocentric or Black feminist perspective." Again, ideally an African American women would be best suited as a role model and leader of this group, yet with no African American counselors in the school where this project was implemented, and the parallel disproportion throughout the United States, it was important to move ahead and facilitate discussion and attention to these critical issues in the girls' development as African American women. In fact, the group members spent significant time exploring these key issues with the support of the facilitators. Furthermore, when we traced the long-standing failure of past interventions with the group members, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender of the counselor, there was consensus only in that all former interventions had failed. From what the young women shared about past attempts by school counselors, I would suggest that the intervention failures were based on strategies that disempowered and ignored more profound life issues by professionals who did not engender the multicultural counseling competencies, rather than attribute the failures to discrepancies in ethnic or gender matches.

Certainly, as Holcomb-McCoy suggests, the articulation of a racial and feminine self was a major goal of empowerment that was accomplished through the EGAS approach. For example, in the group the young women discussed struggles related to being African American, teacher discrimination, community incidents, cross-gender violence, male-female relationships, and female relationships. The development of a safe environment where exploration of these deeply personal and challenging issues could be facilitated was critical in fostering an openness and willingness to explore difficult and painful issues.

Finally, Butler and Bunch raise an important and valid point: Where is the objective quantitative data? They are correct. The dilemma was that the school counselor who worked with the EGAS program and the principal who authorized the project were transferred and I left the region at the close of the school year. The new principal refused to allow access to the data, the former school counselor was denied access, and I had moved to a different city. I would fully concur with Butler and Bunch that a more thorough evaluation needs to be conducted that would measure the full scope of academic performance, including attendance, disciplinary referrals, behavioral problems, and grade changes, especially because the EGAS approach targets academic success. Furthermore, as Butler and Bunch suggest, it would be important to expand this approach to work with other culturally diverse populations and to measure its efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The EGAS approach is a new way for school counselors to provide interventions with students identified as being at risk. It requires high levels of sensitivity and skill about working across cultures and understanding the world of the disenfranchised and marginalized student. Furthermore, using the EGAS approach demands authentic empowerment of students, a letting go of control, and different ways of thinking about failure and punishment. I believe that we are at a critical time in our society, whereby we must rethink our ways of working with high-risk students and move past old paradigms.

References

Aponte, J. F., & Wohl, J. (Eds.). (2000). Psychological intervention and cultural diversity (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., et al. (1996). Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 42-78.

Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C.-Y. (2004). Teaching multicultural group counseling: Perspectives for a new era. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29, 31-41.

Boyd-Franklin, N., & Garcia-Preto, N. (1994). Family therapy: A closer look at African American and Hispanic women. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.), Women of color (pp. 239-264). New York: Guilford Press.

Braswell, J. S., Daane, M.C., & Grigg, W. S. (2004). The nation's report card: Math highlights 2003 (NCES Publication No. 2004451). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Constantine, M. G. (2002). The intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, and social class in counseling: Examining selves in cultural contexts. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 210-215.

Donahue, P. L., Daane, M. C., & Grigg, W. S. (2004). The nation's report card: Reading highlights 2003 (NCES Publication No. 2004452). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., & Ventura, S. J. (2003). Revised birth and fertility rates for the 1990s and new rates for Hispanic populations, 2000 and 2001: United States. National Vital Statistics Reports, 51 (12). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Harley, D. A., Jolivette, K., McCormick, K., & Tice, K. (2002). Race, class, and gender: A constellation of positionalities with implications for counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 216-238.

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., and Bachman, J. G. (2003). Monitoring the future: National survey results on drug use, 1975-2002. Volume 1: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 03-5375). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Highlights 2003 (NCES Publication No. 2004451). Washington, DC: Author.

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20, 644-688.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). 2000 Census of population and housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fred Bemak, Ed.D., is a professor and program coordinator, Counseling and Development Program, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.