School-based family counseling

School-based family counseling (SBFC) is an approach to helping children succeed at school and achieve positive mental health through the integration of School Counseling and Family Counseling (family therapy). SBFC is practiced by a wide variety of mental health professionals (e.g. psychologists, social workers, counselors, psychiatrists, marriage and family therapists). What they all share in common is the belief that children who are struggling in school can be best helped by interventions that link family and school, the two most important institutions affecting children. SBFC is typically practiced at the school site, but may be based in a community mental health agency that works in close collaboration with schools. SBFC is a global movement and has shown itself to be relevant to many countries and cultures. There are many ways to carry out this family-school integration and research is being conducted on this worldwide.
The Importance of SBFC
The need for SBFC arises from the challenges of traditional school counseling and family counseling (agency based) models in dealing with children who are failing at school because of family problems. The family problems include: marital discord, parents divorcing, custody problems, substance abuse, older siblings involved in gangs, sexual and physical abuse, parental neglect, single parents overwhelmed by economic and emotional problems, spouse abuse, and chaotic families with little parental control. Carlson and Sincavage (1987) conducted a survey of 110 members of the National Association of School Psychologists and reported that family variables were seen as highly relevant to children's school problems. Crespi and Hughes (2004) describe some of the crises affecting adolescents in schools: alcohol and drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, divorce, abuse, and family discord. The authors present an argument for school-based mental health services for adolescents as a way to offset restrictions imposed by managed care. Stinchfield (2004) describes research that indicates that traditional office-based therapy is not always effective with at-risk families and advocates family-based therapy that includes involvement of school personnel. There is considerable research demonstrating that dysfunctional families (characterized by conflict, anxiety, low cohesion, and emotional problems of parents) are associated with a variety of problems affecting children. These problems include: behavior problems; deliberate self harm; delinquency;depression; risky peer behavior; social isolation; substance abuse; and suicide attempt.
These negative effects of the family on children extend to the school. According to Crespi, Gustafson and Borges (2006) school psychologists are increasingly being confronted with students affected by family problems: “With one in six children raised in alcoholic families, with divorce impacting approximately 60% of families, and with such issues as…parental neglect, as well as sexual and physical abuse affecting large numbers of children and youths, many practitioners are interested in interventions which can directly affect children in school settings.”. Researchers have documented the negative effects on children’s academic performance caused by lack of family support; marital disruption and divorce; mother absence; and parental loss. Other researchers have noted the positive correlation between children’s aggression at school and variables such as: family aggression and negative home experiences.
There are also a number of studies focusing on how healthy family functioning helps children succeed at school. Zimmer-Gemback and Locke (2007) found support for a Family Primacy Model exemplified by adolescents with more positive family relationships using more effective coping strategies at home and at school. Lambert and Cashwell (2004) state that pre-adolescents who perceived effective communication with their parents had low school-based aggression. Steward, Jo, Murray, Fitzgerald, Neil, Fear & Hill (1998) found that students who used family members for solving problems had higher GPA’s than students who did not rely on their families. Amatea, Smith-Adcock, and Villares (2006) describe a family resilience framework that school counselors can use to help families promote students’ learning. Handy (2004) points out that in some cases for a particular child the school itself may function like a dysfunctional family exposing the child to abuse and neglect by peers and teachers. “Some schools can bear a strong resemblance to the proverbial dysfunctional home, particularly for the student who has learning differences or different interests. Teachers often are taxed by the large number of students in their class, and therefore they are apt to ignore the needs of the student with differences.” Handy recommends a family systems approach be used to assist these children both at home and at school.
SBFC emphasizes working with the the three contextual systems that are critical to optimal child development: the family, the school and the community. Thus when a child experiences a hostile, adversarial divorce between his/her parents, the negative effects of this hostility, turmoil and instability weigh heavily on his/her ability to function well in school. SBFC counselors are skilled at working with all three systems, often generating school and community support since they “see” the wisdom of involving key stake-holders in the helping process.
