The Role of Mental Health Counselors in Promoting School-Family Collaboration Within the Tiered School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (SWPBIS) Model

Abstract

Family–school collaboration has been shown to increase positive educational and social outcomes for students. We propose an integrated theoretical model from which mental health counselors may intervene within the tiered intervention levels of the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support framework. We describe the use of a structural family therapy (SFT) framework to both assess the relationship between family and school personnel and identify objectives for family collaboration. Finally, we describe how techniques and processes from SFT and solution-focused therapy can be used to enhance the relationship and collaboration between families and school personnel.

Full text

Article
The Role of Mental Health Counselors
in Promoting School–Family Collaboration
Within the Tiered School-Wide Positive
Behavioral Intervention and Support
(SWPBIS) Model
Kenneth C. Messina
1
, Jered B. Kolbert
1
, Debra Hyatt-Burkhart
1
,
and Laura M. Crothers
1
Abstract
Family–school collaboration has been shown to increase positive educational and social outcomes for students. We propose an
integrated theoretical model from which mental health counselors may intervene within the tiered intervention levels of the
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support framework. We describe the use of a structural family therapy (SFT)
framework to both assess the relationship between family and school personnel and identify objectives for family collaboration.
Finally, we describe how techniques and processes from SFT and solution-focused therapy can be used to enhance the rela-
tionship and collaboration between families and school personnel.
Keywords
school-wide positive behavioral intervention and support, structural family therapy, solution-focused therapy, mental health
counselors
Nationwide, almost 60%of school districts have formal lin-
kages with community agencies for the purposes of the provi-
sion of mental health services to students (Foster et al., 2005),
but mental health personnel who are employed outside the
school system are often regarded as peripheral to the mission
and functioning of the school. Despite calls for increased col-
laboration between schools, families, and mental health profes-
sionals who serve students (Moore, 2005), there has been little
discussion or research conducted regarding the ways in which
mental health counselors can effectively promote collaboration
between families and schools. This article provides an inte-
grated theoretical model from which mental health counselors
may intervene within the tiered intervention levels of the
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support
(SWPBIS) framework.
Educational Reform
Within the past two decades, there have been several signifi-
cant pieces of legislation that have impacted the educational
system and hold relevance for mental health counselors colla-
borating with schools. First, the passage of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB, 2001) ushered in a number of important man-
dates for reform, including an increased emphasis upon stan-
dardized achievement testing, the disaggregation of data in
order to promote the evaluation of the progress of subgroups of
students, and a push to increase teacher quality. An overlooked
aspect of NCLB is its emphasis upon promoting greater parental
involvement and communication with schools. The impetus for
this increased emphasis may stem from the considerable empiri-
cal support for a positive relationship between family–school
collaboration and academic achievement (Christenson & Sheridan,
2001; Epstein & Dauber, 1991), social competence (Webster-
Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2001), and a negative relationship
between family–school collaboration and adolescents’ partic-
ipation in high-risk behaviors (Resnick & Bearman, 1997).
A second important reform was the emergence of tiered
intervention approaches that prevent and effectively intervene
in students’ academic, emotional, and behavioral issues. The
2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Edu-
cation Act allowed schools to use Response to Intervention
(RtI) as an alternative to the traditional discrepancy model for
1
Department of Counseling, Psychology and Special Education, Duquesne
University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kenneth C. Messina, Department of Counseling, Psychology and Special
Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA.
Email: kenmessina55@gmail.com
The Family Journal: Counselin g and
Therapy for Couples and Families
2015, Vol. 23(3) 277-285
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1066480715574471
tfj.sagepub.com
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

determining whether a child has a specific learning disability
(P.L. No 108-446). RtI is a multilevel approach for assisting
those students who are experiencing academic, emotional, or
behavioral difficulties (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009). Such
models vary in implementation but typically involve three tiers
of increasing instructional or therapeutic intensity, which are
used to address students’ academic, behavioral, or mental
health needs. Tier I typically includes the universal or general
educational environment in which empirically supported curri-
cula are used. If a student fails to demonstrate expected levels
of progress, as revealed through ongoing progress monitoring,
he or she is moved to Tier II, which consists of small group
intervention that typically involves three to five group sessions
of up to 30 min per week. A lack of response to Tier II interven-
tion results in the application of a Tier III intervention, which is
characterized by increased frequency of assessment and inter-
vention and one-on-one instruction if needed. In some states,
the failure of a student to respond to a Tier III intervention
results in an assessment for special education services (e.g.,
Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003), whereas in other
states, the student would automatically receive special educa-
tion services without a disability assessment (e.g., Marston,
Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003).
SWPBIS is a universal, behavioral theory–based prevention
program that is used by many schools that employ RtI specifi-
cally for students who exhibit behavioral and mental health
issues. SWPBIS, which is encouraged by the U.S. Department
of Education (Knoff, 2000) and a number of state departments
of education, uses a three-tiered model to address disruptive
behavior by developing and maintaining Tier I/primary (school
wide/universal), Tier II/secondary (targeted/selective), and
Tier III/tertiary (individual/indicated) interventions (Bradshaw,
Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). Although traditionally school-based
behavioral interventions primarily focused upon the individual
student, SWPBIS and related types of ‘‘proactive classroom
management’’ programs seek to alter the school environment
through the universal application of principles of behavioral
theory (Gettinger & Kohler, 2006, p. 76). Research indicates
that the implementation of SWPBIS is associated with reduced
student suspensions (Barrett, Bradshaw, & Lewis-Palmer,
2008; Bradshaw et al., 2010), office discipline referrals (Brad-
shaw et al., 2010; Horner et al., 2009; Muscott, Mann, & Le-
Brun, 2008), and increased student perceptions of safety at
school (Horner et al., 2009).
Role of Mental Health Counselor Within SWPBIS
and Wraparound Care
Advocates of SWPBIS have suggested that Tier III interven-
tions should include the involvement of mental health profes-
sionals who, heretofore, have been seen as belonging outside
the school system (Eber, Breen, Rose, Unizycki, & London,
2008). The role of mental health counselors within this form
of intervention may be regarded as having both a behavioral
focus, by assisting school personnel in the development of indi-
vidualized treatment interventions to target dysfunctional
behaviors, and a systemic focus, by facilitating the develop-
ment of constructive relationships between the families and the
school. Furthermore, many states have adopted a specific
model of tertiary intervention for students with emotional and
behavioral needs, which is referred as wraparound services.
Historically, services to children have been provided by
agencies operating from a silo perspective, an uncoordinated
and separate approach that often led to fragmented, disjointed,
and ineffective intervention (Nordness, 2005). Since the 1980s,
when the term wraparound emerged, there have been a variety
of definitions of the concept (National Wraparound Initiative,
2014). Wraparound services can be implemented or driven
by either the school system or community-based mental health
agencies where the focus of services is generally myopic.
School systems tend to focus on educational concerns, while
community-based agencies tend to focus on the mental health
or behavioral concern of the child (Nordness, 2005). This sin-
gularity of approach perpetuates the problem of silo perspec-
tives. An integrated wraparound model based on a system of
care has a number of key characteristics. The process is indivi-
dualized, needs driven, and strength based (Eber et al., 2008).
Services are community based, culturally competent, and involve
families as full and active partners in the development of the
plan (Eber et al., 2008; Nordness, 2005).
‘‘Wraparound’’ services involve a team of involved ‘‘stake-
holders,’’ such as the child’s teachers, administrators, mental
health professionals, and family, who work to develop con-
structive relationships and support networks that quite literally
wrap services around the student (Eber et al., 2008). The wrap-
around process is the most comprehensive intervention in the
SWPBS continuum and is applied to 1–2%of students, many
of whom are diagnosed with serious emotional/behavioral dis-
orders and for whom school personnel believe there are setting
events or environmental contributions that occur outside the
school. Related to the ‘‘System of Care’’ movement, wrap-
around emphasizes fully involving families and youth in the
planning and selection of interventions, the coordination of the
services of multiple providers, and the use of culturally relevant
processes (Stroul, 2002).
The process involves the identification of a team facilitator,
trained in a family centered, strength-based philosophy, who
promotes constructive relationships between the important
adults in the student’s life. The team facilitator also assists in
the management of the adults’ frustration related to failed inter-
ventions, which can be an essential support service of the team.
Pivotal to the success of the interventions is the team’s ability
to identify the student’s needs and to help the student and adults
to identify their strengths/resources that can address the stu-
dent’s needs. Also, the team should establish the goals and data
indicators of success (Eber et al., 2008). By using a strength-
based philosophy, the facilitator encourages the team to focus
upon the student’s inherent skills, as they relate to the needs
presented instead of focusing on problems or deficits, which
often appear overwhelming and intractable.
Wraparound services often entail many of the interventions
that are used in secondary tier interventions, such as check in
278 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

check out and adult and peer mentoring, but the process differs
in that there is a more intensive emphasis upon tailoring the
interventions to meet the unique strengths and needs of the
child. These strengths and needs are identified through a colla-
borative process between the school and family that relies upon
the validation of family members as an integral part of the
behavioral support plan. This validation can increase family
buy-in and promote a willingness to address setting events that
may be occurring outside the school. Although systems ecolo-
gical theory is not explicitly identified as a foundational theory
for wraparound services, there appears to be a similar focus evi-
denced by the strong emphasis upon repairing the relationships
between the student and important adults in the student’s life.
Application of Systems Approach for School-Based
Tertiary Interventions
As we consider the use of the SWPBIS model for students with
emotional, mental health, and behavioral issues, it is important
to examine how mental health theory can be integrated into this
approach. We find that structural family systems and solution-
focused theory and techniques fit well with the SWPIS model.
Structural Family Therapy (SFT) has been found to be effective
in building collaborative relationships that can promote change
(Hammond and Nichols, 2008). What follows, therefore, is a
discussion of the comprehensive integration of these theories
into the model.
Assessment. SFT has been used in mental health partnerships
with college sports teams (Parcover, Mettrick, Parcover, &
Griffin-Smith, 2009), children diagnosed with Attention Defi-
cit Hyperactivity Disorder (Barkley, Guevremont, Anastopou-
los, & Fletcher, 1992), and families struggling to adapt to their
own social context (Fishman, 1993). When discussing the use
of this approach with school-mental health collaboration, we
can apply Minuchin’s (1974) four-stage implementation to
enhance the relationship between the parties.
Joining and accommodation. The initial stage is joining and
accommodation (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin & Fishman,
1981). In this stage, the mental health counselor first ‘‘joins’’
with the family by accepting the family’s organization and way
of functioning (Minuchin, 1974). This establishment of rapport
and accommodation to the family’s dynamic and context leads
the counselor to begin to develop preliminary hypotheses
regarding the family’s patterns of interaction, the degree of
enmeshment and disengagement between subsystems, and the
context within which the family views itself within larger
systems (Minuchin, 1974).
Assessment of systemic interactions. The second stage of interven-
tion within the structural model is the assessment of systemic
interactions (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981).
A significant focus in this case would be upon the boundaries
that the family has established (or not) with its members and
those larger systems (Minuchin, 1974). Often, when families
have inappropriate boundaries within their nuclear family sys-
tem, the same type of boundary problems can be manifested in
other systems, such as with the school. Families can be as
enmeshed or disengaged with other systems as they can be with
family members. When such boundary issues arise, there is
often an isomorphic or parallel process at work with these dif-
ficult systemic interactions.
One relational boundary dynamic that can cause proble-
matic interactions within the school is parent/child enmesh-
ment. Although enmeshment along a continuum is normal
within all families, at its extremes, enmeshment can cause a
family to respond to threats to the ‘‘norm’’ with a great deal
of intensity so as to attempt to protect the homeostasis within
the system (Minuchin, 1974). Within the educational context,
parent/child enmeshment may be exemplified by a parent who
assumes too much responsibility for a child’s schoolwork or
behaviors or minimizes a child’s behaviors. Other examples
of enmeshment include parents who align with their children
against teachers or other school personnel, and parents making
educational decisions for a child who is developmentally capa-
ble of being involved in the process. Parents who are enmeshed
with their children may also be emotionally reactive in parent–
teacher meetings as they may have difficulty separating con-
cerns about their children’s performance from criticisms about
themselves. Of further note is that often, when there is enmesh-
ment between a parent and a child, the other parent may be
pushed to have a disengaged or peripheral relationship with
that child.
The relationships among family members are dynamic and
influence one another like the metal spheres that swing on a
Newton’s Cradle. For example, in families with young chil-
dren, the mother may likely exhibit enmeshment with the chil-
dren due to her primary caregiving role. The father may be
disengaged and feel pushed aside and isolated from the system.
The mother and father may have conflicted interactions due to
their respective relationships with their children and their own
emotionality regarding their offspring. A similar process may
occur between families in which there is enmeshment between
the parent and child and their relationship with the school.
There may be disengagement, as school personnel respond to
the parent/child enmeshment by distancing themselves, which
may be demonstrated by the avoidance of the ‘‘overbearing’’
or difficult parent. Alternately, school personnel may succumb
to the power of the family system by acquiescing to the parents’
inappropriate demands of school personnel or accepting the
parents’ over-functioning for the child.
In situations where the parent has developed an entrenched
alignment with his or her child against school personnel, school
personnel tend to react by developing their own alignments
with colleagues. Often, these alliances involve the ‘‘circling
of the wagons,’’ as school personnel discuss how the parents
are at fault for the child’s problems. In such circumstances,
from a systemic perspective, there is likely a degree of truth
in both parties’ perspectives, but assigning blame does nothing
to ameliorate the problem. Through addressing the structural
deficits with the family and larger systems by helping the
Messina et al. 279
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

school personnel to see the family relationships as normative
and purposeful, and helping the parents to acquire a more
developmentally appropriate approach to assisting their child
with their education, mental health counselors can use assess-
ment to begin to formulate an intervention plan that will move
the systems to collaborative functioning.
Although often preferred by school personnel due to usually
limited contact and communication, the disengaged family sys-
tem can manifest family/school discord as readily as the
enmeshed system. Parents who are disengaged from their chil-
dren often establish rigid boundaries where the children have
little access to the adults, and parents may appear to be or are
unconcerned about their children’s emotional issues. Within
the educational context, the isomorphic process of disengage-
ment between parents and children can be exemplified in par-
ents’ lack of knowledge of, or interest in their children’s school
performance or requirements, and a lack of contact and com-
munication between the parents and the school personnel.
Rigid or disengaged boundaries often lead to conflict between
the parents and the school, as the pattern of communication
demands that problems reach a critical level before the parents
are moved to contact the school.
In these instances, families may place blame on the school
staff for not apprising them of the child’s issues. The school
personnel are likely to defend such accusations by assigning
responsibility to the family for their general lack of communi-
cation prior to the crisis. As such, highly charged situations are
unpleasant and undesirable; the school may then become hesi-
tant to reach out to the family earlier the next time because of
the pattern of conflicted interaction that becomes established.
When such poor patterns of interaction and communication
become entrenched, the focus can become that of faultfinding
and again, the child’s needs are not addressed.
Some have argued that in the past, children of such families
were often given less attention by educators as the perception
was that the teacher could not compensate for the parents’ lack
of interest or value for education (e.g., Ramirez & Soto-
Hinman, 2009). However, it may be argued that NCLB’s
emphasis upon the expectation that educators are to hold all
students to high standards was specifically developed to
address teachers’ apathy toward students from lower socioeco-
nomic statuses, students with intellectual disabilities, and fam-
ilies who were perceived by educators as not valuing education.
Some educators’ negative perceptions of ‘‘difficult’’ enmeshed
or disengaged families fails to recognize the schools’ inadequa-
cies in reducing the cultural and economic challenges that fam-
ilies may face. Often, families who are struggling with the
school will be facing other systemic challenges that are contri-
buting factors in their interactions. If the school fails to engage
in an assessment of the systemic considerations with which the
family is confronted, it may inadvertently exacerbate the
enmeshment or disengagement that is creating the barrier to
collaboration.
SFT also focuses on the relative hierarchy of family mem-
bers in positions of power within the family system. Generally
speaking, in functional family systems, the parents are in a
hierarchical position of power over their children, with older
children having more independence and autonomy than
younger children. In dysfunctional systems, such as those
where there is alcohol or substance abuse, mental illness, or
disability, the structure may be altered with children estab-
lished in positions of power due to a power vacuum, necessity,
or the inability of the parents to maintain their executive role.
The hierarchy of the members of a family is a strong determi-
nant of how the system will function in interactions, decision
making, and intersection with larger systems. A focus on the
hierarchy within a family system can also be a useful extension
when assessing the relationship between a family and the
school. Although some families view school personnel as
experts or people of authority to whom one should defer, other
families see themselves as customers of a service who are pay-
ing the salaries of those employed by the school via their taxes,
and as such feel in positions of power over school personnel.
School personnel may also view themselves as either hierarchi-
cally dominant over students and/or parents or may feel they
are disempowered. Such perceptions of the power dynamic in
family–school relationships influence the patterns of communi-
cation, trust, and cooperation among the team members.
It is important for mental health counselors who seek to pro-
mote family–school collaboration to not only assess the
family’s strengths and contributions to the difficulties of the
student and the collaborative process but to evaluate the educa-
tors as well. Although research suggests that teachers support
increased parental involvement, Christenson and Sheridan
(2001) found that while the literature tends to focus on describ-
ing good forms of parental involvement, it does not offer sug-
gestions to school personnel to promote such involvement. The
literature does, however, identify a number of school-based
impediments to effective family–school collaboration, which
includes a tendency for educators to blame parents for their
child’s academic or behavioral challenges, to have low expec-
tations for students, particularly those from minority popula-
tions (Moore-Thomas & Day-Vines, 2010), to lack effective
conferencing and communication skills (Minke & Anderson,
2005), and to fear parental criticism or questioning of their
teaching (Pelco & Ries, 1999).
Teachers’ lack of training in the process of collaborating
with parents may contribute to their defensiveness in commu-
nicating with parents. Teachers may respond negatively when
a parent implies that they should have done more to help his
or her child. Such defensive postures may lead to an escalation
of conflict between the parents and teachers, which may be fol-
lowed by disengagement and a revisiting of teachers aligning
colleagues around beliefs that it is the child’s incorrigibility
and the parents’ resistance that are to blame for the intractabil-
ity of the situation.
Modification of dysfunction. The third stage in the implementation
of SFT is the modification of systemic dysfunction (Minuchin
& Fishman, 1981). In this case, the primary goal of the struc-
tural approach toward promoting functional family–school col-
laboration is to create a functional hierarchy composed of the
280 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

adults (teachers and parents), who can seamlessly exchange
information in order to accommodate the changing needs of the
student in a developmentally appropriate manner. In order to
achieve this goal, the mental health counselor must address the
specific organizational deficits and challenges of the identified
team. The mental health counselor must focus upon the rela-
tionships within the student’s family and on the relationship
between the family members and school personnel while help-
ing the family to navigate school processes in order to promote
effective implementation of the child’s need-based plan. In cir-
cumstances where there is a pre-existing tension between the
family and the school, the mental health counselor’s task is
to use the information gleaned through the assessment process
to establish clear communication and, at a minimum, forge an
agreement by both parties to engage in subsequent contacts to
promote the best interests of the student of concern. The
SWPBIS model lends support to the establishment of colla-
borative communication through its emphasis upon the value
of all stakeholders in its team approach, which can be used
as a negotiation/mediation point in this initial relationship-
building stage.
Restructuring transactional patterns. The fourth stage in SFT
implementation is restructuring transactional patterns (Minu-
chin & Fishman, 1981). In this stage, mental health counselors
must take steps to hear and validate the perspectives of school
personnel. Often, families in which there is parent/child
enmeshment or issues related to hierarchy have gained a repu-
tation among school members for being hard to work with,
overbearing, resistant, or unconcerned. The counselor can help
by working with the school staff to reframe or reconceptualize
their negative perceptions of the family as strengths. For exam-
ple, a father who calls the teacher frequently to demand clari-
fication regarding his son’s grade on projects whom the
school finds a ‘‘nag’’ would be reframed as caring and con-
cerned. A mother who did not intervene with her teenage
daughter when the school believed that she should do so could
be reframed from uninvolved to attempting to foster indepen-
dence in her child. Mental health counselors can also work with
the families to help them to see the school’s point of view and
assist them in more effectively communicating their concerns
and needs.
Parents who are disengaged from their children often pres-
ent challenges to effective collaboration because they may also
have little involvement with school personnel. These parents,
who may lack confidence in themselves and their ability to
assist their child within the educational setting, are not likely
to relate to school officials in a manner that promotes positive
communication. These parents may appear defensive and resis-
tant to school personnel, who again, can benefit from the coun-
selor’s reframing of the behavior. For disengaged parents and
parents who feel that they lack power, the counselor should
provide support and empowerment prior to contacting the
school or attempting to set a meeting with school personnel.
The counselor will initially work to help the family prepare
for the initial contact with the school through the use of
structural therapy and other therapeutic techniques. Through
working to assist the family in establishing healthy boundaries
and an effective hierarchy, the stage can be set for positive
interactions with the larger system. The mental health counse-
lor may also employ the use of role-playing to increase the
family’s level of comfort and build the skills necessary to com-
municate effectively with school personnel. Once the counselor
has opened both systems to the possibility of collaboration—
the school through reframing and the validation of the position
they have taken and the family through establishing a func-
tional hierarchy with clearly defined rules, roles, and bound-
aries—the counselor can proceed to facilitate the formulation
of the team and begin the process of collaborative treatment
planning.
Process of family–school conferencing. Once the stages of joining,
assessment, modifying, and restructuring have been substan-
tially accomplished, the counselor can initiate the process of
family–school conferencing. As both parties have been pre-
pared to collaborate and communicate, the goals for the initial
meeting can be established. By discussing the goals ahead of
time, the counselor not only is preparing himself or herself for
the upcoming meeting but also clarifying the issues that the
family and the school wish to address. Such prior planning
allows all parties to have time to prepare to address their con-
cerns, express any concerns with the agenda, and process
potential conflict with the counselor. As the counselor and fam-
ily plan what concerns will be addressed, the counselor can use
techniques such as role-plays, rehearsal, and relaxation tech-
niques to reduce family anxiety and increase feelings of com-
petency and empowerment.
When parents feel competent and prepared for this meeting
and have an understanding of the issues to be discussed within
the context of all parties being concerned about the best interest
of the student, there is likely to be less conflict, more collabora-
tion, and a more effective plan for the student. The counselor
will also identify what information the counselor and the fam-
ily need to gain from the meeting. Often, it is helpful for fam-
ilies to make a list of concerns or questions that they would like
to address in their contact with the school and set an agenda
prior to contacting the school. In the case of setting a meeting
with the school, it would be encouraged that the family provide
the agenda to the school staff member when setting the meeting
time so that all participants are prepared for the meeting. Just as
parents’ anxiety is reduced when feelings of competence and
collaboration have been enhanced, school personnel are likely
to have similar experiences. If the counselor can facilitate the
development of a collaborative, team atmosphere among the
school staff, less conflict will be present in future meetings.
The introduction of the mental health counselor to the
school at the surface appears to be a very simple function but
in reality can be very daunting. Mental health counselors, who
may not be familiar with the structure or policies of the school,
may find this to be a very difficult task, as it may be unclear
who should be contacted or has the power to make decisions for
the student. In the school consultation literature, this process is
Messina et al. 281
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

referred to as entry. Entry is the initial contact that the consul-
tant, in this case, the mental health counselor, has with the con-
sultee, in this case, the school system (Dougherty, 2013). This
process includes four phases—exploring organizational needs,
contracting, physically entering the space of the school system,
and psychologically entering the space of the school. The goals
of entry should include all stakeholders understanding the con-
sultative process and coming to know the consultant. Unfortu-
nately, as an external consultant, the mental health counselor
will likely confront issues of entering a system each time he
or she works with a new organization. External consultants
as mental health counselors should pose questions to them-
selves such as investigating whether they engaged in adequate
preparation for the day’s meeting, established a baseline
knowledge of the organization, and specifically, the individuals
with whom the consultant will be working, and gauged the
comfort level with one’s expertise in consulting regarding the
problem and/or the student and family (Dougherty, 2013).
Once the initial contact has been made, the counselor then
has the opportunity to gather information and set the stage for
a collaborative relationship. The counselor should gather infor-
mation from the school regarding the student’s needs that
resulted in the referral for services. This would include any pre-
senting behavioral/emotional needs, problematic classroom
behaviors, diminished academic performance, difficulty with
extracurricular activities, and poor or troubled social relation-
ships. The counselor should investigate what school-based
interventions have been previously used to address the present-
ing problem and gather information regarding the response of
the student to the previous two tiers of the SWPBIS model. The
counselor will also inquire about strengths and successes of
the student in the school, a technique that is consistent with a
solution focused approach.
In documenting the success of Tier I and II interventions, the
mental health counselor should consider working collabora-
tively with school personnel in order to engage in progress
monitoring. Progress monitoring is a set of procedures in which
school personnel are expected to assess students’ responsive-
ness to interventions implemented at school. In treating chil-
dren’s academic problems, curriculum-based measurement is
often used to monitor the goals developed for students to close
the gap between low- and typical-performing peers (Shinn,
2007). Curriculum-based measurement is typically used to
establish benchmarks and annual goals for and to monitor prog-
ress toward academic proficiency (Burke, Vannest, Davis,
Davis, & Parker, 2009). Similarly, for behavioral goals, this
includes determining the effects of function-based intervention
plans and monitoring progress through such techniques as
direct and frequent retrospective behavior ratings (Burke
et al., 2009; Chafouleas, Christ, Riley-Tillman, Briesch, &
Cha´n
˜ese, 2007; Gresham, 2005).
When working with the child’s parents, the counselor
should display an understanding of the parental stress and bur-
den often present when there is a child in the home who is hav-
ing some form of an emotional or behavioral problem. The
counselor’s use of reflective listening and empathy will allow
the parents to feel heard and be more likely to view the coun-
selor as a part of the team that is working to help the family
(Liddle, 2010). Again, the counselor will want to gather infor-
mation regarding the presentation of the problem as it is dis-
played in the home, as well as an understanding of current
family dynamics, structure, cultural influences, and other
contextual influences upon the family. The counselor again
should consider using the solution-focused approach of excep-
tion seeking to find competencies within the family and the
student. This solution-focused technique will also allow the
counselor to build his or her treatment approach around
family-, student-, and school-strengths instead of problems.
The counselor is now ready to coach the parents/caregivers
in the parent/teacher conference. One common question among
counseling professionals is if the child should attend the meet-
ing. Although some counselors may argue that the child should
be a part of this meeting as it does address him or her, a struc-
tural approach in which we have previously acknowledged that
there are hierarchical issues that may need to be addressed
would suggest that the child not participate in this initial meet-
ing. One goal of this initial meeting is to establish a functional
hierarchy and clarify communication between the two systems
(e.g., home and school) with a vested interest in the child’s
well-being. Having the child not participate in this meeting
allows the establishment of a clear message that the child is not
at the top of the hierarchy.
The primary objectives of the mental health counselor dur-
ing the initial meeting between parents and teachers are to
acknowledge the expertise of both the parents and the school
personnel, equalize participation, block or reframe communi-
cations by either the parents or teacher(s) that may be construed
as negative, and develop consensus regarding potential solu-
tions. The meeting between the family and school staff should
begin with a discussion of the agenda developed by the coun-
selor that includes issues presented by the parents/caregivers
and the school personnel that had been discussed prior to the
meeting. Next, the mental health counselor should identify the
goals that the parents and teachers have for the child. Some
teachers may overly focus on the child’s poor performance
on specific assignments or failure to complete assignments,
implying that the parent should address the specific assign-
ments in question. Instead, the mental health counselor should
identify a broader but concrete and measurable goal for the
meeting, such as helping the child to increase his or her home-
work completion rate, as opposed to completing specific
assignments. The counselor acts as a coach for the parents/care-
givers throughout the meeting, as well as a mediator when
needed. Incorporating interventions consistent with SFT and
solution-focused therapy will allow the multiple systems to
address concerns while also moving from problem focused talk
to that of solutions-focused interventions. No parent-school
meeting should occur where competencies are not highlighted.
It is also important for each side to feel heard.
Using the SFT technique of enactments and reframing will
assist the family and school personnel in being ‘‘heard’’
throughout the meeting. While keeping this in mind, it is also
282 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

important for the parents/caregivers and school staff to com-
prise the most central roles in the meeting with the counselor
providing assistance when needed. This will help to promote
the competence of the family. The use of solution-focused talk
through the reframing of problem-centered talk will help the
counselor to keep the meeting positively focused and produc-
tive. Meetings that consist of problem-focused talk often leave
each side feeling frustrated and defeated. An example of prob-
lem focused talk that occurs in these family-school meetings is
when a parent begins with, ‘‘I don’t want my child ... ’’ This is
an opportunity for the counselor to reframe the conversation
toward solution-focused language by asking the parent/care-
giver ‘‘What do you want for your child?’’
This also can be used when a teacher or other school staff
member begins by placing a negative label on the child. An
example of a negative label would be, ‘‘Your child is disrup-
tive’’ or ‘‘He/she is a troublemaker.’’ These statements set the
stage for conflict, as the parent/caregiver will often want to
come to the defense of the child. The counselor can then
reframe these as follows: ‘‘Your child has difficulty following
the class rules at times’’ or ‘‘Your child experiences some dif-
ficulty staying on task or making positive choices.’’ While in
each instance, the ideas remain the same, the tone and focus
shift, while decreasing the opportunity for defensiveness. The
mental health counselor can also use the solution-focused the-
ory technique of exception seeking, in which the participants
identify when the wanted behavior has occurred and explore
how the participants contributed to the child’s exhibition of the
desired behavior. The counselor may help to explore how the
teachers or parents believe this assisted the child in meeting his
or her behavioral expectations.
Once the agenda has been discussed and a plan of action has
been developed cooperatively between the family and the
school, a second meeting should be scheduled to follow-up
on progress and allow feedback to be shared between the two
systems. The counselor will also review the meeting by sum-
marizing the plan and highlighting positive behaviors evi-
denced by the parents or the school personnel. Between
meetings, the counselor should contact the school and family
periodically to provide support and feedback in implementing
the plan of action. The counselor should participate in the next
meeting in order to continue ensuring that each side is able to
remain solution focused and not slip back into unproductive
communication patterns. The counselor should have a reduced
role in subsequent meetings in order to promote the compe-
tency of the parents and reduce dependency on others to advo-
cate for their child.
Conclusion
In this article, we posit that SFT, a model that has been found to
be effective in building collaborative relationships that encour-
age change, and solution-focused theory and techniques, can be
easily integrated into the SWPIS model. The initial stage of
SFT is joining and accommodation (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin
& Fishman, 1981), in which the mental health counselor first
joins with the family by accepting the family’s organization
and way of functioning (Minuchin, 1974). The second stage
of intervention within the structural model is the assessment
of systemic interactions (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin & Fish-
man, 1981), in which the focus is upon the boundaries that the
family has established (or not) with its members and those
larger systems (Minuchin, 1974). In the third stage of interven-
tion, the mental health counselor should promote functional
family–school collaboration by addressing the specific organi-
zational deficits and challenges of identified team. The fourth
stage in SFT implementation is restructuring transactional pat-
terns (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981), in which mental health
counselors take steps to hear and validate the perspectives of
school personnel.
Once the stages of joining, assessing, modifying, and
restructuring have been accomplished, the counselor can initi-
ate the process of family–school conferencing. The goals for
the initial meeting can be established, and the counselor can
facilitate the development of a collaborative, team atmosphere
among the school staff. The mental health counselor can then
engage in entry to the school system. The counselor should
gather information from the school regarding the student’s
needs that resulted in the referral for services and can coach the
parents/caregivers in the parent/teacher conference. Once the
agenda has been discussed and a plan of action has been devel-
oped cooperatively between the family and the school, a second
and/or subsequent meetings should be scheduled to track prog-
ress and permit shared information between the two systems.
Moreover, in this article, a model of SFT, along with tech-
niques from solution-focused therapy, has been applied to
assist mental health counselors in consulting with school per-
sonnel and parents regarding children’s difficulties at school,
either academic or behavioral. The SFT approach has numer-
ous strengths, foremost among them that it can be adeptly and
successfully applied to consultation for use in school systems.
Together with techniques from solution-focused therapy, SFT
provides a platform from which mental health counselors may
intervene within the tiered intervention levels of the SWPBIS
framework provided in this article. Using such an integrated
model, mental health counselors are in a unique position to help
realize the strengths that both school personnel and families
possess in order to ensure the best outcomes for children.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Barkley, R. A., Guevremont, D. C., Anastopoulos, A. D., & Fletcher,
K. E. (1992). A comparison of three family therapy programs for
treating family conflicts in adolescents with attention-deficit
Messina et al. 283
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology,60, 450–462. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.450
Barrett, S. B., Bradshaw, C. P., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2008). Maryland
statewide PBIS initiative: Systems, evaluation, and next steps.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,10, 105–114. doi:10.
1177/1098300709340699
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the
effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports
on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effec-
tiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral
Interventions,12, 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid response to
intervention: RTI,professional learning communities, and how to
respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
Burke, M. D., Vannest, K., Davis, J., Davis, C., & Parker, R. (2009).
Reliability of frequent retrospective behavior ratings for elementary
school students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders,34, 212–222.
Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Briesch, A. M.,
& Cha´n
˜ese, J. A. M. (2007). Generalizability and dependability of
direct behavior ratings to assess social behavior of preschoolers.
School Psychology Review,36, 63–79.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families:
Creating essential connections for learning. New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Dougherty, A. M. (2013). Psychological consultation and collabora-
tion in school and community settings. Stamford, CT: Cengage
Learning.
Eber, L., Breen, K., Rose, J., Unizycki, R. M., & London, T. H. (2008).
Wraparound as a tertiary level intervention for students with emo-
tional/behavioral needs. Teaching Exceptional Children,40,
16–22. doi:10.1177/0192636512443282
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher
practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and mid-
dle schools. The Elementary School Journal,91, 289–305.
Fishman, C. (1993). Intensive structural therapy: Treating families in
their social context. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Foster, S., Rollefson, M., Doksum, T., Noonan, D., Robinson, G., &
Teich, J. (2005). School mental health services in the United
States, 2002–2003. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 05-4068. Rockville,
MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003).
Responsiveness-to-intervention for the learning disabilities con-
struct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,18, 157–171.
doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072
Gettinger, M., & Kohler, K. M. (2006). Process-outcome approaches
to classroom management. In M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.),
Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues (pp. 73–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gresham, F. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative
means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education
and Treatment of Children,28, 328–344.
Hammond, R. T., & Nichols, M. P. (2008). How collaborative is struc-
tural family therapy? Family Journal,16, 118–124. doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/1066480707313773
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J.,
Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list con-
trolled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior
support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior,11,
133–144. doi:10.1177/1098300709332067
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004).
Public Law 108-446 (20 U.S.C 1400 et seq.)
Knoff, H. M. (2000). Organizational development and strategic planning
for the millennium: A blueprint toward effective school discipline,
safety, and crisis prevention. Psychology in the Schools,37, 17–32.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200001)37:1<17:: AID-PITS3>3.0.
CO;2-K
Liddle, H. A. (2010). Multidimensional family therapy: A science-
based treatment system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Family Therapy,31, 133–148. doi:10.1375/anft.31.2.133
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-
solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabil-
ities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice,18, 187–200. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00074
Minke, K. M., & Anderson, K. J. (2005). Family-school collaboration
and positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Inter-
ventions,7, 181–185. doi:10.1177/10983007050070030701
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. (1981). Family therapy techniques.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, J. L. (2005). A call for greater collaboration between the coun-
seling psychology and school counseling professions. Journal of
Counseling & Development,83, 504–508. doi:10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2005.tb00372.x
Moore-Thomas, C., & Day-Vines, N. (2010). Culturally competent
collaboration: School counselor collaboration with African Amer-
ican families and communities. Professional School Counseling,
14, 53–63.
Muscott,H. S., Mann, E. L., & LeBrun, M. R. (2008). Positivebehavioral
interventions and supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale
implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support on student
discipline and academic achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions,10, 190–205. doi:10.1177/1098300708316258
National Wraparound Initiative. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.
nwi.pdx.edu/wraparoundbasics.shtml
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Nordness, P. D. (2005). A comparison of school-based and
community-based adherence to wraparound during family plan-
ning meetings. Special Education and Communication Disorders
Faculty Publications. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uno-
maha.edu/spedfacpub/2
Parcover, J. A., Mettrick, J., Parcover, C. A. D., & Griffin-Smith, P.
(2009). University and college counselors as athletic team consul-
tants: Using a structural family therapy model. Journal of College
Counseling,12, 149–161. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/213731859?accountid¼10610
Pelco, L. E., & Ries, R. (1999). Teachers’ attitudes and behaviors
towards family-school partnerships: What school psychologists
need to know. School Psychology International,20, 265–277.
doi:10.1177/0143034399203002
284 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(3)
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ramirez, A. Z., & Soto-Hinman, I. (2009). A place for all families.
Educational Leadership,66, 79–82.
Resnick, M. D., & Bearman, P. S. (1997). Protecting adolescents from
harm. Journal of the American Medical Association,278, 823–832.
Shinn, M. R. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring perfor-
mance, and determining eligibility within RTI: Research on educa-
tional need and benefit from academic intervention. School
Psychology Review,36, 601–617.
Stroul, B. (2002). Issue brief—system of care: A framework for system
reform in children’s mental health. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Child Development Center, National Technical Assis-
tance Center for Children’s Mental Health.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing
conduct problems, promoting social competences, promoting
social competence: Parent and teacher training partnership in head
start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,30, 283–302.
Messina et al. 285
at Duquesne University on March 30, 2016tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from