I treasure the chance to talk with school psychology colleagues today and am particularly pleased to be on the same program with Frank, Mike, and Sue. All of whom have significant expertise to share with you and whose presentations promise to bring you up to the minute is what we know about serving educators, children, youth, and families. My talk today is heavily in debt to Dr. Terry Gutkin from San Francisco State University. He shared his forthcoming chapter in the Handbook of School Psychology with me along with various bibliographic and slide resources. As some of you may know, before most of you were born I finished my doctoral degree at the University of Texas and left there not knowing nearly enough, but completely convinced that only systemic change held a chance of preventing and alleviating childhood dysfunctions. In fact my favorite image from that period of time was from public health – draining the swamps (Slide 2) to eliminate mosquito borne disease (Slide 3) not by closing windows or putting on bug repellant but by eliminating the breeding grounds of the disease (slide 4) Many other public health metaphors followed but the belief that we should always strive to change the system that supported pathology into one that supported well being has remained with me. Like Seymour Sarason before me, I’ve felt that as a profession – despite spectacular examples to the contrary – we have remained mired in the swamps or direct service, especially assessment, based on a medical model understanding of people and their strengths and difficulties. (Slide 5)
Jane Close Conoley, Ph.D. University of California, Santa Barbara - Presentation Transcript
School Psychology Misdirected U C Berkeley School Psychology Conference May 9, 2008 Jane Close Conoley, Ph.D. University of California Santa Barbara
Special Thanks to Gutkin, T.B. Ecological school psychology: A personal opinion and a plea for change To appear in: T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4 th ed.) . New York: Wiley.
National Comorbidity Replication Survey (Kessler & Associates, 2005)
Every year, 25% of Americans are diagnosable with a DSM mental disorder (approximately 60% either moderate or serious)
Nearly 60% will receive no treatment in any given year
Median delay between onset and treatment - 6 to 23 years for those with lifetime disabilities
Half of all lifetime diagnosable mental disorders begin by age 14
“ Most people with mental disorders in the United States remain either untreated or poorly treated.”
WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium (2004) “Approximately 85% of Americans will not receive health care treatment for their diagnosable mental or substance-abuse disorder within a year. More than 70% of them will never receive specialized mental health care.” (Norcross, 2006, p. 683)
Milken Institute An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. National annual cost of mental disorders = $217 billion (treatment, lost economic output) - third only to cancer and coronary disease (DeVol & Bedroussian, 2007)
Thomas Insel - Director of the National Institute of Mental Health Data such as these are indicative of “a systemic and unacceptable failure in the provision of [mental health] care” in the United States (Insel & Fenton, 2005, p. 590).
U. S. Surgeon General “The nation is facing a public crisis in mental healthcare for infants, children and adolescents.” (U.S. Public Health Service, 2000) The “foremost finding is that most children in need of mental health services do not get them.” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999, p. 180) THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN
POPULATION-BASED SERVICES PREVENTION EARLY INTERVENTION Effective Remediation Services Ideal Distribution of Services
OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY GOALS – MOST IMPORTANT JOB ROLES 1. Engage and motivate primary caregivers (e.g., teachers, parents) in the lives of children so they take action in behalf of children 2. Give psychology away (Miller, 1969) to primary caregivers (e.g., teachers, parents) in the lives of children so they take effective action in behalf of children
Medical Model Human Behavior = Individual, environment
Ecological Model Behavior = Individual Environment
Traditional Clinical Psychology Service Delivery – Direct, Medical Model
Daily Interaction Student
Teacher (The Problem = Pathology)
Referral
Assessment &
TREATMENT
Brief Feedback
Psychologist
School Psychology Consultation Service Delivery – Indirect, Ecological Model
Daily Interaction (The Problem = I-E “Match”)
Teacher ……………………………………………… Student( s )
Treatment
Assessment & Referral Assessment Assessment
CONSULTATION
Psychologist
Comprehensive programs consist of school readiness, parent involvement that empowers parents to take a role in education across grades K-12, and school-linked services designed to improve achievement by ensuring that the health and social needs of children are met .
Policymakers and educators have mostly ignored the nature of interactions between families and schools…this relationship may be “the missing link in school-linked social service programs” Smrekar (1994)
Constructive Connection: The 6 “C”s
Context
Centrality
Complexity
Consistency
Communication
Collaboration
C ontext
Site specific
There is no one prescription
Family-School Teams Ask
What forms of parent participation are desirable and feasible? and
What strategies can be employed to achieve them?
This team, amongst other things, is a vehicle for establishing a common language, mapping existing school- and community-based resources, and identifying student, family, and staff needs.
C omplex Relationships
The child/family system is in transaction with the school/schooling system
Home and school inputs and resources
Match between home and school
Home Inputs
Include messages about
Effort
Attitudes about the value of learning
Sense of self as a learner
School Inputs
New experiences
Demands
Opportunities
Rewards
C entral to Child Development
“ If educators view children simply as students, they are likely to see the family as separate from school. That is, the family is expected to do its job and leave the education of children to the schools. If educators view children as children, they are likely to see both the family and community as partners with the school in children's education and development”
Strong, consistent values about the importance of education.
Willingness to help children and to intervene at schools.
Ability to become involved.
C ommunication : Foundational Element
Two-way communication is necessary to co-construct the “bigger” picture about the child’s life
Families and school personnel see the child in their respective environments and jump to conclusions about the child’s behavior in the other environment
C ollaboration
Equal status between participants (e.g., parents, teachers, students, psychologists, principals)
A common goal
Adequate leadership and support (e.g., school district, state, federal levels)
Sample Programs
Check and Connect
Model designed to promote student engagement with school for youth at high risk for dropping out
(Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1997)
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC)
Process entails four separate stages for professionals and families to work together on identifying and solving academic, social-emotional, or behavioral concerns for students:
Problem identification
Problem analysis
Implementation, and
Evaluation
(Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996)
Connecting With Families
Family school meetings (Weiss & Edwards, 1992),
Family-school consultation (Carlson, Hickman, & Horton, 1992), and
Parent-educator problem solving (Christenson, 1995).
Comer’s School Development Program
Illustrates the power of relationships at a systems level
(Comer et al., 1996).
Comer’s School Development Program
3 teams
Parent, school planning and management, and student and staff support
3 operations
Comprehensive school plan, staff development, and periodic assessment and modification
3 guiding principles to create a positive school climate for learning
Consensus - decisions made by consensus
Collaboration - viewpoints of team members are heard and respected
No-fault - time is not wasted on unproductive blaming
Key Elements of Successful Programs
Parents are children’s first teachers and have a lifelong influence on their values, attitudes, and aspirations
Children’s educational success requires congruence between what is taught at school and values matched at home
Key Elements of Successful Programs
Most parents care deeply about their children’s education and can provide substantial support if given specific opportunities and knowledge
Schools must take the lead in eliminating or at least reducing traditional barriers to parent involvement
Jane Close Conoley, Ph.D. University of California more
Jane Close Conoley, Ph.D. University of California, Santa Barbara School Psychology Misdirected: An Argument for Prevention and Capacity Building. For the past 35 years, at least, voices within the school psychology community have called for a re-thinking of the role of psychology and psychologists within public schools. The test and place activities of school psychologists have overwhelmed their professional practice with predictable results. Few teachers or administrators see school psychologists as resources for teaching and learning expertise, but rather as mere gatekeepers to special education services of unknown effectiveness. The calls for change have come using different conceptual vehicles, for example, mental health or behavioral consultation, curriculum based assessment, treatment validity of assessments, and most recently response to intervention. All, however, speak to the same issues: · Children’s mental health is tied directly to their academic success. · Behavioral success for children is related to instructional expertise of teachers.
Changing how we conceptualize and implement our practice is complicated by many organizational and regulatory forces and is compromised by some basic assumptions of modern psychology. Until those assumptions are dismissed, change is unlikely. less
0 comments
Post a comment