School counselors, who typically have no training (or only one survey course) in family counseling, are not equipped to intervene effectively with the families of these students. Family counseling is one of the more difficult forms of counseling and learning to do it well requires extensive training and supervision. When school personnel determine that there is a family problem affecting a student, they often refer the family to a community mental health agency for family counseling. Most school principals are familiar with the phenomenon of families that are referred for family counseling, but they fail to go. Many of these "resistant" families are involved in a power struggle with school personnel. The families resent being sent for therapy because of the implicit message that the family (i.e. the parent) is sick or irresponsible. While seeing a therapist may be a sign of social status or trendiness with some people, with many, especially with minority families, therapy holds a stigma. "Seeing a therapist" is viewed within these families' communities as a sign one is "crazy." Family therapists who are themselves very familiar with the concept of triangulation (in which two family members form a coalition against a third family member, who is often the family scapegoat or "identified patient") are often perceived by parents as involved in a triangulation in which the school and the family therapist are in a coalition and "ganging up" on the parents. SBFC minimizes this triangulation because the school-based family counselor is not seen as a "third party" but rather is viewed as part of the school system. The SBFC counselor is an advocate for the child, the family, and the school. The counseling focus is on working with parents and families to help their children succeed in school. SBFC is not a substitute for traditionally practiced School Counseling and Family Counseling approaches, but should be viewed as an adjunctive approach that is intended to enhance counseling effectiveness.
Some of the problems SBFC approaches have been used to address are:bullying and cyber-bullying, depression, marital problems, school violence, grief and loss, trauma, life-threatening illness, school crises, learning disorders, immigrant families, suicide, school suspension,
Some examples of large SBFC programs are: "The Copper River Project" in Copper River District Alaskan schools; and "Place2Be" - a SBFC program based in over 200 British schools.
Origins
The earliest pioneer of SBFC was Alfred Adler, the Austrian psychiatrist who developed 30 guidance clinics attached to schools in Vienna in the 1920's. Through these guidance clinics Adler and his colleagues counseled parents and teachers (often both together in large meetings where both groups were present) on how to help children overcome problems at home and school. This Adlerian home-school approach to counseling was strength-based with its emphasis on helping children develop Social Interest.
Later developments
With the advent of WWII, the Vienna guidance clinics closed. The psychiatrist Rudolf Dreikurs, who worked with Adler, emigrated to the US in the 1930s and popularized the Adlerian approach to home-school intervention through books like: Children the Challenge (for parents), Maintaining Sanity in the Classroom (for teachers), and Discipline Without Tears (for parents and teachers).
In the USA, during the 1950's, 60's, and 70's the mental health professions developed somewhat independently of each other with the result that children having difficulty at school would typically be seen by a school counselor. Children having difficulty at home would typically be seen by a community-based mental health professional. Beginning in the 1970's the mental health literature begins to show an increasing emphasis on linking home and school interventions. By 2000 there existed a substantial literature on the integration of family and school counseling approaches. Although much of the literature on SBFC is in American publications, and SBFC has a European origin in the work of Adler, SBFC is an international movement.
Strengths of SBFC
#SBFC is a strength-based approach to counseling that emphasizes working with parents/guardians as partners.
#SBFC emphasizes integrating intervention (remedial) and prevention approaches at school and in the family.
#The SBFC emphasis on working collaboratively with parents/guardians in order to help their children succeed in school is appealing to families because it does not make them feel deficient and "in need of therapy."
#The educational and partnership focus of SBFC promotes social justice by making mental health counseling more attractive (less stigmatizing) to parents/guardians.
Challenges for SBFC
#Most of the research supporting SBFC is descriptive and correlational. There is a need for rigorous randomized controlled trials of a variety of SBFC approaches.
#Traditional mental health academic programs tend to emphasize interventions that focus on school intervention or family intervention, but not both. The development of SBFC programs requires both cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural thinking and a willingness to set aside mental health professional "turf" issues.
Examples of Books on School-Based Family Counseling
Boyd-Franklin, L. & Hafer Bry, B.(2000) Reaching out in family therapy . New York: The Guilford Press
Dreikurs, R.; Cassel, P. (1965). Discipline without tears. New York: Harper and Row.
Fine, Marvin J. & Carlson C .(Eds.) (1992) Family-school intervention: A systems perspective. New York:Allyn and Bacon
Hinckle, J. & Wells, M. (1995). Family counseling in the schools. Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS Publications

Miller, L. D. (Ed.) (2002). Integrating school and family counseling: Practical solutions. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association
Palmatier. Larry L. (1998) Crisis Counseling For A Quality School Community: A family perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis
Sherman, R. , Shumsky, A. & Roundtree, Y. ( 1994) Enlarging the Therapeutic Circle. New York: Brunner/Mazel
Sheridan, S. & Kratochwill,T. (2008) Conjoint behavioral consultation, promoting family-based connections and interventions. New York: Springer
Steele W. & Raider M. (1991). Working With Families in Crisis: School-based intervention. New York: The Guilford Press
Walsh, W. & Giblen, N. (Eds) (1988). Family counseling in school settings. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas

Walsh, W. & Williams, G. (1997) Schools and Family Therapy: Using Systems Theory and Family Therapy in the Resolution of School Problems. New York: Charles C. Thomas

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu