Wraparound counseling: an ecosystemic approach to working with economically disadvantaged students in urban school settings.
Urban public schools are besieged by myriad challenges. High on the list of these challenges are low academic performance, particularly among children from impoverished communities (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2006; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2003); school-based crime and interpersonal violence (Kaufman et al., 1998); burnout among school personnel (Brown, Galassi, & Akos, 2004; West-Olatunji & Behar-Horenstein, 2005); and low parental involvement (Ascher, 1987; Casas, Furlong, & Ruiz de Esparza, 2003; West-Olatunji, Sanders, Mehta, & Behar-Horenstein, 2010). Previous and current attempts to address these issues have included compensatory programs, school-based intervention strategies, referrals to alternative education programs, professional development schools, and collaboration initiatives between home and school. Although there has been some success with each of these responses, change has been slow. A more holistic, ecosystemic approach is needed (Adelman & Taylor, 2002; Chung & Pardeck, 1997; Lewis, Lewis, Daniels, & D'Andrea, 2003; West-Olatunji & Watson, 1999), particularly one that places counselors in a leadership role (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007a). As outlined in the American School Counselor Association's (ASCA; 2005) National Model, when counselors take leadership roles, they can serve as advocates for marginalized students who consistently underperform.
As advocates of the profession, counselors exemplify the humanistic underpinnings of counseling: a belief in the basic goodness of human beings and awareness that individuals seek self-actualization. This positivistic approach to mental health service provision relies on several basic assumptions--empathy, respect, and authenticity--as hallmarks of the discipline of counseling (Adams & Juhnke, 2001). Empathy, within the context of historical underachievement and the absence of self-actualization within marginalized sectors of society, is viewed as more comprehensive than the interpersonal empathy that is evident in traditional individualized service provision. Social empathy extends the traditional microlevel of empathy to incorporate the macrolevel or sociopolitical context (Segal, 2007). Thus, counselors use their skills to seek social empathy to consider the impact of the persistent underachievement on society as a whole.
For example, for the United States to compete in the global economy, U.S. students need to be internationally competitive in the fields of mathematics and science (National Science Board, 1998, 2006). However, the historical and systemic marginalization of low-income students have resulted in their chronic underperformance, when it has been shown that a good preparation in mathematics and science can help youth become more active citizens (National Science Board, 1998, 2006). Furthermore, by focusing on this population of students using a strength-based perspective, counselors can facilitate the inclusion of new voices that can contribute knowledge and innovative ideas to advance student achievements in mathematics and science, thereby advancing the country as a whole (West-Olatunji, Shure, Garrett, Conwill, & Torres, 2008). We focus on an ecosystemic framework because of its supposition that the school environment and the greater sociocultural environment influence the family and that the community and family influence the school in a reciprocal fashion (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 20071); Anderson, Goolishian, & Winderman, 1987).
The purpose of this article is to introduce an innovative approach, wraparound counseling, that can be used to harness this reciprocal relationship to meet the needs of symptomatic (i.e., exhibiting academic, social, and behavioral challenges) as well as nonsymptomatic youth in urban settings. In this article, we use the general and unifying term counselor to refer to both mental health and school counselors working in school settings. The approach that we describe applies to all counseling professionals operating in educational environments. Outlined are recommendations that use an interdisciplinary approach and incorporate interprogrammatic strands of counselor-trainee course work to illustrate how wraparound counseling can be used as a holistic prevention tool.
Over 3 decades of compensatory education in the United States have been fueled by Title I, Part A, of the No Child Left Behind compensatory education funds to address the achievement gap between students in impoverished communities and their more advantaged peers (McDill & Natriello, 1998). Although some positive outcomes have been noted, compensatory education programs have, by and large, failed to serve as a model for ameliorating the effects of poverty on the academic outcomes of youth (Lange & Lehr, 1999). Results from more recent studies suggest that culturally sensitive (Beck, 1999; Hamovitch, 1999) and comprehensive schoolwide approaches similar to wraparound counseling help ensure that proper student support and interventions are implemented and sustained (Eber, Sugai, Smith, & Scott, 2002; McDill & Natriello, 1998). In the following sections, we describe various approaches of this nature.
School-Based Intervention Strategies
Although there has been limited success with school-based interventions, the traditional approach in which mental health professionals are reactive and remediation-oriented has not sufficiently served the school community's needs (Patton et al., 2000). Services are often fragmented and predominantly couched in assessment and consultation (Paternite, 2005). What has emerged is a belief that school-based interventions involving student engagement and input have positive outcomes (Patton et al., 2000).
Alternative Education Programs
Emerging from a need to separate disruptive students from performing students, primarily at the middle and high school levels, alternative education programs seek to provide specialized interventions for an at-risk population of students (Foley & Pang, 2006). Varying widely in setting, teaching strategies, curriculum, and student demographics, alternative education programs serve approximately 2% of the total U.S. student population (Van Acker, 2007). Unfortunately, these programs lack sufficient empirical support for their effectiveness (Tobin & Sprague, 2000).
Professional Development Schools (PDS)
Born out of the education reform movement, PDS have a multipurpose mission to influence teacher candidate preparation, practitioner development, applied research, and student learning (Carey, 2004). However, challenges to collaborative inquiry in PDS have been characterized by lack of parity in perceptions of who can construct knowledge (Trachtman, 2007). Teachers often have difficulty assuming an inquiring role as teacher-researcher, frequently deferring to university faculty in the task of knowledge generation (Carey, 2004). Moreover, the current climate of high stakes testing diverts teacher efforts of inquiry toward an increasing emphasis on preparing students for standardized tests (Darling-Hammond, 2004; West-Olatunji & Behar-Horenstein, 2005).
Partnerships Between Home and School
One way in which schools are collaborating with communities is by establishing more formal, institutionalized linkages through federally funded out-of-school time (OST) programs such as after-school, weekend, and summer school programs (Pittman, Irby, Yohalem, & Wilson-Ahistrom, 2004). These programs provide parents with an opportunity to partner with educators at the design stage to develop programs that meet the social, emotional, and cultural needs of their children. Another strategy for home-school collaboration is the development of full-service schools in which on-site social and medical services are offered in schools by means of an integrated service delivery model (Dryfoos, 1994). A full-service approach incorporates an understanding of the interaction between student learning and social services (McMahon, Ward, Pruett, Davidson, & Griffith, 2000). Thus far, these programs have met with varying degrees of success. Yet, with school support, there is potential for counselors in schools to build on these concepts to offer collaborative, preventive strategies that benefit multiple levels of the school system.
WRAPAROUND COUNSELING AS A SYSTEMIC INTERVENTION
Previous attempts by educators have been unsuccessful in meeting the needs of disadvantaged urban youth. What may be warranted is for counselors in school settings to implement a process that emphasizes a holistic, preventive, and systemic approach that views the school as a community of interactive microsystems. The solution we offer in this discussion introduces wraparound counseling as a systemic approach. Wraparound counseling addresses not only the presenting child but also microsystems present in the child's ecology, such as parents and caregivers, teachers, and other school personnel. As a secondary outcome, wraparound counseling addresses nonsymptomatic children as well by serving as a prevention tool for the school community.
Wraparound counseling is a synthesis of individualized wraparound planning and the basic tenets of the profession of counseling. With roots in special education practices, individualized wraparound planning targets students with emotional and behavioral challenges to allow these students to remain in the least restrictive or mainstream environment (Skiba & Peterson, 2002; Stevenson & Surber, 2003). This approach to holistic care provision maximizes outcomes for special needs students and guards against gaps in service provision across disciplines (Eber & Nelson, 1997; Price & Edgar, 1995).
Wraparound counseling can facilitate a transition from the current limits of school counseling roles to a more holistic definition of how counselors function in schools. Thus far, counselors in school settings have not played a major role in the efforts to ameliorate existing school crises (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007a). Yet, counselors are uniquely qualified to facilitate schoolwide systemic change. As a discipline, counseling focuses on prevention, empowerment, wellness, and client-centeredness and uses a strength-based approach to interventions. Moreover, counselors' contemporary emphasis on culturally competent practices and advocacy strengthens their capacity as problem solvers in schools (Casas et al., 2003). In particular, counselors in school settings have embraced a comprehensive school counseling model that emphasizes children-in-context, partnering with families for greater congruence between home and school, and the use of data-driven interventions (ASCA, 2005).
When exploring the context in which clients are situated, an ecosystemic perspective can foster a sense of client agency and enhance the therapeutic alliance between counselor and client (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007b; Chung & Pardeck, 1997). More important, viewing clients through an ecosytemic lens facilitates awareness of contextual risk and protective factors (Goodman & West-Olatunji, 2008). An understanding of the sociocultural context, especially when working with culturally diverse families, can extend the margins of the system of care to incorporate more systemic influences, such as community support systems (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007a; Anderson et al., 1987; West-Olatunji & Watson, 1999).
As can be seen in Figure 1, there are attractive similarities between the system of care philosophy in the discipline of counseling and individualized wraparound planning (Adams & Juhnke, 2001). For instance, both approaches (a) formulate goals for multiple life domains, (b) involve various family members to clarify the client's context, and (c) emphasize client strengths and possibilities rather than pathology. In addition, counseling and Individualized wraparound planning both seek to (a) enhance meaningful family and community supports, (b) prevent Institutionalization, and (c) empower the client by using the student's and/or client's expertise to construct individually tailored, creative solutions (Adams & Juhnke, 2001; Stevenson & Surber, 2003).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Wraparound counseling capitalizes on the strength-based, collaborative elements of individualized wraparound planning by expanding these elements to address systemwide needs. Wraparound counseling teams develop preventive interventions that target level-specific problems in student achievement, social interactions, teacher satisfaction, and parental involvement with the intent of strengthening the entire system and preventing anticipated crises (Eber, Nelson, & Miles, 1997). This process begins with an assessment of a school's psychosocial challenges at various levels of the system. This is followed by a cultivation of existing strengths in the school and surrounding community to devise educational and developmental interventions that are applied to multiple levels of the school system as systemic counseling tools.
By intervening at multiple levels, counselors team with other stakeholders, such as parents, school personnel, community agencies, and other mental health professionals, to strengthen the school system. In turn, schools that enact wraparound counseling can create stronger, more cooperative, future-oriented systems that are resilient and less susceptible to unexpected crises. This is because the school system has anticipated problems and intervened to prevent them. Schools are then better able to handle any crises that emerge because existing strengths are maximized and all levels of the system are in synchrony.
Administrators in an elementary PDS that was affiliated with a local university approached the counseling faculty to request assistance with their school community. Upon their examination of the situation, counseling faculty saw clearly that the school struggled with common problems faced by many low-resourced schools. The principal disclosed that the school had received a failing score based on accountability standards, despite the hard work of the teachers and students over the past year. As a result, teacher morale was down, several teachers had resigned or requested transfers to schools with fewer problems, students were exhibiting signs of stress and anxiety as incidents of classroom conflicts had increased, and parents were angry and frustrated about the unsatisfactory learning outcomes as indicated by the publicized statewide achievement tests. The school, serving approximately 600 African American children, was situated in an urban, low-income neighborhood near a public housing development that was located in a major southern city. The faculty was composed of a wide range of professionals, including veteran teachers as well as candidates from alternative certification programs. Approximately 65% of the teachers were African American.
The counseling team consisted of one professional counselor (the first author) and four master 's-level counselor trainees (one of whom is the second author). The team began their intervention with an in-service seminar for the teachers to provide them with an opportunity to share concerns and pose goals and objectives for the counseling experience. Abbreviated interviews were also conducted with the school administrators and parents. The counseling team conducted randomized behavioral observations on the school campus. By analyzing the data gathered from these sources, the counseling team was able to prioritize which services would be provided for each of the stakeholder groups to address the counseling needs of the school community as a whole. To maximize resources, the counselors also identified community organizations that would be available for possible collaborations and partnerships. Finally, the team established evaluation protocols to determine their effectiveness at the end of the intervention period. The overall intervention plan was shared with the faculty, parents, and students for feedback; modified; and then implemented.
During the semester-long intervention phase of 12 weeks, the counseling team provided individual, crisis, and group counseling interventions with the students; in-class modeling of interventions; whole class interventions; in-service training sessions for teachers; consultation with administrators; parent workshops; and family counseling sessions (see Table 1). Creative collaborative linkages included (a) conducting parent workshops at the parent advocacy meetings; (b) partnering with the university's psychology department faculty to secure undergraduates who would provide behavioral observations as service learning experiences; (c) collaborating with the university counseling center to conduct assessments on National Depression Screening Day for parents, teachers, school staff, and adults in the surrounding community; (d) teaming with the school nurse to develop a program for Nutrition Week titled "Lunch in a Box"; and (e) working with the drama department faculty at a northeastern university to submit student compositions to their "You and Me World Project."
Weekly staff meetings were held by the counseling team to provide continuous processing and conceptualization of client needs. Clinical information was collected using customized forms to document crisis interventions with students and brief interactions with school personnel and parents. Additional sources of information included client notes from individual, group, and family counseling sessions as well as notes from in-service training sessions with faculty.
At the end of the 12-week project, teachers reported that they felt less anxious about their jobs and more hopeful about student performance, behaviors, and attitudes. The students reported feeling less conflictive with their teachers and parents and more inclined to share their feelings about life events with adults in their familial and educational support systems, such as parents, teachers, or other close family members. The principal reported that the administrative office was documenting fewer incidents of conflict among students, between faculty and students, and between faculty and parents. Moreover, individuals in the school community were smiling more and generally exhibiting more cooperative attitudes with each other.
Given the high ratio of students to counselors that creates massive caseloads for school counselors (Paisley & McMahon, 2001), more systemic solutions that meet the needs of both asymptomatic and symptomatic students are warranted. Wraparound counseling addresses the crisis-oriented climate that often characterizes low-resourced, urban school communities by focusing on the nonsymptomatic children. Interventions designed to prevent developmental and academic problems leave more time for counselors to work with students who have more severe problems. Despite the overlap of the theoretical foundations of individualized wraparound planning and the tenets of counseling, professionals have been slow to explore the benefits of appropriating individualized wraparound planning concepts into counseling practice. In a notable exception, the Harmonium Project incorporates systems theory, solution-focused therapy, and wraparound services with the goal of empowering adolescents in the context of family and community (Laveman, 2000). Integrating individualized wraparound planning services into counseling for children may assist counselors to more effectively address the systemic needs of children, families, and communities in a harmonious and holistic manner.
Traditionally, services that are geared toward economically disadvantaged youth have been formulated with the perception that mental health professionals and educators coexist rather than collaborate (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007b). Furthermore, such programs are often created with incompatible goals, strategies, and values among educators and mental health professionals who work with the same student (Paternite, 2005). Traditional services also often have the added disadvantage of failure to make use of parents and other family members who provide support to economically disadvantaged youth (Foley & Pang, 2006). Poor outcomes with traditional services have been associated with lack of both program coordination and integration with other agencies that also help the population of disadvantaged youth as well as limited support for families (Eber & Nelson, 1997). Wraparound counseling addresses these challenges because it uses an interdisciplinary approach by intentionally and proactively connecting youth to the adults in their ecological system as well as connecting the adults to each other.
Moreover, school systems often struggle with (a) identification of best practices to provide school-based services, (b) evaluation of these services to ensure effectiveness, and (c) selection of students who would benefit from such concentrated services (West-Olatunji & Behar-Horenstein, 2005). Historically, school-based interventions with urban youth in low resourced environments have been implemented incompletely, inconsistently, and for an ineffectively short period (Patton et al., 2000). School programming that follows this formula tends to inhibit system supports and lack sustainability in the various environments to which youth are connected. Eber and Nelson (1997) suggested that the lack of internal support in the school setting can prevent students from receiving adequate professional assistance.
Wraparound counseling addresses these challenges because all persons working with the child (parents, school personnel, counselors, and community agencies) are invited to codevelop a plan of action that includes specific objectives for the type of intervention and its duration. Such proactive involvement with parents preempts potential conflicts with parents who might be resistant to the process. The wraparound approach assumes that schools cannot do the work alone but require collaboration between school leaders, parents, and community agencies to successfully provide effective mental health and academic services to special education students and general education students. Moreover, services are preventive rather than reactionary. Thus, providing services early in a child's school career will lead to better behavioral, emotional, and academic success throughout the school career (Paternite, 2005).
School personnel can coordinate services in interdisciplinary teams and with more integrated interventions. Ideal school-based services include (a) partnerships among schools, families, and community agencies; (b) commitment to a full continuum of mental health education, mental health promotion, assessment, early intervention, and treatment; and (c) special services for all youth, with inclusion of services for those in both general and special education (Paternite, 2005). By using school-based services, youth with behavioral or emotional issues are less likely to miss school, run away from home, and present aggressive behaviors (Foley & Pang, 2006). Wraparound interventions are based on the needs of the student rather than the guidelines set by programming that is only available for eligible students.
Connecting to Families
The implementation of prevention programs is one way to address the mental health needs of disadvantaged youth. As counselors shift away from interventions that focus solely on the individual, they increasingly incorporate parents and other family members. In low-income families for whom support from social systems may be lacking, making an effort to involve the family is often beneficial for the child and the family alike (Amatea & West-Olatunji, 2007b). Supportive family members provide an important outlet for youth who are often confronted with an abundance of life stressors.
Wraparound counseling addresses this issue by making parents and other family members central to the wraparound counseling process. By providing a bridge between home and school expectations by focusing on students' needs while they are in and out of school, wraparound counseling allows them to experience a seamless message from parents and educators
about what educational outcomes are expected from them. Wraparound services are designed to be preventive rather than reactionary in nature, hence allowing students, family, and school personnel to have a partnership throughout the student's school career (Eber et al., 1997).
Sustainable programs take a systemic perspective regarding the support the child receives. As such, these programs take into account the inclusion of the family, schools, and agency stakeholders. By focusing on integration of services based on a strength-based model, positive changes can be made immediately across helping agencies, support systems, and families. Transforming the concept of service delivery for students also allows for more comprehensive treatment strategies and goals (Eber & Nelson, 1997). Culturally relevant programming helps to maintain interest in activities and incorporates learned concepts throughout the domains of the child's life. By providing services that are culturally responsive, school administrators and staff foster trust among students and families (Fusick & Bordeau, 2004).
Recommendation 1. School administrators, such as principals, school board members, and superintendents, need to consider the cost-effectiveness and expediency of having counseling staff who are consistently and regularly available to the school community. Far too often, school reform initiatives do not include counseling staff as essential to the reformation or reconfiguration of effective schools. Rather, counseling services are seen as addenda or afterthoughts when there is a surplus of funding. Such ad hoc use of counseling personnel has kept schools in a reactionary mode, responding to rather than preventing schoolwide crises in low performing schools. Holistic counseling initiatives in school settings can be effective mechanisms to (a) augment parent involvement, (b) minimize faculty stress resulting from increased monitoring and accountability procedures, and (c) address student dispositions that affect academic performance.
Recommendation 2. Parents, guardians, and other adult family members often feel alienated in school environments. Specifically, adults who themselves have had negative experiences with school administrators and faculty members as students may lack the personal empowerment to effectively forge a partnership with school personnel.
Wraparound counseling opens communication between the school and the home, allowing for bidirectional input and collaboration. [n addition, by facilitating dialogue between parents and school personnel, counselors are able to provide assistance to the families of students through assessment, referral, crisis, and/or brief interventions. Parents possess information and resources that are often outside of the perception of traditional counseling activity. By linking with adults in the student's family system, counselors are able to reduce the time needed to evaluate and treat problems evidenced in the school setting.
Recommendation 3. Of significant importance in the discussion on the nature and prevalence of counseling services in school settings is the availability of funding specifically earmarked for school counseling staff. Moving from a deficit model to a preventive one suggests that it costs more to provide crisis intervention after violence has erupted on the school campus than it does to fiscally support a schoolwide philosophy of psychological engagement among students, faculty, staff, and parents. Moreover, it costs less to develop a comprehensive, holistic counseling program than it does to provide remedial and compensatory educational services after marginal students have fallen behind academically or have dropped out of the educational pipeline altogether. Policy makers who decide on which social, educational, and community services are funded need to take a broader view of the educational experience and think beyond traditional boundaries to more effectively address the needs of schools and the children in them.
Recommendation 4. It is important for the counseling curriculum to reflect this paradigmatic shift from reaction to prevention. Counseling courses within the intradisciplinary strands of school, marriage and family, mental health, and community/agency counseling need to emphasize counseling competencies that involve nontraditional settings, nontraditional clients, as well as nontraditional interventions to meet the needs of clients in school settings. Whether integrated into existing courses or developed as content-specific opportunities, courses need to focus on the interaction effects of school, social, agency, community, and family systems on the mental health and well-being of children. This implies that the counseling curriculum could benefit from an interdisciplinary focus in which counselor trainees are taught how to work with other professionals without losing their counselor identity. This would promote collaborative intervention teams.
Inherent in an understanding of the multisystemic approach to counseling in schools is the concept that counselor trainees need enhanced exposure to issues of diversity to more effectively begin to integrate their clinical skills with their knowledge and awareness of culturally different phenomenology and ways of knowing. Counselor educators need to consider wider discourse across programs, departments, colleges, and disciplines to position themselves as salient school professionals in the 21st century and beyond.
The unique approach to providing counseling service that is represented by wraparound counseling has been implemented in educational settings such as a neighborhood elementary school, an after-school program, and a charter middle school for students with behavioral problems. It has also been piloted in community settings at various levels of delivery, including a camp for children with disabilities, a faith-based domestic violence program, and a social service agency. Over time, counselors can address the core systemic difficulties that constrain administrators and staff in the struggle to keep their head above water. Wraparound counseling can facilitate a transition from the current limits of school counseling roles into a more holistic definition of how counselors function in schools.
Future research in this area should include replication studies conducted in other settings, such as in a neighborhood school with asymptomatic children, that could use wraparound counseling primarily as a preventive strategy. It would also be of interest to determine the effectiveness of the wraparound counseling approach in rural school communities, given the challenges posed by distance, funding, human resources, and technology concerns in rural settings. Moreover, investigation into the application of this approach would be beneficial in more privileged school settings, such as private, parochial, and laboratory schools.
Another area that would expand knowledge about the usefulness of the wraparound counseling approach would be to conduct a longitudinal study in which students' academic, vocational, and civic participation are recorded. This would allow for investigation into the long-term benefits of holistic, ecosystemic interventions with symptomatic children. It would be of interest to learn how this approach affects students' educational attainment and career selection and advancement as well as their workforce participation. Although one might hypothesize that the outcomes of reduced maladaptive behaviors would translate into increased engagement during classroom instruction and knowledge acquisition, this hypothesis has not been empirically tested for the proposed approach. Future research might illuminate the long-term outcomes of wraparound counseling as both an intervention and a prevention tool.
Finally, investigation of the impact of teaching counselor trainees to think ecosystemically at the conceptualization and intervention phases would enhance the understanding of future wraparound counseling applications. Although there has been a greater emphasis on contextualizing students and seeing children in the context of their families, specific intervention strategies are needed to provide entry-level counselors with the necessary tools to deemphasize remediation and focus instead on strength-building counseling activities that support the needs of the entire school community.
In summary, urban schools in impoverished communities face a multitude of problems. Administrators, teachers, students, and parents are constantly challenged by insufficient resources to meet the needs of students. Although attempts are being made to address issues of underachievement, school-based conflicts, teacher burnout, and minimal parent involvement, a holistic, ecosystemic solution is warranted. Wraparound counseling is an effective intervention that views children in context rather than as individuals who are unconnected to their peers, families, communities, and societal influences. Moreover, wraparound counseling addresses the socioemotional needs of the school community as a whole in a cost-effective, laborsaving, and expedient manner. As such, this approach builds on the strengths of the school community rather than using a problem-based, deficit-oriented paradigm commonly associated with urban schools in impoverished communities.
Adams, J. R., & Juhnke, G. A. (2001). Using the systems of care philosophy within counseling to promote human potential. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 40, 225-232.
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2002). Building comprehensive, multifaceted, and integrated approaches to address barriers to student learning. Childhood Education, 78, 261-269.
Amatea, E., & West-Olatunji, C. (2007a). Joining the conversation about educating our poorest children: Emerging leadership roles for school counselors in high poverty schools. Professional School Counseling, 11, 81-89.
Amatea, E., & West-Olatunji, C. (2007b). Rethinking how school counselors work with families and schools: An ecosystemic approach. In J. Wittmer & M. Clark (Eds.), Managing your school counseling program: K-12 developmental strategies (3rd ed., pp. 211-222). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media.
American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA National Model for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Anderson, H., Goolishian, H., & Winderman, L. (i987). Problem-determined systems: Toward transformation in family therapy. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 5, 1-13.
Ascher, C. (1987). Improving the school-home connection for poor and minority urban students (ERIC / CUE Trends and Issues, 8). New York, NY: Columbia University. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, EJ No. 381 241)
Beck, E. L. (1999). Prevention and intervention programming: Lessons from an after-school program. Urban Review, 31, 107-124.
Brown, D., Galassi, J. P., & Akos, P. (2004). School counselors' perceptions of the impact of high stakes testing. Professional School Counseling, 8, 31-40.
Carey, L. (2004). The professional development school model: Unpacking knowledge. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7, 319-337.
Casas, J. M., Furlong, M. J., & Ruiz de Esparza, C. (2003). Increasing Hispanic parent participation in schools: The role of the counselor. In P. B. Pedersen & J. C. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counseling in schools: A practical handbook (2nd ed., pp. 105-130). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chung, W. S., & Pardeck, J. T. (1997). Treating powerless minorities through an ecosystem approach. Adolescence, 32, 625-634.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). What happens to a dream deferred? The continuing quest for educational equality. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 607-632). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Eber, L., & Nelson, C. M. (1997). School-based wraparound planning: Integrating services for students with emotional and behavioral needs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 385-395.
Eber, L., Nelson, C. M., & Miles, P. (1997). School-based wraparound for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Exceptional Children, 63, 539-556.
Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C., & Scott, T. (2002). Wraparound and positive behavioral interventions and supports in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 171-181.
Foley, R. M., & Pang, L. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student characteristics. The High School Journal, 89, 10-21.
Fusick, L., & Bordeau, W. (2004). Counseling at-risk Afro-American youth: An examination of contemporary issues and effective school-based strategies. Professional School Counseling, 8, 102-115.
Goodman, R., & West-Olatunji, C. (2008). Transgenerational trauma and resilience: Improving mental health counseling for survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 121-136.
Hamovitch, B. (1999). More failure for the disadvantaged: Contradictory African-American student reactions to compensatory education and urban schooling. Urban Review, 31, 55-77.
Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S. P., Chandler, K. A., Chapman, C. D., Rand, M. R., & Ringel, C. (1998, October). Indicators of school crime and safety, 1998 (NCES 98-251/NCJ 172215). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/safety/
Lange, C. M., & Lehr, C. A. (1999). At-risk students attending second chance programs: Measuring performance in desired outcome domains. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 42, 173-192.
Laveman, L. (2000). The Harmonium Project: A macrosystemic approach to empowering adolescents. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22, 17-32.
Lewis, J. A., Lewis, M. D., Daniels, J. A., & D'Andrea, M. J. (2003). Community counseling: Empowerment strategies for a diverse society (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.
McDill, E. L., & Natriello, G. (1998). The effectiveness of the Title I Compensatory Education Program: 1965-1997. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 317-335.
McMahon, T., Ward, N. L., Pruett, M. K., Davidson, L., & Griffith, E. H. (2000). Building full-service schools: Lessons learned in the development of interagency collaborations. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 11, 65-92.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2006). Basic .facts about low-income children: Birth to age 18. Retrieved from the National Center for Children in Poverty website: http://www.nccp.org/pub_lic06b.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The condition of education 2003 (NCES 2003067). Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Board. (1998). Failing our children: Implications of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved from the National Science Foundation website: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1998/nsb98154/nsb98154.htm
National Science Board. (2006). America's pressing challenge--Building a stronger foundation (NSB 06-02). Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0602 /
Paisley, P. O., & McMahon, G. (2001). School counseling for the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Professional School Counseling, 5, 106-115.
Paternite, C. (2005). School-based mental health programs and services: Overview and introduction to the special issue. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 157-163.
Patton, G., Glover, S., Bond, L., Butler, H., Godfrey, C., Bowes, G., & Di Pietro, G. (2000). The gatehouse project: A systematic approach to mental health promotion in secondary schools. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 586-593.
Pittman, K., Irby, M., Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahistrom, A. (2004). Blurring the lines for learning: The role of out-of-school programs as complements to formal learning. New Directions for Youth Development, 101, 19-41.
Price, L., & Edgar, E. (1995). Developing support systems for youth with and without disabilities. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 18, 17-21.
Segal, E. A. (2007). Social empathy: A tool to address the contradiction of working but still poor. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 88, 333-337.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (2002). Wraparound: What works in preventing school violence. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/-safeschl/wraparound.pdf
Stevenson, R. A., & Surber, J. (2003). Wraparound services. School Administrator, 60, 24-27.
Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (2000). Alternative education strategies: Reducing violence in school and the community. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 177-186.
Trachtman, R. (2007). Inquiry and accountability in professional development schools. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 197-203.
Van Acker, R. (2007). Antisocial, aggressive, and violent behavior in children and adolescents within alternative education settings: Prevention and intervention. Preventing School Failure, 51, 5 12.
West-Olatunji, C., & Behar-Horenstein, L. (2005). Teaching and learning in fact-based pedagogy. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
West-Olatunji, C., Sanders, T., Mehta, S., & Behar-Horenstein, L. (2010). Parenting practices among low-income parents/guardians of academically successful fifth-grade African American children. Multicultural Perspectives, 12, 138-144.
West-Olatunji, C., Shure, L., Garrett, M., Conwill, W., & Torres, E. (2008). Rite of passage programs as effective tools for fostering resilience among low-income African American male adolescents. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 47, 131-143.
West-Olatunji, C. A., & Watson, Z. E. (1999). Community-as-client mental health needs assessment: Use of culture-centered theory and research. The Community Psychologist, 2, 36-38.
Cirecie West-Olatunji and Erin Kelley, Counselor Education, University of Florida, Gainesville; Kimberly N. Frazier, Counselor Education, Clemson University. Erin Kelley is now a freelance writer in Jacksonville, Florida. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cirecie West-Olatunji, Counselor Education, University of Florida, 1204 Norman Hall, PO Box 117046, Gainesville, FL 32611 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
TABLE 1 Wraparound Counseling Interventions Problems Faced by Wraparound Counseling School Interventions Outcomes Low teacher morale * Modeled in-class Teachers reported indicated by high interventions that they felt less number of teacher anxious about their resignations and * Whole class jobs and more transfers interventions hopeful about student performance, * Provided in- behaviors, and service professional attitudes. development * Consulted with administrators * Partnered with university counseling center to conduct assessments on National Depression Screening Day High student stress * Provided Students reported levels indicated by individual, crisis, feeling less frequent conflicts and group counseling conflictive with between students their teachers and * Partnered with parents and more university inclined to share undergraduate their feelings about psychology life events with department to adults. coordinate behavioral observations in classrooms * Partnered with university counseling center to conduct assessments on National Depression Screening Day * Teamed with the school nurse to develop a program for Nutrition Week * Partnered with the drama department faculty at a northeastern university to submit student compositions to their "You and Me World Project." Parent frustration * Conducted parent The principal due to poor academic work-shops reported that the outcomes administrative * Attended parent office was advocacy meetings documenting fewer incidents of * Provided family conflict among counseling sessions students, between faculty and * Partnered with students, and university between faculty and counseling center to parents. conduct assessments on National In general, Depression Screening individuals in the Day school community were smiling more and generally exhibiting more cooperative attitudes with each other.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||West-Olatunji, Cirecie; Frazier, Kimberly N.; Kelley, Erin|
|Publication:||Journal of Humanistic Counseling|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Recharging our sense of idealism: concluding thoughts.|
|Next Article:||Exposure to school bullying and the social capital of sixth-grade students.|