Citation

Material Information

Title:
Influence of School Counselors' Social Justice Advocacy and Multicultural Counseling Competencies on Counselor Engagement in School-Family-Community Collaboration
Creator:
Lewis, Dadria Renada
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (156 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Counseling and Counselor Education
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education
Committee Chair:
AMATEA,ELLEN S
Committee Co-Chair:
LEITE,WALTER LANA
Committee Members:
SMITH,SONDRA LORI
PRINGLE,ROSE MARIE
Graduation Date:
8/9/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic communities ( jstor )
Advocacy ( jstor )
Collaboration ( jstor )
Community schools ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Multicultural counseling ( jstor )
School counseling ( jstor )
School counselors ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Social justice ( jstor )
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
advocacy -- multicultural -- school-family-community -- social-justice
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Counseling and Counselor Education thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of five contextual variables and ten personal variables on the school-family-community collaboration practices reported by a national sample of school counselors. The five contextual variables examined were: (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level. The ten personal variables examined were; (a) school family community collaboration training, (b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence - knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence - awareness (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy - collaborative action; (g) social justice advocacy - social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy - client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy - client/ community advocacy) and (j) ethnicity of counselor. Limitations in sample size, missing data, weak model fit, and instruments in need of continued validation led to a conservative conclusion that the person factors of social justice advocacy (collaborative action), and S-F-C training (self efficacy about partnership) have a significant contribution to school counselors' involvement in S-F-C collaboration. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: AMATEA,ELLEN S.
Local:
Co-adviser: LEITE,WALTER LANA.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-08-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Dadria Renada Lewis.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2015
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL COUNSELOR S SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY AND MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING COMPETENCIES ON COUNSELOR ENGAGEMENT IN SCHOOL FAMILY COMMUNITY COLLABORATION By DADRIA RENADA LEWIS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2014 Dadria Renada Lewis

PAGE 3

To my husband, children , and extended family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank God for bringing me through this journey and giving me such supportive persons along the way. I thank my husband, my parents and extended family for being there with their time and words of encouragement. I thank my mentors Dr. C. West Olatunji and Dr. E. Amatea who have helped me evolve as a researcher and clinician. T hank you to Dr. W. Leite who has dedicat ed his time and expertise to guide the methodological soundness of this dissertation. T hank s to my committee for their support. Thank you to the administrative staff of the Counselor Education Program, especially Candy Spires, Thank you to Nadine Isaacs wh o has had many encouraging conversations and acted as my proxy for my dissertation proposal as I was out of country.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 8 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 Scope of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 Contextual Factors Influencing School Family Community (S F C) Collaboration ............. 16 School Climate and Principal Support ................................ ................................ ......... 16 Ethnicity and Economic Status of Student Body ................................ .......................... 1 7 School Level Influences ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Personal Factors Influencing School Family Community (S F C) collaboration ................. 20 S F C Collaboration Training ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 Competence and Training in Multicultural Counseling (MCC) ................................ .... 23 Competence and Training in Social Justice Advocacy (SJA) ................................ ....... 24 Ethnicity of School Counselor ................................ ................................ ..................... 28 Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 28 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 29 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 31 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 32 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 33 Patterns of Persistent Underachievement ................................ ................................ ............ 34 Previous Attempts to Address Student Underachievement ................................ .................. 36 Compensatory Education Programs ................................ ................................ ............. 36 Critiques of Preschool Intervention and Compensatory Education ............................... 39 Culturally Appropriate Pedagogy (CAP) ................................ ................................ ..... 41 School Family Community Collaboration ................................ ................................ .......... 44 Types of School Family Community Collaboration ................................ .................... 45 S F C Collaboration and Academic Achievement ................................ ........................ 54 S F C and Psychosocial Well Being ................................ ................................ ............ 59 Contextual Factors Influencing School Family Community Collaboration .......................... 60 Influences of School Climate and Principal Support ................................ .................... 60 Influence of Student Ethnicity and Economic Status ................................ .................... 61 Influence of School Level ................................ ................................ ............................ 63 Pe rsonal Factors Influencing School Family Community (S F C) collaboration ................. 64

PAGE 6

6 S F C Collaboration Competence and Training ................................ ........................... 64 Multicultural/Culture Centered Counseling Competence ................................ ............. 67 S F C Collaboration and Multicultural Counseling Competence ........................... 69 Multicultural/Culture Centered Counseling and Social Justice Advocacy ............. 73 Social Justice Advocacy ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 S F C Collaboration and Social Justice Advocacy ................................ ................ 77 Ethnicity of school counselor and S F C collaboration ................................ ......... 79 History of School Counselor s Role ................................ ................................ ............ 79 School Family Community Collaboration and the School Counselor ................... 81 Social Justice Advocacy in Schools ................................ ................................ ...... 82 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 85 Epstein s Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 85 Freire s Liberatory Education Theory ................................ ................................ .......... 87 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 90 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 91 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 91 Study Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 91 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 92 Instru mentation ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 95 Social Justice Advocacy Scale ................................ ................................ ..................... 95 Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) ....................... 96 School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships Survey (SCIPS). ................................ . 98 School Counselor Demographic Information Survey ................................ ................. 101 Research Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 102 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ . 102 Hypothesis Two Structural Equation ................................ ................................ ......... 103 Hypothesis Three Structural Equation ................................ ................................ ....... 104 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 105 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 108 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses ................................ ................................ ......... 108 Multiple Multicultural Counseling Knowledge Awareness and Scale (MCKAS) ....... 109 School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships (SCIPS) Measuring SFC ................... 109 Social Justice Advocacy Scale (SJAS) measuring SJAC ................................ ............ 111 Results of Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ .......................... 112 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ............... 117 Discussion of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 117 Limi tations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 120 Implications for Theory and Practice ................................ ................................ ................ 122 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............ 126 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 126

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A PART ICIPANT CONSENT LETTER ................................ ................................ .............. 128 B MPLUS SYNTAX USED IN ANALYSES ................................ ................................ ...... 129 C PROPOSED SEM MODEL ................................ ................................ ............................. 137 D SEM MODEL ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 138 LI ST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 139 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 156

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Principal factor analysis (PFA1) of perceived involvement in S F C partnerships .......... 99 3 2 Principal factor analysis (PFA2) of school factors and school counselor factors ............. 99 3 3 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 106 3 4 Counselor E thnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 106 3 5 Frequencies for age, years after graduation, years of counseling experience and number of counselors at counsel or s school ................................ ................................ . 107 3 6 School Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 107 3 7 School Level ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 107 4 1 S F C on Social Justice Advocacy ................................ ................................ ............... 114 4 2 Prediction of S F C Collaboration by Contextual Factors ................................ ............. 114 4 3 Prediction of S F C Collaboration by Personal Factors ................................ ................ 115

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Trend in fourth grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and Black students (from NCES, 2011a). ................................ ................................ ....... 35 2 2 Trend in fourth grade NAEP mathematics average scores, by eligibility for free or reduced price school lunch (from NCES, 2011a). ................................ .......................... 36

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL COUNSELOR S SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY AND MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING COMPETENCIES ON COUNSELOR ENGAGEMENT IN SCHOOL FAMILY COMMUNITY COLLABORATION By Dadria Renada Lewis August 2014 Chair: Ellen Amatea Major: Counseling and Counselor Education The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of five contextual variables and ten personal variables on the school family community collaboration practices reported by a national sample of school counselors. The five context ual variables examined we re: (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level. The ten personal variables examined we re; (a) school family community collaboration training, (b ) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social justice adv ocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) and (j) ethnicity of counselor. Limitations in sample size, missing data, weak model fit, and instruments in nee d of continued validation led to a conservative conclusion that the person al factors of social justice advocacy (collaborative action), and S F C training (self efficacy about partnership) have a marginally significant and significant contribution respectively, to school counselors involvement in S F C collaboration.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In the United States there is a persistent pattern of underachievement among students of low socioeconomic status (SES) and f rom culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds. For example, from 2009 to 2011 there were no significant improvements in the mathematics scores of Black and Latino/Hispanic students compared to White students. Moreover, 72% of the fourth graders who sco red above the 75th percentile in mathematics were White; whereas only 5% were Black, 10% were Latino/Hispanic, and 23% were eligible for free/reduced price school lunch (NCES, 2011a). A similar trend was observed for fourth graders in reading. There were n o significant improvements from 2009 to 2011 in the reading scores of Black and Latino/Hispanic students compared to White students. Additionally, among the fourth graders who scored in the 75th percentile in 2011, 71% were White, 7% were Black, 11% were L atino/Hispanic, and 23% were eligible for free/reduced price school lunch (NCES, 2011b). The underachievement gap can also be seen in the high school status dropout rate. (The status dropout rate includes all 16 through 24 year old dropouts, regardless of when they last attended school, as well as individuals who may never have attended school in the United States and may never have earned a high school credential.) Between 1980 and 2009, the status dropout rates were higher for Blacks and Latino/Hispanic than for their white counterparts with the rates in 2009 being White 5.5%, Blacks 9.5%, and Latino/Hispanic 17.5% (NCES, 2011c). Over the past 50 years numerous attempts have been made to address this pattern of underachievement among students from low inc ome and culturally diverse backgrounds. For example, in the 1960s educators developed Headstart and Title 1, compensatory education programs designed to enhance low income students educational achievement. Yet researchers assessing the impacts of these p rograms reported that student achievement gains often

PAGE 12

12 disappeared by the time these students were in 3 rd grade (Beatty, 2012). In the 1980s policy makers implemented legislation such as No Child Left Behind (Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003) to provide more equal schooling opportunities for low income students. Despite greater attention being given to student achievement through use of high stakes testing, the underachievement of low income and culturally diverse students has persisted (Hewitt, 2011; Ladd, 2012). In the 199 0s educators began to promote the use of culturally appropriate pedagogical practices to address these achievement differentials (Nichols, Rupley, & Webb Johnson 2000; Phuntsog, 1999). The foundation of culturally appropriate pedagogy is respect for diversity. It postulates that, like all children, students from diverse backgrounds, need educators who hold them to high academic standards within positive and caring relationships and classrooms that respect, honor, and draw on their individual, soc ial, and cultural identities (Phuntsog, 1998, 2001). Thus creating learning environments that are safe, inclusive, caring, respectful , and connects the enthusiasm of all learners (Phuntsog, 2001; Purnell, Ali, Begum, & Carter, 2007). Culturally responsive teaching practices permeate all subject areas and the curriculum is transformed to promote social justice and equity. Numerous authors have speculated that one reason that these educational reform strategies have failed is that they are exclusively focused on activities in the school and do not adequately address the multiple layers of challenges outside the school which impact students academic performance (Adelman & Taylor, 1997, 2002; Steen & Noguera, 2010; Teale & Scott, 2010). More specifically, expe rts recommend that issues related to students race, ethnicity, and socio economic status need to be explored, and interventions need to be formulated that are multifaceted and multilayered and involve connecting schools to families and communities, implem enting a culturally responsive curriculum, and contextualizing students experience

PAGE 13

13 within a socio political and historical framework (Noguera, 2008, Payne, 2008, Steen & Noguera, 2010). One effort to connect student s families with schools is that of sch ool family collaboration. While early efforts to involve low income or culturally diverse families in their children s learning were often designed to remediate families, more recent approaches to school family involvement have been characterized by the be lief that families and community members must be treated as respected partners. This has led to a re conceptualization of family involvement as collaborative rather than remedial; and has focused on soliciting the family s perspective and voice rather th an have family school interactions be organized exclusively around what the school staff thinks and wants families to do (Amatea, 2013) . Termed school family community collaboration, this new approach to family school involvement has taken a variety of fo rms ( Amatea, 2013; Bryan & Henry, 2008; Carpenter Aeby and Aeby, 2005; Epstein, 2005; Map, Johnson, Strickland & Meza, 2008; Sheldon, 2007). For example, some educators suggest that the funds of knowledge of students families and communities should be inc orporated into the educational process and that families should be invited to share this knowledge with school officials about working with their children (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97; Moll, 1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzlez, 1992). Other educators encoura ge school staff to forge partnerships with school and community leaders so as to challenge cultural discontinuity and work towards social change (Crethar, 2010; Evans, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffy, 2010). Still other educators encourage school staff to develop working relationships with community stakeholders, such as churches, businesses, and community mental health providers, and to include their voices in the conceptualization of issues

PAGE 14

14 and the formulation of solutions (Bemak & Chung, 2005; Cholewa & West Ol atunji, 2008; Mitchell and Bryan, 2007; Trusty & Brown, 2005; William & Barber, 2007). Although it is recommended that each staff member in a school be involved in these collaborative efforts, a number of school counseling professionals believe that school counselors are uniquely positioned to promote school family community collaboration (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Amatea & West Olatunji, 2007; Bryan, & Griffin, 2010; Evan, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffey, 2010; Galassi & Akos, 2008; Griffin & Steen, 2011). Thus co ntemporary school counselors are being challenged to r e conceptualize their role as leader s in school family community collaboration who are committed to changing how staff, view and work with low income and culturally diverse students and families. Underl ying these changing role expectations is a growing recognition that traditional school practices frequently disadvantage low income and culturally diverse students and their families. Thus school counselors are also being called upon to create culturally a ppropriate school family community collaboration practices that challenge the inequities faced by students from low SES and culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds. Hence they are being encouraged to become social change agents advocating to change s chool practices that maintain such inequities in the school system (ASCA, 2005; Bemak & Chung, 2005; Crethar; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). Such a change in role expectations requires school counselors to shift their thinkin g regarding who is their client (from individual to include the system), where they will work (from in office to out of office), and how they will work by expanding their skills to include social advocacy and community based work (Ratts, 2009). For the sch ool counselor this means they need to develop interventions that take place in students homes, neighborhoods, schools, and

PAGE 15

15 communities as well as interventions that address social policies, legislation, and laws (Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). S cop e of the Study Research reveals that school counselors vary in their willingness to be involved in S F C collaboration (Aydin, Bryan & Duy, 2012; Bryan & Holcomb McCoy, 2004; 2007; Bryan & Griffin, 2010). A variety of factors have been suggested as influen cing school counselor readiness to assume these new roles. On the one hand contextual factors in the school, such as; the school s climate, the principal s support, (Bryan, 2003; Bryan & Holcomb McCoy, 2007; Bryan & Griffin, 2010) and the ethnic and econo mic makeup of the student body are believed to influence the openness of the school counselor to assume these role changes (Aydin, Bryan & Duy, 2012). On the other hand, the individual counselor s personal attitudes about being a leader or social change ag ent in their school, their confidence in implementing these new roles, and their preparation for these roles are considered to be important factors shaping their openness to change. In this study, the contextual and personal factors that impact whether school counselors take on the role of change agent and S F C collaborator were examined. The contextual factors that were explored we re: school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of students, and school level. The personal factors that w ere explored we re; school family community collaboration training, multicultural counseling training, multicultural counseling competence(knowledge and awareness),socia l justice advocacy training, and social justice advocacy competence (collaborative action; social /political advocacy, client empowerment, and client/ community advocacy) ethnicity of counselor.

PAGE 16

16 Contextual Factors Influencing School Famil y Community (S F C) Collaboration School C limate and P rincipal Su pport Researchers have report ed that certain institutional characteristics appear to have a greater effect on school counselor role performance than individual characteristics (Mawhinny & Smrekar, 1996). R esearch conducted by Sutton and Fall (1995) and Scarborough and Culbreth (2008) show ed that school counselors self efficacy in role performance appeared to be impacted by school climate and administrator support. In essence the attitudes and support of ad ministrators, teachers and personnel in the school system have an impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the school counselor. Examining the factors that influence school counselor school family community collaboration, Bryan and Griffin (2010) and Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2007) found that the variables of school climate and principal support accounted for a significant portion of variance in school counselors overall involvement in S F C collaboration. Van Voorhis & Sheldon s (2004) research also c onfirm ed the importance of principal support in S F C collaboration. In their longitudinal study that explored the importance of the principal to the development of programs of S F C collaboration, data was collected from a sample of 320 U . S . schools locat ed in 27 states who were members of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) for 2000 01 and 2001 02. The authors explored critical factors in the school, such as teamwork and external support , that might affect, the success of partnership progra m s . The analyses of the data showed significant and positive relationships between principal support and the quality of the partnership program. The findings of this study suggest the importance of involving the principal in partnership efforts among paren ts, teachers, and community members, and in the development and evaluation of the work of the partnership team to support student academic achievement and social development.

PAGE 17

17 The importance of the school s relational climate has also been examined by Epst ein and Van Voorhis (2010). These researchers examined the relationship between the quality of schools' partnership programs, the percentage of families involved, the percentage of teachers who conduct various involvement activities and school counselors' support for S F C partnerships. Epstein and Van Voorhis noted that , when school counselor support for partnerships was combined with the support for partnerships by their colleagues (e.g., principal, teachers, parents, other administrators, community membe rs, and parent association) , these relationships nearly doubled in strength. Ethnicity and E conomic S tatus of S tudent B ody The racial/ethnic makeup of the United States public schools is changing rapidly. These changes are manifested by the increases in the number of students of color and low socioeconomic status (SES) in the public school system (Education Trust, 2006; Grieco & Cassidy, 2001; Proctor & Dalaker, 2003; The Urban Institute, 2005). There is also a persistent underachievement gap between the students of ethnically and diverse backgrounds and low SES and their white counterparts and those from higher SES. Most of the research in the area of S F C collaboration revolves around academic achievement (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Mapp, Johnson, Stricland, & Meza 2008; Sheldon, 2003; Sheldon, 2007) and psychosocial wellbeing (Bryan and Henry, 2008; Carpenter Aeby and Aeby, 2005) . H owever, there is a paucity of research focused exclusively on students from ethnically and diverse background s or student s from low SES and involvement in S F C collaboration. Williams and Barber (2007 ) , in their qualitative study in Wallace County , North Carolina, examined the voice of African American parents and their perspectives on building culturally reciprocal home school community collaboration and found that : 1) culturally diverse children

PAGE 18

18 learn another culture in their communities. 2) School personnel need to crea te a plan for intentionally including culturally diverse parents in the decision making process. 3) The schools culture as it relates to collaboration between the school and families needs to be examined to ensure that AA families feel that their contrib utions are significant . 4) Strengthen literature and dialogue within the voices of ethnically diverse parents . Ayden, Bryan, and Duys (2012) conducted research on school counselors partnership with linguistically diverse families and found that schoo l principal expectations, school counselor role perceptions about partnerships, time constraints, and training in partnership implementation were positively related to school counselor involvement in SFC partnerships with linguistically diverse families. Holcomb McCoy s (2010) explorative descriptive study examined school counselors' beliefs and activities about involving low income and parents of color in the college admission process. The study specifically looked at parental involvement beliefs, attitud es, and activities of 22 high school counselors who work in schools with students from high poverty and high minority schools . It was found that the school counselors favorably viewed their role in helping parents with the college admission process. A m ajority of them reported facilitating some activities designed specifically for parents. Even though a majority of school counselors were involved in some activities geared specifically for parents, the majority of school counselors reported that they did not organize parent volunteers or send test date calendars home. The Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellen ce (CREDE) conducted 31 studies , nine (9) of which involved research that studied the interaction of families, schools and communi ty organizations, for ethnically diverse students as well as those from low SES, as it relates to opening up the academic pipeline. These nine studies were conducted in six states,

PAGE 19

19 Arizona, Hawaii, California, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Rhode Island and cov ered the following ethnic groups : Native American, African American, Asian, Asian American, rural Appalachian families and European Americans and varying SES. Overall it was found that families were key in students developing and maintaining education and career goals from childhood to young adulthood. Additionally, the researchers found that low income, ethnically diverse, and immigrant families often inspire and help their children set and maintain their educational and career goals. It was also found tha t students who were successful in achieving their goals had a network of family, school, peers, and community members who provided a support system (Cooper, Chavira, Mena, 2005). School L evel Influences Most research on school family community collaborati on has only examined parent involvement in the elementary and middle school. Less is known about high school. Catsambis (2001) report ed that research support ed a positive relationship between parent involvement and academic success especially in the elemen tary school years. The research conducted by Epstein and her colleagues (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon s 2003; 2007) in elementary schools also supports this claim. Sheldon found that elementary schools working towards S F C collaborat ion had a higher percentage of students scoring at or above satisfactory on state achievement tests (Sheldon, 2003). Epstein also found that when there was an improved partnership with parents and community members there were also improved math, reading, a nd writing scores for elementary school students whose school s implemented a Partnership School Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Model. Sheldon and Epstein s research (Epstein and Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon, 2007) showed that there is a positive relationship between S F C and attendance in elementary schools.

PAGE 20

20 At the high school level Catsambis and Simon (2001) reported a significant positive relationship between educational outcomes (students grades, course credits completed, attendance, behavior, and school preparedness) and parent involvement regardless of SES, race/ethnic background, or grade level. Mapp, Johnson, Strickland, and Meza (2008), de scribed the following three aspects of a successful high school family center : (a ) supportive infrastructure, (b ) skilled center staff, and (c ) responsive programming . These program features create a zone of community which has four outputs : (a ) creation of relational trust among adults, (b ) shifts in parents role construction and efficacy, (c ) generation of student r elational trust, and (d ) the development of student efficacy. Personal Factors Influencing School Family Community (S F C) collaboration S F C C ollaboration T raining Bryan and Griffin (2010), in their multidimensional study investigating the dimensions of school counselors' involvement in school family community partnerships and the factors related to their involvement in partnerships, found that training in partnersh ip building and maintenance strongly predicted school counselor involvement in school home partnerships, involvement on collaborative teams, and overall partnership involvement. It was interesting to note , however, that almost 40% of school counselors in this study reported that they had had no partnership related training. This shows the importance of counselor education programs providing content and experiences within the curriculum specifically related to developing partnerships. This was similar to fi ndings of Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2004 ; 2007). Aydin, Bryan and Duys (2012) in their research on S F C collaboration with linguistically diverse students corroborated the findings of Bryan and Griffin (2010) and Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2004 ; 2007). They found that partnership related training was positively

PAGE 21

21 related to school counselor involvement in school family community partnerships with linguistically diverse students and their families. Noting the need for further training of school personnel in buil ding and maintaining school family partnerships, Bartel and Eskow (2010) implemented a training program in a district in Maryland. From their qualitative research they reported that the eleven (11) participants (teachers, special educators, school counselor and other school personnel) experienced improved attitudes, knowledge, and skills related to building and maintaining partnerships. Ten of the eleven participants were re int erviewed six months after the completion of the training program and it was found that they continued to report a positive change in attitude toward collaboration and more effective communication with families although participants demonstrated application of skills to varying degrees. Looking to the future, Epstein & Sanders (2006) conducted a study to determine the extent of preparation in school family community partnerships that educators currently received . The participants were from The 161 schoo ls, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) across the United States. There were 71 deans or associate deans of education, 20 chairs of teacher education, 6 chairs of educational Administration, 48 other SCDE chairs or administrators, and 16 other S CDE faculty. T he researchers used the lens of overlapping spheres of influence to look at the preparation of teachers and administrators to conceptualize how students learn and how to organize effective schools and classrooms. The questions posed by the re searchers we re: 1. According to SCDE leaders, how important is it for future teachers, principals, and counselors to be prepared to work collaboratively with families and communities to help students succeed in school? 2. How aware are SCDE leaders of the recommendations, guidelines, and preferences of

PAGE 22

22 external organizations concerning the preparation of educators for school, family, and community partnerships? 3. How do SCDE leaders rate their graduates preparedness to understand and conduct partnership p ractices and programs? 4. How do SCDE leaders assess the likelihood that their institutions will change the curriculum to include topics of school, family, and community partnerships in the preparation of educators? 5. Which structural, organizational, and attitudinal factors affect SCDE reports on the coverage of partnership topics, preparedness of graduates to conduct family and community involvement activities, and prospects for change? It was found that SCDE leaders believe that partnership skills we re important. These skills were also required by accreditation organizations, and preferred by school districts hiring new teachers. The study shows that there is a significant relationship between administrators and the content covered in SCDEs on partner ships, the preparation of graduates in this arena, and future plans to require courses on partnerships for students in the undergraduate and graduate programs. The participants also identified factors that may limit changes in programs such as the attitude of the faculty, university procedures, and restrictions by the state on adding more courses to graduation requirements. Literature in the field relating specifically to research with school counselors and S F C training is scant. Several authors have ide ntified the need for more training for school counselors specifically and school personnel in general in creating and maintaining S F C collaboration (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Bryan & Holcomb McCoy, 2004; 2007; Bryan & Griffin, 2010; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; S tinchfield & Zyromski, 2010). Consequently there has been a focus on creating models to guide school counselors and other school personnel in creating and maintaining S F C (Bryan & Henry, 2008; 2012; Griffin & Steen, 2010; Stinchfield & Zyromski)

PAGE 23

23 Competen ce and Training in M ulticultural C ounseling (MCC) Multicultural counseling developed as the fourth force of counseling (Pedersen, 1991) to respond to the counseling needs of diverse populations and to challenge the Eurocentric approach of counseling theor ies, interventions and research (Baruth & Manning, 2003; Lee, 2006; Pedersen, 2008). The multicultural competencies (Arredondo et al. ., 1996) were developed to outline the areas of competence in awareness, knowledge, and skill that a counselor should devel op in order to be considered multiculturally competent. Multicultural competence has been incorporated as a part of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accreditation requirements for Counselor Education Pro grams (CACREP, 2009) and is a part of the ethical standards for the profession (ACA, 2005; NBCC, 2013; ASCA, 2010). It is therefore important for counseling students (Jones, Sander, & Booker, 2013; Arredondo & Toporek, 2004; Vereen, Hill & McNeal, 2008), and school counselor trainees in particular, to develop MCC (Alexander Kruczek, & Ponterotto, 2005; Holcomb McCoy, 2004; 2005; Holcomb McCoy, Harris, Hines, & Johnston, 2008). According to the CACREP standards (CACREP, 2009), the ASCA national model (ASCA, 2005), and the ASCA school counselor competencies (ASCA, 2008), school counselors are to be multiculturally competent. Many scholars agree that to develop MCC, the didactic must be supported with practical experiences (Alexander, Kruczek, & Ponterotto, 2 005; Goodman, & West Olatunji, 2009; Jones, Sander, & Booker, 2013; Vereen, Hill & McNeal, 2008; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, & St. Juste, 2008). This has been achieved through courses with experiential and immersion emphases, immersion both in the US and internationally (Alexander, Kruczek, & Ponterotto; Goodman & West Olatuji; Hipolito Delgado, Cook, Avrus, & Bonham, 2011; Tomlinson Clarke & Clarke, 2010). R esearch ers have found that using experiential or immersion activities in MC courses has led to improved multicultural counseling knowledge, increased examination of

PAGE 24

24 cultural bias, improved case conceptualization, powerful learning experience s , and knowledge of social justice advocacy (Burnett, Hammel & Long, 2004; Goodman, & West Olatunji; To mlinson Clarke & Clarke; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, & St. Juste). The term multicultural counseling is rarely used in combination with S F C. Terms that examine the client in context such as, ecological, ecosystemic (Lewis, Lewis, Daniels, & D Andrea, 2003), holistic (West Olatunji, Frazier, & Kelley, 2011), and environmental are often used. These perspectives examine how the counselor should respond in a culturally appropriate manner to the impact of client s sociopolitical context. The liter ature is filled with conceptual (Bemak & Chung, 2008; Holcomb McCoy, 2004) and research (Chao, 2013; Hipolito Delgado, Cook, Avrus, & Bonham, 2011; Holcomb McCoy & Day Vines, 2004; Holcomb McCoy 2005) articles about school counselors demonstrating multicul tural counseling competency in S F C collaboration. However, there is li mited research exploring the relationship between MCC training and S F C collaboration. Competence and Training in S ocial J ustice A dvocacy (SJA) Although social justice advocacy has al ways been important in the field of counseling (Trusty & Brown, 2005; Crethar, 2010), only recently has it been recognized as an essential part of the school counselor s role (ASCA, 2005). A social justice advocacy orientation means that the counselor dev elops skills, knowledge and dispositions (Trusty & Brown) that allow him/her to act with or on behalf of the client/student, school/community, and or the public at large. Using the advocacy competencies to address student concerns can empower students and change the practice of school counseling (Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). Such advocacy efforts address and combat educational inequities that create barriers for all students achieving academic success (Cox & Lee, 2007).

PAGE 25

25 As such, social justice adv ocacy is now being viewed as an integral part of the role of the 21st century school counselor. Several authors contend that school counselors should lead the charge to challenge the inequities in schools, to increase access, and to improve educational ou tcomes (Lewis & Bradley 2000; Menacker 1976). The realities of the impact of students context can no longer be ignored by school counselors. They need to examine how children s learning is impacted by family and community factors (Bailey et al. , 2007). Sc hool counselors are uniquely positioned to challenge the status quo within the school as well as within the community by using data and promoting equity for all students (Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). Yet many authors suggest that the historical ro le of the school counselor has contributed to maintaining the status quo of inequities (West Olatunji, Shure, Pringle, Adams, Lewis, & Cholewa, 2010) experienced by students of color, or of low socioeconomic status (SES ) . Counseling as a profession has di sregarded the sociopolitical issues faced by clients and students as it focuses on individualism, maintenance and perpetuation of current power structures in society. School counselors intentionally or unintentionally conform to the status quo and reinforc e oppression when they adapt this system of practic e (Bemak & Chung, 2005). To not advocate is to support the status quo. Hence ACA s Advocacy competencies complement the ASCA National M odel (2005) with its themes of counselor leadership, advocacy, collaboration, teaming, and systemic change. School counselors who employ a social justice advocacy framework may experience resistance from colleagues, teachers, and family members as many times social justice advocacy action calls for challenging the status quo (Ratts, DeKruyf, and Chen Hayes, 2007). Bemak & Chung (2005) suggest that a part of develop ment as a social justice advocate requires forging

PAGE 26

26 partnerships with principals and administrators. Ratts, DeKruyf, and Chen Hayes (2007) also encourage school counselors to get buy in from principals. Moreover, results from Singh, Urbano, Haston and McMahon (2010) grounded theory research, on strategies used by school counselor to advocate for systemic change in their school communities, suggest that t o support their role as advocates and the advocacy process, school counselors need to build intentional collaborative working relationships with all members of the school community. The primary goal of school counselors with a social justice advocacy appro ach is closing the achievement gap between poor and minority children and their more advantaged peers (House & Martin, 1999). School counselors who work as change agents/social justice advocates can help to eradicate the achievement gap, increase academic expectations, and proactively work towards creating safer and more inclusive learning environments for all students (Erford, 2007; Martin, 2002; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). M uch of the literature in social justice advocacy approach focuses on co nceptual pieces where practitioners use actual or created cases to demonstrate the use of a social justice/ advocacy approach or the application of the ACA advocacy competencies (Crethar, 2010; Toporek, Lewis & Crethar, 2009). The research synthesis of Coo per, Chavira and Mena (2005), of the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE), addresses social justice issues for ethnically diverse students and students from low SES and their families. The study conducted by Tharp et al. . (19 99) in New Mexico focused on collaborating with the community members on behalf of Zuni students. The issues being faced in this Native American community w ere : (a) alarmingly high school dropout and expulsion rates and (b) no parent involvement at all . The research partnership emulated the approach utilized by Zuni leaders who make decision through seeking consensus with all stakeholders. They collaborated with the

PAGE 27

27 district, school board, and tribal council to survey adults in three generational group s (21 40, 41 60, and 61 105). The elders were surveyed in the Zuni language. It was found that 84% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted their history, beliefs, and values to be taught in Zuni schools. The CREDE partnership in Rho de Island collaborated with community organization s and schools to connect four Southeast Asian communities; Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong, and Vietnamese to support students school pathways. The partnership collected data on each group to assist schools in u nderstanding the distinct needs of the students and to counter the model minority stereotypes. This partnership also was involved in building adult educational pathways to teaching careers as they discovered the need for more Southeast Asian teachers (Co llignon, Men, & Tan, 2001). The CREDE partnership in Santa Barbara, California focused on developing computer literacy and empowerment among low income Latino children and their parents, in an after school program. The 18 par ticipants in the study sample made significant gains in their computer knowledge. They were also influential in making decisions about the programs and activities. This project developed into an ongoing community organization (Duran, Duran, Perry Romero, & Sanchez, 2001). Bryan and H olcomb McCoy (2007) and Bryan and Griffin (2010) found that commitment to advocacy accounted for 4.54% of the variance of the involvement of school counselors in S F C collaboration. The researcher believes that this relationship should be explored with an expansion of the definition of social justice advocacy as measured by the Social Justice Advocacy Scale (Dean, 2009). However, there is little research to speak to the relationship of SJA training and S F C collaboration.

PAGE 28

28 Ethnicity of S chool C ounselor In their research on school counselor involvement in school, family and community partnerships with linguistically diverse families, Aydin, Bryan and Duys (2012) found that school counselors who were non White had statistically significant higher involvement scores in S F C compared to school counselors from White back grounds. Even though Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2007) and Bryan and Griffin (2010) collected information on ethnicity of the school counselors in their study, they did not report on the relations hip between ethnicity and S F C collaboration. Hence t here is a lack of research on the relationship between school counselor ethnicity and S F C collaboration practice . Theory Freire s educational liberatory educational perspective forms the framework for examining the school counselor s social justice advocacy role. Freire proposed that liberatory education creates an environment that promotes reflection, dialogue, and action. This approach emphasizes reciprocity and collaboration between counselor and c lient (West Olatunji & Goodman, 2011; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, & St. Juste, 2008) in a way that challenges inequities in the social, political, and economic spheres that obstruct the development of individuals, families, and communities (Fri ere, 2003). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of five contextual variables and ten personal variables on the school family community collaboration practices reported by a national sample of school counselors. The fi ve contextual variables examined we re: (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level. The ten personal variables examined we re; (a) school family community collaboration tr aining, (b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling

PAGE 29

29 competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social j ustice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) and (j) ethnicity of counselor. Research Questions The following questions were addressed in this s tudy: 1. Are school counselors social justice advocacy competencies significantly associated with their engagement in S F C collaboration? 2. Are school counselor S F C collaboration practices significantly associated with the school contextual factors of (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level? 3. In addition to the five contextual factors of (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level, do the personal counselor factors of (a) school family community collaboration training, (b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness, (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social j ustice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) and (j) ethnicity of school counselor predict the extent of school family community collaboration prac tices reported by school counselors? Definition of Terms Counselor ethnicity . R acial/ethnic background of the school counselors will be captured in the demographic survey but for purposes of this study these will be further categorized as white and non w hite. Economic status of student body . T his will be defined as the students involvement or non involvement in the free or reduced lunch program. Multicultural Counseling Competence . The Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD) approved a document delineating the grounds for a multicultural

PAGE 30

30 perspective in counseling in 1991. Multicultural competencies outlines a counselor s knowledge, awareness and skill in thre e areas: awareness of own assumptions, values and biases; understanding the worldview of the culturally different client; and developing appropriate interventions, strategies and techniques. School Family Community Collaboration . C ollaborative relationship in which school counselors, school personnel, students, family, community members, and other school stakeholders work jointly to implement school and community based programs and activities that improve students academic achievement directly within schoo ls and indirectly by attending to the needs that may be hindering students and families from these accomplishments (Griffin & Steen, 2011, pp. 77). School level . E lementary, middle/junior or high school Social Justice Advocacy Competence . B ecoming aware of power, privilege, and oppression and their role in positioning individuals within society and speaking up, or taking individual and collective action to make institutional and systemic changes on behalf of clients, actions which lead to improving condit ions for both individuals and groups. Student body ethnicity . R acial/ethnic background of the students will be captured in the demographic survey but for purposes of this study these will be further categorized as white and non white. Training in Multicult ural counseling . C ompleting a multicultural course during school counseling training Training in school family community collaboration . C ompleting S F C collaboration course work or experience during school counseling training eg. Immersion

PAGE 31

31 Training in so cial justice advocacy . C ompleting social justice course work or experience during school counseling training eg. Immersion Significance of the Study There is a paucity of research on school counselors involvement in school family community collaboration a s it relates to their social justice advocacy as well as multicultural counseling competence . The fields of counseling and education are involved in a paradigm shift and the roles of school counselors are being redefined to include advocacy, collaboration, and leadership. This study aimed to contribute to the body of literature that further defines the role of the counselor as it relates to incorporating SJAC with MCC in S F C collaboration especially as it relates to promoting equity for all students, and challenging the systems that support the persistent underachievement of students from low SES and culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds. Training is essential in ensuring that school counselors fulfill their new role. Training programs for school c ounselors will need to incorporate in their programs, not only developing multicultural competence but also social justice competence (two sides of a different coin) and develop these competencies in practical ways that promote skill building and incorpora tion into S F C collaboration. Thus preparing school counselors to fill their strategic place in schools to challenge persistent underachievement of low SES and ethnically diverse students. This study also aimed to contribute to advancing research in t he field by further validation of two instruments . T hese t wo instruments are relatively new to the field. Because t here was no other instrument available to measure SJAC (Social Justice Advocacy Scale, Dean, 2009) which had only been used in a handful of s tudies , there was a need for further reliability testing. A similar lack of research was available on the School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships Survey (Bryan & Griffin, 2010).

PAGE 32

32 Organization of the Study In t he following chapters this study will be explain ed in detail. Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature on (a) school reform initiatives that address the achievement of low income and culturally diverse students, (b) factors affecting school family community collaboration (c) multicultural counseling , and (d) social justice advocacy. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology to be used in this study including the research design, research hypotheses, population and sampling procedures, data collection procedures, instrumentation, data analytic procedures an d study limitations. Chapter 4 presents the study results and Chapter 5 provides a discussion of these results along with their implications for future research and practice.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The aim of this chapter is to provide a synopsis of the literature and research relevant to this study. A review of literature relevant to the following topics will be presented: persistent underachievement; previous attempts to address this underachievement; school family community (S F C), collaboratio n; multicultural counseling competence (MCC) social justice advocacy competence (SJAC); the relationship between S F C and MCC; the relationship between S F C and SJAC; MCC, SJAC and the Freirian lens; the school counselors role; and liberation education theory. Academic underachievement of students from low socioeconomic status and diverse ethnicities has been a persistent cause for concern. There have been several attempts to address this persistent underachievement, such as compensatory educational pro grams in the form of Title I and Head start programs, culturally appropriate pedagogy (CAP), and various educational policies like the No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these attempts at educational reform, underachievement of students from low socioeconom ic status and diverse ethnicities has continued. To address the weaknesses in previous attempts, th is r esearcher postulate d that students and their families should be conceptualized contextually taking their individual and cultural strengths into account and realizing that the families and the communities they are a part of can contribute to academic achievement and psychosocial development of their children. In essence, family school community collaboration that incorporates social justice advocacy and m ulticultural competence can address the persistent underachievement of students from low socioeconomic status and diverse ethnicities.

PAGE 34

34 Patterns of Persistent Underachievement There is a pattern of persistent underachievement among students from low soci oeconomic status (SES) and from diverse ethnic groups when compared to the academic performance of their white counterparts and students from higher SES. An example of this persistent underachievement gap is evident in the average mathematics and reading s cores for fourth graders. In mathematics, there were no significant changes in the White Black ( Figure 2 1) or White Latino/Hispanic score gaps from 2009 to 2011. Additionally, among fourth graders who scored above the 75th percentile (i.e., above a sc ore of 261) in 2011, 72% were White, 5% were Black, 10% were Latino/Hispanic and 23% were eligible for free/redu ced price school lunch (Figure 2 2) (NCES, 2011a). A similar story is told in reading. While the White Latino/Hispanic score gap was smaller i n 2011 than in 2009, the gap in the scores persists and there was no significant change in the White Black gap over the same period. Again, for fourth graders who scored above the 75th percentile (i.e., above a score of 246) in 2011, 71% were White, 7% w ere Black, 11% were Latino/Hispanic, and 23% were eligible for free/reduced price school lunch (NCES, 2011b). Similar trends hold for 4 th and 8 th graders for reading. For fourth graders who scored above the 75th percentile (i.e., above a score of 246) in 2011, 71% were White, 7% were Black, 11% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian; 23% were eligible for free/reduced price school lunch; 2% were English language learners. Among eighth graders who scored above the 75th percentile (i.e., above a score of 289) in r eading in 2011, 72% were White, 6% were Black, 11% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian; 21% were eligible for free/reduced price school lunch. Although the scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for White, Black, and Latino/Hispanic students it did not chan ge significantly for Asian/Pacific Islander or American Indian/Alaska Native students. While the White Latino/Hispanic score gap was smaller in 2011 than in 2009, the gap in the

PAGE 35

35 scores persists and there was no significant change in the White Black gap over the same period (NCES, 2011b). The underachievement gap can also be seen in the status dropout rate (the status dropout rate includes all 16 through 24 year old dropouts, regardless of when they last attended school, as well as individuals who may n ever have attended school in the United States and may never have earned a high school credential). Between 1980 and 2009, the status dropout rates were higher for Blacks and Latino/Hispanic than their white counterparts with the rates in 2009 being White 5.5%, Blacks 9.5%, and Latino/Hispanic 17.5% (NCES 2011c) Fig ure 2 1. Trend in fourth grade NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for White and Black students (from NCES, 2011a) . *Significantly different (p < .05) from 2011. NOTE: Black includes African American. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 2. Trend in fourth grade NAEP mathema tics average scores, by eligibility for free or reduced price school lunch (from NCES, 2011a) . * Significantly different ( p < .05) from 2011. Previous Attempts to Address Student Underachievement Several attempts have been made to address the persistent un derachievement, such as compensatory educational programs, culturally appropriate pedagogy (CAP), and various educational policies like the No Child Left Behind Act (Noguera, 2006). Compensatory Education Programs The first strategy to address the persistent underachievement gap that will be focused on is compensatory education. The history of compensatory education is fraught with dilemmas and disagreements. There are many sides to the story of compensatory education, with few sides agreeing on the efficacy of the programs. In general there are two camps; one group believe d that poverty could be eradicated by improving education . Hence this group supported compensatory education in different degrees and different forms. The other camp believe d that compensatory education was a waste of federal money either because the poor (which was often equated with black children) were genetically inferior or the cost benefit analysis was not feasible. There were also those who critiqued compensatory education pr ograms because of the pejorative nature of the foundation on which it rests (Beatty, 2012).

PAGE 37

37 Compensatory education programs arose in the 196 0s in a politically charged time in the history of the United States. Brown vs. The Board of Education had just been established, schools were being desegregated and the black and poorer students were not performing on par with their white, middle, and upper socioeconomic status counterparts. It was also the beginning of the civil rights movement and in that same deca de was the beginning of the Vietnam War (Vinovskis, 1999). Within this context, President Linden Johnson declared war on poverty and it was believed that giving people equal access to education would be the solution to this problem (Vinovskis). Two compens atory education programs that emerged in this era were Title I and Head Start. The Title 1 program came out of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The ESEA was a federal aid program for education which targeted disadvantaged childr en to eliminate the achievement gap and poverty. Title 1 was a funding mechanism rather than a specific program or policy. Funds were provided for school districts to improve the education experience and opportunities of poor children. In the early days there was no oversight of the Title I program to ensure that the funds provided through this program were distributed to the right school districts or were being used for the intended students (Beatty, 2012; Visnovskis, 1999). In the 197 0s Title 1 was eva luated in the Sustaining Effects Study by the System Development Corporation. The study found that students in Title I programs did better than a comparable sample of non Title I students; however, the gains made were insufficient to close the gap between disadvantaged and regular students. Other evaluations of the program over time were consistent with the 1979 evaluation of the program. Title 1 served those students who were most in need of supplementary assistance however, was insufficient to close the academic gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged students.

PAGE 38

38 Puma et al. (1997) stated : Chapter 1 (anoth er term for Title 1 in the 1980 s) may have helped but it was too weak an intervention to bring the participating students up to par with th eir classmates . Puma et al. s view is supported by a meta analysis of 17 studies of Title I programs from 1966 to 1993 which found that there was modest impact on students achievement over time but failed to close the achievement gap between at risk s tudents and their more fortunate counterparts (Borman & D Agostino, 1996) . One limitation of Title 1, in the 196 0s and 7 0s wa s that it was not implemented as it should have been. Under the Clinton administration there was a system wide reform, standard based education was introduced which led to the creation of state level academic content standards and student assessments linked to local school curriculum and practice (Visnovskis, 1999). Head Start was a program also created to address the inequity in the education system. Head Start is an early childhood education program, to help poor children that arose in the 196 0s with the Title 1 program. The 196 0s Johnson s administration aimed to eradicate domestic poverty while creating equal educational opport unities for all. The aim of Head Start wa s to help disadvantaged children overcome the perceived deficit of their family and neighborhood (Zigler & Anderson, 1979). Head Start began as a summer program in 1965 as a result of focus on research proving tha t children s IQ could be raised by early intervention. Preliminary indication showed that summer Head Start was not enough to overcome problems faced by young disadvantaged children, therefore, Head Start was converted to a year round program. It provide d educational, health, nutrition, social, and psychological services (Beatty, 2012). The 1969 Westinghouse Learning Corporation evaluation of the Head Start program found that the IQ gains, of the participating students, were small and faded quickly. The y also found that there were non cognitive benefits such as reduced delinquency, less school dropout,

PAGE 39

39 reduced teen pregnancy, and reduced placement in special education for students who were a part of Head Start programs. However, there we re critiques of t he Westinghouse Learning Corporation evaluation with regards to the validity of the study. Critiques of Preschool Intervention and Compensatory Education Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio State University conducted a federally sponsored study in 1969 on Preschool intervention and Compensatory Education programs . They found that the positive effects of Head Start faded by 3 rd grade. There we re several critiques of this study : (a) it had flawed methodology, (b) Head Start was prematurely assessed, and (c) Head Start was assessed as a unified program when there was much variability in how each program was implemented at the local level. Despite these critiques, this report provided the basis for questioning preschool intervention specifically and comp ensatory education in general. Jensen (1969) used the results of this report to support his postulation of a genetic difference between the races which determine d intelligence and as such pre school education interventions would not alter this in the long run. Jensen in his article in the Harvard Educational Review expressed that compensatory education was a failure and one of the main reasons was the heridability of racial difference in intelligence . Jensen stated that there was real average difference among racial groups. Jensen s article created a firestorm of responses. One such response was from William Brazziel (1973). Brazziel believed in the effectiveness of compensatory education but critiqued it for its derogatory stance towards African America n culture and parents. He postulated that more early stimulation and imprinting and integrated schools with teachers who are free of racial and social class prejudices were needed. Brazziel s stance was supported by a 1974 report sponsored by the Nationa l Leadership Institute for Teacher Education and Early Childhood

PAGE 40

40 education. This report stated that black children with high IQ had an ambitious mother supported by a powerful communication group. Another response to Jensen came from Martin Deutsch of the Institute for Developmental Studies. He condemned Jensen s views on race. He accused him of racism. Deutsch stated that Jensen s article was filled with errors on the nature of intelligence, intelligence tests, genetic determination of traits, education in general and compensatory education in particular. Like Brazziel, Deutsch puts forward that compensatory education had not been fully implemented due to lack of funding and the Vietnam War. Some critiqued compensatory education based on its seeming middle class bias. According to Gordon and Wilkerson (1966) compensatory programs were trying to make low income African American children into middle class children in school performance. They stressed that they are not middle class children and can never be an ything but second rate as long as they are thought of as potentially middle class children . These children are different and an approach which views this difference merely as something to be overcome is probably doomed to failure . They argued that schoo ls needed to accept children as they were and assume the burden of finding educational techniques appropriate to children s needs. Still others critiqued Head Start and compensatory education due to its pejorative foundation and intentional/unintentiona l reinforcement of prejudice and bias. Some psychologists, sociologists, and educators rejected the concept of cultural deprivation as scientifically unsound and racially biased. Andrew Billingsley (1968), a sociologist, portrayed the strengths of black fa milies, disaggregated different types of black families and focused on the importance of social class. He expressed that Black folks are not monolithic and that an understanding of black family s issues was needed in education and education research. H e

PAGE 41

41 encouraged educators, psychologist s , sociologists, and researchers to see African American families as culturally different, not culturally deprived . Additionally, there was international comparison (Africa) to refute the idea of cultural deprivation. Cultural differences were not cultural deficits. Michael Cole (2013) proposed that a multicultural perspective was needed in psychology and education. Compensatory education was an embattled ideology with support for its goals but not necessarily the modes of implementing the programs. Title I and Head Start are two examples of compensatory education programs that received mixed reviews on its impact on the IQ and achievement of its participants. Compensatory education came under heavy critique for its pejo rative and prejudiced way of portraying its participants, which seemed to be mainly African American children and their families, and had a seeming middle class bias. Culturally Appropriate Pedagogy (CAP) Culturally appropriate pedagogy is another method that has been used to address the persistent underachievement gap between culturally diverse students and those of lower SES with their white and higher SES counterparts. Culturally responsive (Erickson, 1987, Gay, 2000; Rychly & Graves, 2012), culturally compatible (Jacob & Jordan, 1987), culturally congruent (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Parsons & Travis, 2005), and culturally relevant (Ladson Billings, 1990; Milner, 2011; Schmeichel, 2012) are some of the names used to describe the modification of classroom ins truction to respond positively to the home culture of students. Culturally appropriate pedagogy is based on the belief that students from diverse backgrounds, like all children, need high academic expectations, positive and caring relationships with teache rs, and classrooms that respect, honor, and draw on their individual, social, and cultural identities (Phuntsog, 1998). According to Purnell, Ali, Begum, and Carter (2007) and Phuntsog (2001), culturally appropriate pedagogy emphasizes respect for diversit y and in so doing connects the

PAGE 42

42 enthusiasm of all learners. It creates learning environments that are safe, inclusive, caring and respectful. All subject matter is infused with culturally responsive teaching practices and the curriculum is transformed to pr omote social justice and equity. Additionally, culturally appropriate pedagogy makes learning more meaningful as it builds on the richness of the variety of the students lived experiences and cultures. According to Menchaca (2001), students are more succ essful when schools honor and value each child as an individual and when their own experiences and culture are included and aligned with the learning task in the learning experiences they are more willing to participate (Bergeron, 2008). Based on the liter ature, culturally appropriate pedagogy is complex and has many layers that attend to the behaviors of the teacher, the interaction of the teacher and students, students interaction and the inclusion of content and methods that build on the students funds of knowledge. Studies based on the cultural differences concept assume that culturally diverse students academic achievement will improve if schools and teachers attempt to implement classroom instruction that is conducted in a manner responsive to the student's home culture (Phuntsog, 1999). Nichols, Rupley, & Webb Johnson (2000) seems to support this view that if cultural discontinuity between the school texts and how students conceptualize the content is addressed in the classroom then students pote ntial to learn key information will be improved. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) is the reauthorization of the 1965 ESEA Act. It promises to deliver on Brown s (Brown vs Board of Education) promise of equity in education for all students (Hewi tt, 2011). Its tenets are: stronger accountability for schools and teachers, increased flexibility and local control over federal funds, greater schooling options for parents, and focus on proven, research based teaching methods (Rush & Scherff, 2012). The se foundational tenets seem that they would deliver on the promise of equity for all students.

PAGE 43

43 However, there are various critiques of this educational policy. Since its enactment in 2001, little has changed to achieve the goal of equity for all students. Even though one study (Lauen, & Gaddis, 2012) show ed increased achievement in Math and Reading for students from low SES and diverse ethnicities, there still persists an underachievement gap between these groups of students and those from higher SES and t heir white counterparts (Hewitt, 2011; Ladd, 2012). Critics of the NCLB Act have outlined other downfalls of the Act: (a) c heating due to the high stakes attesting associated with accountability (Ladd; Rush & Scherff, 2012); (b) a focus on test scores as a measure of student achievement instead of including other indic ators of student growth (Hewitt); (c) teacher demoralization (Ladd; Rush & Scherff); (d) teaching to the test or narrowing the curriculum (Hewitt; Ladd; Rush & Scherff); (e) an increase in th e school dropout rate and a reduction in the graduation rates of schools. ( The claim is that students who will bring down the grade of the school are pushed out of schools. Incidentally, these students are generally those from low SES or ethnically diver se groups (Hewitt) ); and (f) reclassifying students to remove them from the testing pool (Lauen, & Gaddis). The current Obama Administration saw holes in the NCLB Act and moved to address some of these, in the hope of promoting equity in educational opport unity for all students, through allowing flexibility to states on NCLB requirements and the Race to the top initiative (RTTT) (Levine & Levine, 2012; Tanner, 2013). Several educators and policy makers do not believe that these changes (flexibility in NCLB requirements and RTTT) to the NCLB Act have much chance to succeed where NCLB has failed as they do not address the key issues that affect the underachievement of children from low SES and diverse ethnic groups (Hewitt, 2011; Ladd, 2012; Rush & Scherff 201 2).

PAGE 44

44 These and other attempts at addressing persistent underachievement have been less than successful (Teale & Scott, 2010). There is growing evidence to suggest that a part of the reason for this is that they do not satisfactorily address the multiple layers of challenges that impact students academic performance (Adelman & Taylor, 1997, 2002; Teale & Scott). Th e literature shows that student achievement is affected by family and community factors (Crethar, 2010; Coleman et al. ., 1966; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Rothstein, 2004) and that responding to the needs of students by focusing solely on school improvement wil l not guarantee improved learning outcomes (Noguera, 2004, 2008; Steen & Noguera, 2010). In the following section, literature s we re reviewed r elating to: S F C collaboration; MCC; SJAC; the relationship between S F C and MCC; the relationship between S F C and SJAC; MCC, SJAC and the Freirian lens; the school counselors role; and the theoretical lens to be used in this study. School Family Community Collaboration It is hard to definitively state what school family community collaboration looks like. Author s in the literature have used various terms to refer to the same and at times different concepts. At times the term school family community collaboration has been used to refer to parent involvement (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon, 2007; S imon, 2001), school family partnerships, school community partnerships or full service schools (Dryfoos, 1995; Jordan, Orozco, & Averett, 2001; Stinchfield & Zyromski, 2010; Voyles, 2012). Additionally there are those scholars who write from a school centr ic approach (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon, 2007; Simon, 2001) where the school s goals are at the center of the partnerships while others write from a family centric perspective, where the needs of the family is at the center of the part nerships (Bryan & Henry, 2008; Mercado & Moll, 1996 97; William & Barber, 2008). Much of the literature in this area is from the field of education.

PAGE 45

45 There is a paucity of literature on S F C collaboration appearing in the counseling field . In t he followin g section various aspects of S F C will be described and th definition of S F C utilized in this research project will be presented . There is a burgeoning body of research that suggests that schools need to address the relationship between academic perfo rmance and factors students face related to race, ethnicity, and SES (Noguera 2004, 2008; Payne 2008; Steen & Noguera, 2010). Schools are being encouraged to focus on the underlying causes for academic underperformance rather than the symptoms. Some schola rs have asserted that there is no reason to believe that there will be improvements in the underperformance of students from low SES and culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds if schools continue to address the issue without the partnership or coll aboration of family and community stakeholders (Noguera, 2003, 2008; Ouellette, Briscoe, & Tyson, 2004; Schutz, 2006). Therefore, efforts that focus on (a) connecting schools to families and communities, (b) implementing a culturally responsive curriculum, and (c) contextualizing students experience with socio politically and historical framework are warranted. The types of S F C partnerships and collaborations that have been developed to create a bridge between, the school, family, and community are discus sed below. Types of School Family Community Collaboration In the 199 0s there emerged a movement across the United States to create schools that incorporated mental health and other health services within the service provision of the schools. This movement came about because a report from National Advisory Mental Health Council (1990) showed that approximately 15% to 22% of children and adolescents in the United States had mental health problems that warranted treatment. It was estimated that less than 20% of this group received any kind of mental health services. Inadequacies in the approach to children s

PAGE 46

46 mental health led to calls for increased comprehensiveness to better address the needs of those served and to serve greater numbers. The call was for the establishment of schools as a context for providing basic interventions that involved a comprehensive approach for meeting children s mental health needs (Adelman & Taylor, 1999). A movement began to incorporate mental health agencies in the provision of m ental health services in schools. National policies at the time reflected the movement toward expanded school mental health (ESMH) programs (Dryfoos, 1997). ESMH programs offered a full range of mental health services, including assessment, prevention, c ase management, and treatment services to children and adolescents in both special and regular education in schools (Weist, 1997). In these programs the school joined with community based program providers from community mental health centers. The growth o f these types of programs in the United States in the 199 0s came about as a result of the recognition of the service limitations of traditional mental health programs for children and adolescents in communities and schools (Catron & Weiss, 1994; Dryfoos, 1994; Flaherty, Weist, & Warner, 1996; Weist et al. . 2000). The term full service schools/comprehensive school based centers came to be used to describe these programs. The term full service schools / comprehensive school based cente rs encompasses school based primary health clinics, family resource centers, community schools, caring communities, youth service centers, Cities in Schools, Schools of the 21 st Century, and New Beginnings (Dryfoos, 1995). Florida s Department of Health an d Rehabilitative Services Department of Education (1991) was the first to utilize the term full service schools to refer to the new types of school community institutions that were coming into being. A Full Service School integrates education, medical, soc ial and or human services that are beneficial to meeting the needs of children and youth and their families on school grounds or in locations that are easily accessible. Full Service Schools provide the types of prevention, treatment, and support services children and families need to succeed &

PAGE 47

47 services that are high quality and comprehensive and are built on interagency partnerships & among state and local and public and private entities & [including] education, health care, transportation, job training, chi ld care, housing, employment, and social services. (p.1) A distinction to be made about these programs that came about in the 199 0s was whether they were school based or school linked. School based mental health services indicate services or programs carri ed out on a school campus and the services may be owned or co owned by a specific school, the school district, or a community based organization. On the other hand, school linked refers to community owned on and off campus services (Adelman & Taylor, 1999) . Another important development was in the area of special education. It was based on a system of care model that surmised that one system alone c ould not address the needs of specially abled children and adolescents effectively. I nstead, interagency colla boration is necessary to provide services which can be wrapped around individual children and their families. The goal of wraparound service delivery is to turn the resources that are available into what the student and the related stakeholders need. It i s a community based solution for meeting the needs of behaviorally challenged students who are at risk of being placed outside the community in residential or foster home settings (Stevenson, 2003). Resources are shaped and structured around the student, family and teacher(s). The focus of this process is to identify the strengths of the student and his or her family and extended family. The foundation of the wraparound plan is based on these strengths; intensive in home and community services, case manage ment and respite care were some of the methods used. One of the most important results of this program was the partnership between parents and service providers (Adelman & Taylor, 1999; Stevenson, 2003). The aims of these various types of school communit y programs were meant to contribute to a reduction in problem referrals for special assistance, increase the effectiveness of

PAGE 48

48 mainstream and special education programs, and improve instruction and guidance t o nurture healthy development. The presence of co mmunity agency staff at schools enabled them to make access to services easier for students and families especially those who usually were underserved and hard to reach. This service provision method also seemed to encourage schools to open their doors in ways that improved family involvement (Adelman & Taylor, 1999). Analyses of these programs proposed that improved results were related to empowering children and families, as well as the capacity to address varied communities and contexts. As a result of families using school based centers they became more interested in contributing to school and community by establishing social support networks for new students and families, coaching each other in coping skills, sharing in school governance, and assistin g in creating a sense of community (White & Wehlage, 1995). As with any program there are some concerns associated with the school community programs. One concern relates to the development of tension between school district service personnel and their c ounterparts in community based organizations. School specialists often viewed the move to bring in outside professionals as discounting their skills and threatening their jobs (Adelman & Taylor, 1999; Osborne & Collison, 1998; Porter, Epp, & Bryan, 2000) . Additionally, initiatives for school linked services lead some policy makers to erroneously conclude that this approach can effectively meet the needs of schools in addressing barriers to learning and as such they viewed school linked services as a repla cement for school owned services. In reality even when community and school assets are combined the total set of services is inadequate (Adelman & Taylor , 1999 ). Although offering school based or school community mental health programs improved children an d adolescents access to mental health services, this does not guarantee meaningful

PAGE 49

49 family participation in those services (Dryfoos, 1995; Weist and Paternite, 2006). Parents involvement depends on several factors such as their attitudes toward the school and employment constraints. Linked to this is the struggle of meeting the varied needs of increasingly diverse student populations. This particular challenge highlights significant policy and training needs to enhance the cultural competence of all the men tal health service providers (Weist and Paternite , 2006 ). Addressing students academic struggles in isolation from external/environmental factors limits the school s ability to adequately deal with the needs of students in a way that builds on the student s , families , and community s assets (Adelman & Taylor, 2002; Griffin & Steen, 2011). One suggestion to addressing this issue is to include the family and community funds of knowledge. This came out of research done by Moll and h is associates in the 199 0s (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97; Moll, 1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzlez, 1992) and takes a family centric view of collaboration between the school, family, and community. It has been stated that students from low SES and culturally and ethnically diverse bac kgrounds are socially positioned along the margins of the public education system that privileges middle class white students (Cooks, 2003; Maher & Thompson Tetreault, 2001). The literature is replete with their stories particularly as it relates to cultur al discontinuity (Tyler, et al. , 2008) which is the cultural disconnect between home and school where the students ways of being and learning are often not valued (Cholewa & West Olatunji, 2008; Jenks, Lee, & Kanpol, 2001, Ladson Billings, 1995; Tyler et al. .). This disconnection can impact their psychological as well as academic wellbeing (Cholewa & West Olatunji ; Jenks, et al. ; Ladson Billings; Tyler et al. .). Children from culturally diverse backgrounds learn to behave competently in their natural cult ural and linguistic contexts, however, these ways of being are often seen by educators as

PAGE 50

50 being dysfunctional or deficient and are not recognized as useful or as strengths as they do not fit into the ethnocentric educational environment (Manning & Baruth, 2004; Tabachnick & Bloch, 1995). Research has shown the importance of including students families and their funds of knowledge in the educational process as it contributes to improvement in academic achievement (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97; Moll, 1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzlez, 1992). From research done with the Latino population, Moll (1990), asserts that every household has funds of knowledge and these funds of knowledge are valued resources of the culture. Funds of k nowledge can be described as the accumulated bodies of knowledge, information, and skills that families use for promoting survival, well being, and advancement and they are socially learned within families (Moll; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez). Families n ever function in isolation; they are connected to other families and institutions through a series of networks. Through this series of networks they share or exchange funds of knowledge. An underlying assumption of many educational institutions is that s tudents that are culturally diverse and have a linguistically different background come from households that do not have rich social and intellectual resources (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzalez & Amanti, 1994). This contributes to lowered expectations of these students. These lowered expectations of student capabilities come from assumptions that equate differences with inferiority or dysfunction. These misperceptions show up in the classroom in c urriculum approaches that underestimate these students knowledge and capabilities (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97) From their research, Mercado and Moll (1996 97) found that families have knowledge that can contribute to academic settings. Families are not defi cient nor are they socially or

PAGE 51

51 intellectually barren . Families are places where teaching and learning occurs, mathematics and reading skills are utilized, and children are taught social skills. Schools have a rich resource at their fingertips in the fo rm of the family. In addition to learning from them, when schools engage with families, it results in building relationships between teachers and families, allows for easy exchange of information, innovation in instruction, actively involving students in t heir own learning that is built on knowledge from their homes, and challeng es stereotypic ideas of deprivation and dysfunction (Mercado & Moll; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Additionally, a relationship between school and home uncovers that child ren have interests and abilities that may not be evident in the classroom. This continues to challenge the perception that these children are not motivated to learn (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97). Meaningful home school collaboration can be accomplished thro ugh guided home visits that are devised to see the homes of students as places of learning (Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzalez, & Amanti, 1994; Mercado & Moll). This builds a foundation for promoting meaningful collaborative relationsh ips between homes and schools and for improving the quality of academic learning in school (Mercado and Moll). Students families are rich reservoirs of cultural and cognitive resources that ha ve great potential for use in classroom instruction (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Classroom practice can be developed, changed, and enhanced by drawing upon the existing funds of knowledge in diverse student s families (Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzalez & Amanti , 1994). This view requires educational institutions to challenge the prevailing perceptions of low income and ethnically diverse families as socially disorganized and intellectually deficient (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez; Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzalez & Amanti). If students are seen as competent

PAGE 52

52 participants in household rich in cognitive resources (Mercado & Moll) this contributes to an increase in expectations. There has been resurgence in the i nterest and research surrounding S F C at the turn of the 21 st century. W e first look at practices of family school collaboration and then practices focused on school community collaboration. The research shows that there are different activities that conn ect families and school and are often referred to as parent involvement or family school connections/partnerships (Epstein2005; Mapp, Johnson, Strickland, & Meza, 2008; Sheldon, 2007). Epstein s theory of overlapping spheres and six types of involvement ha s laid the foundation for most of the research in the area of family school connections/partnerships particularly as it relates to parent involvement (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Mapp, Johnson, Strickland, & Meza, 2008; Sheldon, 2007). Epstein (1995) outlines that there are three overlapping spheres that influence children s development; family, school, and community. She also explains that there are six types of involvement within these spheres; parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with community. Parenting refers to helping families to create an environment at home that supports children as students; communicating involves creating an effective two way communication between home and schoo l about the programs of the school and the student s progress; volunteering focuses on the recruitment of parents for help and support for the school; learning at home provides families with ideas and opportunities to assist students at home with homework and other curriculum related activities; decision making involves including parents as a part of the decision making process and grooming them as leaders and representatives within the school/school district; and collaborating with the community focuses on identifying and integrating community resources and services to support school programs, families, and students.

PAGE 53

53 Although the theory espouses three overlapping spheres, and six types of involvement, one of which is collaborating with the community , much o f the research conducted by Epstein and her colleagues at the Center on School Family and Community Partnerships at John Hopkins University, focuses on family school collaboration from a school centric rather than family centric perspective (de Carvalho, 2 001; Jordan, Orozco, & Averett, 2001). Their research, based on the overlapping spheres of influence and the six types of influence call for collaboration, has the school s goals at the center of the partnerships. Literature in the area of community connec tions with schools or school community collaboration focuses on expanded school mental health programs (ESMHP) or full service schools. Currently, the field is pushing the conceptual boundaries beyond work on the importance of, and the how to, of establish ing ESMHP or full service schools to include other topics. These topics include: the importance of parent involvement in school based mental health services (Vanderbleek, 2004); an ecological model for services to refocus school based mental health service s in poor communities on the core function of schools to promote learning ; coalescing mental health resources around school goals (Cappella, Frazier, Atkins, Schoenwald, & Glisson, 2008) and expanding the concept of Wraparound beyond its use in special edu cation a widely implemented care planning approach for children with complex needs and their families (Walker, Bruns, Conlan, & LaForce, 2011; West Olatunji, Frazier, & Kelly, 2011). Recent research in the area has focused on : the impact of shared diag nosis and parent satisfaction (Kury, & Kury, 2006) ; evaluating the collaborative relationship (Bronstein, Anderson, Terwilliger, & Sager, 2012); and the impact on attendance and academic achievement (Sisselman, Strolin Goltzman, Auerbach, & Sharon, 2012).

PAGE 54

54 To incorporate the various ways that S F C collaboration has been defined (as inclusive of parent involvement, family school and school community collaborations, wraparound initiatives and school centric versus family centric conceptualization of S F C col laboration ), in this study s chool family community collaboration is defined as : & a collaborative relationship in which school counselors, school personnel, students, family, community members, and other school stakeholders work jointly to implement school and community based programs and activities that improve students academic achievement directly within schools and indirectly by attending to the needs that may be hindering students and families from these accomplishments (Griffin & Steen, 2011, pp. 77) . S F C Collaboration and Academic Achievement Numerous researchers have sought to assess the impact of S F C collaboration on students academic and psychosocial wellbeing. Most of the research in S F C collaboration comes from education. There is a pa ucity of research in this area of counseling. S F C collaboration links to academics is usually spoken about in terms of parent involvement. Most existing research investigates parent involvement in the primary and middle grades. Less is known about high school. Research support positive relationship between parent involvement and educational success especially in the elementary school years (Catsambis, 2001). Research shows that in elementary schools working towards S F C collaboration there was a highe r percentage of students scoring at or above satisfactory on state achievement tests (Sheldon, 2003). S F C collaborations are important contexts for children s learning and greater coordination among these environments benefits children s education and d evelopment. S F C personnel actions can decrease or increase the discord between and among these environments. Research done by Epstein and her colleague (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon, 2007), showed that schools working to implement S F C partnerships improved attendance on average .5%; however, in the comparison schools the attendance rates of student declined from 1 year to the

PAGE 55

55 next. From additional analysis they found that school outreach to families was the driving force that caused this effect. T his research is supported by Epstein s research (2005). She found that at the end of a three year longitudinal study of the implementation of a Partnership School Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Model in an elementary school, there was an improved partne rship with parents and community members and also improved math, reading, and writing scores. Sheldon s (2003) research in 82 elementary schools, controlling for school characteristics, also found that those schools working towards S F C collaboration had a higher percentage of students scoring at or above satisfactory on state achievement tests. He conclude d that efforts to involve family and community in students learning may be useful to help students achieve in school. Sheldon (2007) also explored the impact of S F C on students attendance. He compared 69 elementary schools that implemented the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) program with a matched sample of 69 elementary schools that were not a part of this program in the state of Ohio . He found that there was a small but significant improvement in attendance for these schools while the comparison schools had a decline in attendance. Turning the attention to research on S F C in high schools, Catsambis (2001) found at the high school le vel that there are additional expectations such as consistent encouragement and actions that enhance the learning opportunities of children. These additional expectations are a part of the family s practices that are positively associated with the educatio nal experiences (enrollment in an academic high school program and course work in core academic subjects) of high school seniors. He concluded that there is a relationship between educational outcomes and parent involvement regardless of SES, race/ethnic b ackground, or grade level. Simon s (2001) research confirms Catnabis (2001) findings. He found, from his research involving 11,000

PAGE 56

56 parents of high school seniors and 1000 principals, that regardless of student background and prior academic achievement va rious parenting, volunteering, and home learning activities positively influences students grades, course credits completed, attendance, behavior, and school preparedness. When educators guided parents and solicited their participation, parents responded w ith increased involvement to support student success. The research of Mapp, Johnson, Stric k land, & Meza (2008) expand ed knowledge about the impact of S F C at the high school level. Their outcome study examined S F C collaboration in 8 high schools in urban economically distressed areas. The investigation focused on eight family centers that were within these schools. The researchers intent was to ide ntify ways to involve parents of high school children in collaborative relationships with school staff. This collaboration, the researchers hypothesized, would positively contribute to children s achievement. From the finding of this study, the researchers developed a model that outline d three inputs for a successful family center which result the creation of a transformative space or zone of community that can have a positive effect on student efficacy. These three areas of input are; 1) supportive infrast ructure, 2) skilled center staff, and 3) responsive programming. When th ese elements were in place a zone of community was created that had four outputs; 1)creation of relational trust among adults, 2) shifts in parents role construction and efficacy, 3) g eneration of student relational trust, and 4) the development of student efficacy. Even though this is based on Epstein s theory of overlapping spheres of influence it does not fully follow her school centric model. This model also responded to the goals a nd needs of the family and not only those of the school (not fully school centric). There is a paucity of research on S F C collaboration and diverse student populations. One qualitative study done in Wallace County North Carolina (William & Barber, 2007) focused

PAGE 57

57 on the voice of African American parents and their perspectives on building culturally reciprocal home school community collaboration. This case study involved 4 African American parents. The conceptual framework for this study was a posture of cu ltural reciprocity . This approach require d explicit discussion with families of differing cultural values and practice for the purpose of facilitating reflective practices that take into account the body of knowledge that emerges from these discussions. F our themes emerged from this study; (a) recognition of the absence of culturally competent teachers of color, (b) inappropriate identification and placement of African American children in special education (c) disenfranchisement of African American parent s, and (d) distrust of the system. The latter theme seemed to permeate all the findings. The distrust of the system had several sub themes; historical realities as it relates to the history of race relations in the schools (shutting down of black schools a nd busing children out of their neighborhoods into white schools that were hostile environments for the students), fragmentation of the community and other poor practices, disregard of the African American experience, and unmet expectations (unfulfilled pr omises made by school personnel with regards to services or steps to be taken with regards to the parent s children). It was found that; 1) many culturally diverse parents transmit another culture which children learn in their communities. This is in line with the results of research conducted by Moll and her colleagues among Latino families (Mercado & Moll, 1996 97; Moll, 1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzlez, 1992). Based on Delpit s (1988) culture of power, it is important for these parents from the chi ldren s home culture to be involved in the dialogue of what is in the best interest of their children. This stance is also supported by Friere s (2003) discussion of the dialogic, creating an environment for conversation, building critical consciousness, and promoting praxis. 2) School personnel need to consider tackling ways to set the tone for

PAGE 58

58 collaboration and supportive changes between families and s chools and creating a plan for intentionally including culturally diverse parents in the decision making process. 3) School administration should examine the school s culture as it relates to creating an environment for collaboration and supportive exchang e between school and families and for AA families to feel that their contributions are significant . 4) Strengthen literature and dialogue within the voices of ethnically diverse parents . Catsambis and Beveridge s (2001) research on the impact of famil y, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathematics achievement, concurred with the importance of the fourth point made by William and Barber (2007). They stated that more research needed to be done on resilience factors that culturally dive rse fam ilies possess. The research literature speaks about S F C but their emphasis is on school family collaboration with a small emphasis on school community partnerships. S chool community partnerships are seen as an outgrowth of S F partnerships and ar e described in terms of donations, contributions, and volunteers and is mentioned in passing. The importance is recognized but there is a paucity of literature on this type of collaboration. Additionally, when speaking of S F collaboration the focus is on parent involvement. Epstein through her research has defined S F C collaboration in terms of six aspects. However, this still focuses more on parent involvement and not on the community portion of the collaboration. The focus is school centric; what can f amilies do for the school. The type of participation is dictated by the school personnel and the needs they outline. This model is very different from the richness that can be generated from a more family centric approach to involving families and their fu nds of knowledge as describes by Moll and her associates in their research.

PAGE 59

59 S F C and Psychosocial Well Being The research on S F C has mainly focused on its impact on academic performance. However, there is some research examining the impact of S F C on t he psychosocial wellbeing of students. Bryan and Henry (2008) outlined a strength based model of building a school family community partnership. Th eir approach utilizes the assets found in schools, families, and communities to generate a strengths enhanci ng environment, encourage compassionate and affirmative adult child relationships, reinforce children's social support networks, promote academic success, and empower children. The 31 girls and 31 boys who were involved in the Gentleman s Club and the Lady s Club, in this study, saw a reduction in their behavioral referral and an increase in their school attendance over the previous school year. Each student also created an album showing memoirs and positive statements from their facilitators as well as the ir dreams and aspirations for the future at the end of year Dreams and Aspirations banquet. In their research Carpenter Aeby and Aeby (2005) undertook an evaluation of the school based mental health services and family community interventions offered by a state funded school for chronically disruptive students between 1994 1999. This study examined whether the alternative school was a feasible family community intervention for improving psychosocial functioning and educational achievement for chronically disruptive students. It was found that there was a statistical ly significant improvement in psychosocial functioning for the students and there was also a statistically significant improvement in educational outcomes. Based on the outcome of the study, at the end of state funding for this program, the school district decided to continue its funding and expanded the services to include more partnerships with the community, community agencies, and families.

PAGE 60

60 The relationship between S F C and psychosocial wel lbeing has not been a focus in the field of education or counseling. However, the research that exists shows that S F C seems to positively impact psychosocial wellbeing. Contextual Factors Influencing School Family Community Collaboration Influences of S chool C limate and P rincipal S upport Researchers report that institutional characteristics appear to have a greater effect on school counselor role performance than individual characteristics (Mawhinny & Smrekar, 1996). Research conducted by Sutton and Fall (1995) and Scarborough and Culbreth (2008) shows that school counselors self efficacy in role performance may be impacted by school climate and administrator support. In essence the attitudes and support of administrators, teachers and personnel in the s chool system have an impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the school counselor. Examining the factors that influence school counselor school family community collaboration, Bryan and Griffin (2010) and Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2007), found that th e variables of school climate and principal support accounted for a significant portion of variance in school counselors overall involvement in S F C collaboration. Van Voorhis & Sheldon s (2004) research also confirm ed the importance of principal support in S F C collaboration. In their longitudinal study that explored the importance of the principal to the development of programs of S F C collaboration, data was collected from a sample of 320 US schools in 27 states that belonged to the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) for 2000 01 and 2001 02. The authors explored critical factors that affected the success of partnership program such as teamwork and external support. The analyses of the data showed significant and positive relationships bet ween principal support and the quality of the partnership program. The findings of this study suggest the importance of involving the principal in partnership efforts among parents, teachers, and community members, and in the development

PAGE 61

61 and evaluation of the work of the partnership team to support student academic achievement and social development. The importance of the school s relational climate has also been examined by Epstein and Van Voorhis (2010). These researchers examined the relationship betwee n the quality of schools' partnership programs, the percentage of families involved, the percentage of teachers who conduct various involvement activities and school counselors' support for S F C partnerships. Additionally, Epstein and Van Voorhis noted th at when school counselor support for partnerships was combined with the support for partnerships by their colleagues (e.g., principal, teachers, parents, other administrators, community members, and parent association) these relationships nearly doubled in strength. Influence of Student Ethnicity and E conomic S tatus The racial/ethnic makeup of the United States public schools is changing rapidly. These changes are manifested by the increases in the number of students of color and low socioeconomic status (SES) in the public school system (Education Trust, 2006; Grieco & Cassidy, 2001; Proctor & Dalaker, 2003; The Urban Institute, 2005). There is also a persistent underachievement gap between the students of ethnically and diverse backgrounds and low SES a nd their white counterparts and those from higher SES. Most of the research in the area of S F C revolves around academic achievement (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Mapp, Johnson, Stricland, & Meza 2008; Sheldon, 2003; Sheldon, 2007) and psychoso cial well being (Bryan and Henry, 2008; Carpenter Aeby and Aeby, 2005), however, there is a paucity of research on students from ethnically and diverse backgrounds or students from low SES. Williams and Barber (2007) in their qualitative study, in Wallac e County North Carolina, on the voice of African American parents and their perspectives on building culturally reciprocal

PAGE 62

62 home school community collaboration found that these parents believed that : a ) culturally diverse children learn another culture in their communities , (b ) s chool personnel need to create a plan for intentionally including culturally diverse parents in the decision making process , (c ) t he schools culture as it relates to collaboration between the school and families needs to be examined to ensure that AA families to feel that their contributions are significant and (d ) there is a need to Strengthen literature and dialogue within the voices of ethnically diverse parents . Ayden, Bryan, and Duys (2012) research on school couns elors partnership with linguistically diverse families found that school principal expectations, school counselor role perceptions about partnerships, time constraints, and training in partnership implementation were positively related to school counselor involvement in SFC partnerships with linguistically diverse families. Holcomb McCoy s (2010) explorative descriptive study examined school counselors' beliefs and activities about involving low income and parents of color in the college admission process . The study specifically looked at parental involvement beliefs, attitudes, and activities of 22 high school counselors who work in schools with students from high poverty and high minority schools . It was found that the school counselors favorably view ed their role in helping parents with the college admission process. A majority of them reported facilitating some activities designed specifically for parents. Even though a majority of school counselors were involved in some activities geared specificall y for parents, the majority of school counselors reported that they did not organize parent volunteers or send test dates calendars home. The Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) conducted 31 studies, nine (9) of which involved research that studied the interaction of families, schools and

PAGE 63

63 community organizations for ethnically diverse students as well as those from low SES, as it relates to opening up the academic pipeline. These nine studies were conducted in six states, Arizona, Hawaii, California, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Rhode Island and covered a variety of ethnic groups; Native American, African American , Asian, Asian American, rural Appalachian families and European Americans and varying SES. Overall it was found that families were key in students developing and maintaining education and career goals from childhood to young adulthood. Additionally, the r esearchers found that low income, ethnically diverse, and immigrant families often inspire and help their children set and maintain their educational and career goals. It was also found that for those students who were successful in achieving their goals, there was a network of family, school, peers, and community that provided a support system (Cooper, Chavira, Mena, 2005). Influence of School L evel Most research in relating to S F C investigates parent involvement in the elementary and middle school. Les s is known about high school. Catsambis (2001) reports that research support a positive relationship between parent involvement and academic success especially in the elementary school years. Epstein and her colleagues (Epstein, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon s 2003; 2007) research in elementary schools supports this claim. Sheldon found that elementary schools working towards S F C collaboration had a higher percentage of students scoring at or above satisfactory on state achievement tests (Shel don, 2003). Epstein also found that there was an improved partnership with parents and community members and also improved math, reading, and writing scores for elementary school students whose school s implemented a Partnership School Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Model. Sheldon and Epstein s research (Epstein and Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon, 2007) showed that there is a positive relationship between S F C and attendance in elementary schools.

PAGE 64

64 At the high school level it was found that there are additional expectations such as consistent encouragement and actions that augment student s learning opportunities (Catsambis, 2001). Catsambis and Simon (2001) also found that there is a relationship between educational outcomes (students grades, course credits com pleted, attendance, behavior, and school preparedness) and parent involvement regardless of SES, race/ethnic background, or grade level. From their research at the high school level, Mapp, Johnson, Stricland, and Meza (2008), developed a model that outline s three inputs for a successful family center that can have a positive effect on student efficacy. When there are; 1) supportive infrastructure, 2) skilled center staff, and 3) responsive programming then this creates a zone of community which has four out puts; 1)creation of relational trust among adults, 2) shifts in parents role construction and efficacy, 3) generation of student relational trust, and 4) the development of student efficacy. Personal Factors Influencing School Family Community (S F C) col laboration S F C C ollaboration Competence and T raining Bryan and Griffin (2010), in their multidimensional study investigating the dimensions of school counselors' involvement in school family community partnerships and the factors related to their involv ement in partnerships, found that training in partnership building and maintenance was related to school counselor involvement in school home partnerships, involvement on collaborative teams, and overall partnership involvement. It was interesting to not e that given this finding almost 40% of school counselors in this study reported that they had no partnership related training. This shows the importance of counselor education programs providing content and experiences within the curriculum specifically r elated to developing partnerships. This was similar to findings of Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2004, 2007). Aydin, Bryan and Duys (2012) in their research on S F C collaboration and linguistically diverse students corroborated the findings of Bryan and Griffi n (2010) Bryan and Holcomb -

PAGE 65

65 McCoy (2004, 2007). They found that partnership related training was positively related to school counselor involvement in school family community partnerships with linguistically diverse students and their families. Bartel and E skow (2010) noting the need for further training of school personnel in building and maintaining school family partnerships, implemented a training program in a district in Maryland. From their qualitative research they found that the eleven (11) participa nts (teachers, special educators, school counselor and other school personnel) experienced improved attitudes, knowledge, and skills related to building and maintaining partnerships. Ten of the eleven participants were interviewed six months after the comp letion of the training program and it was found that they continued to report a positive change in attitude toward collaboration and more effective communication with families although participants demonstrated application of skills to varying degrees. Lo oking into the future, Epstein & Sanders (2006) conducted a study to find out what the preparation for educators was like with regard to school family community partnerships. In this study the researchers used the lens of overlapping spheres of influen ce to look at the preparation of teachers and administrators to conceive how students learn and how to organize effective schools and classrooms. The questions posed by the researchers are: 1. According to SCDE leaders, how important is it for future tea chers, principals, and counselors to be prepared to work collaboratively with families and communities to help students succeed in school? 2. How aware are SCDE leaders of the recommendations, guidelines, and preferences of external organizations concernin g the preparation of educators for school, family, and community partnerships? 3. How do SCDE leaders rate their graduates preparedness to understand and conduct partnership

PAGE 66

66 practices and programs? 4. How do SCDE leaders assess the likelihood that their i nstitutions will change the curriculum to include topics of school, family, and community partnerships in the preparation of educators? 5. Which structural, organizational, and attitudinal factors affect SCDE reports on the coverage of partnership topics, preparedness of graduates to conduct family and community involvement activities, and prospects for change? The participants were from The 161 schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) across the United States. There were 71 deans or associat e deans of education, 20 chairs of teacher education, 6 chairs of educational Administration, 48 other SCDE chairs or administrators, and 16 other SCDE faculty. It was found that SCDE leaders believe that partnership skills were important. These skills w ere also required by accreditation organizations, and preferred by school districts hiring new teachers. The study shows that there is a significant relationship between administrators and the content covered in SCDEs on partnerships, the preparation of gr aduates in this arena, and future plans to require courses on partnerships for students in the undergraduate and graduate programs. The participants also identified factors that may limit changes in programs such as the attitude of the faculty, university procedures, and restrictions by the state on adding more courses to graduation requirements. Literature in the field relating specifically to research with school counselors and S F C training is scant. Other authors have identified the need for more trai ning for school counselors specifically and school personnel in general in creating and maintaining S F C collaboration (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Bryan & Holcomb McCoy, 2004; 2007; Bryan & Griffin, 2010; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Stinchfield & Zyromski, 2010). The has therefore been a focus on creating models to guide school counselors and other school personnel in creating and maintaining S F C (Bryan & Henry, 2008; 2012; Griffin & Steen, 2010; Stinchfield & Zyromski)

PAGE 67

67 Multicultural/Culture Centered Counseling C ompetence Culture is the way of life of a people, handed down from one generation to the next. It is the morals, norms and daily belief systems that guide the individual s actions, it may also be thought of as a source of support for individuals. Culture h as now been accepted as a legitimate concern for counseling and other mental health professions (Vontress, 2009). Multicultural counseling came from the need for the counseling profession to be more responsive to the counseling needs of diverse populations and to challenge the eurocentricity of counseling theories, interventions and research (Baruth & Manning, 2003; Lee, 2006; Pedersen, 2008). In a bid to include culture as a generic rather than exotic part of the counseling process, the area of multicultu ralism was put forward as the fourth force in counseling (Pedersen, 1991). At this time of the dialogue and research in culturally appropriate counseling, multicultural counseling and culture centered counseling seem synonymous. This perspective combines u niversalism and relativism by explaining both in terms of unique culturally learned perspectives and common ground universals that are shared across cultures. Speight, Myers, Cox and Highlen (1991) put forward the idea of viewing multicultural counseling f rom a holistic perspective, where one looks at the intersection of individual uniqueness, human universality and cultural specificity. They challenged the profession to redefine multicultural counseling from an optimal theory perspective where the needs of the whole person is attended to within the therapeutic context. The idea of culture specific counseling as a supplement to cross cultural and multicultural counseling was put forward by Nwachuku and Ivey (1991). In this approach the starting point is the people and their culture and from there, natural helping styles are sought out. The aim of this approach to counseling is to produce new theories and new ways of helping. Laungani (1997) joins Nwachuku, and Ivey (1991) and call for the use of culture cent ered counseling with persons in minority groups. Laungani calls for counseling that has as its foundation several fundamental

PAGE 68

68 social, linguistic, and cultural assumptions, the majority of which are shared and understood by the clients and counselors. Multicultural, culture centered, cross cultural counseling has made its way into mainstream counseling and counselor education programs. Its tendrils are now spreading into the schools. Baruth and Manning (2000) called for the preparation and awareness of middle school counselors to respond to the increased diversity in the middle school populations that they serve. The American School Counselors Association (ASCA) (2005) has also modified the role of the school counselor to include responding to the incre asing diversity within schools. The field of counseling developed the multicultural competencies (Arredondo et al. ., 1996) that outline the areas of competence in awareness, knowledge, and skill that a counselor should develop in order to be considered mul ticulturally competent. The principles of multiculturalism has been widely accepted in the counseling field (Pedersen, 2008), it is has been incorporated as a part of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) acc reditation requirements for Counselor Education Programs (CACREP, 2009) and is a part of the ethical standards for the profession (ACA, 2005; NBCC, 2013; ASCA, 2010). Since the inclusion of the MCC is core to the field of counseling it is therefore impo rtant for counseling students (Jones, Sander, & Booker, 2013; Arredondo & Toporek, 2004; Vereen, Hill & McNeal, 2008), and school counselor trainees in particular, to develop MCC (Alexander Kruczek, & Ponterotto, 2005; Holcomb McCoy, 2004; 2005; Holcomb Mc Coy, Harris, Hines, & Johnston, 2008). According to the CACREP standards (CACREP, 2009), the ASCA national model (ASCA, 2005), and the ASCA school counselor competencies (ASCA, 2008), school counselors are to be competent multicultural counselors.

PAGE 69

69 Many sc holars agree that to develop MCC, the didactic must be supported with practical experiences (Alexander, Kruczek, & Ponterotto, 2005; Goodman, & West Olatunji, 2009; Jones, Sander, & Booker, 2013; Vereen, Hill & McNeal, 2008; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, & St. Juste, 2008). This has been achieved through courses with experiential and immersion emphases, immersion both in the US and internationally (Alexander, Kruczek, & Ponterotto; Goodman & West Olatuji; Hipolito Delgado, Cook, Avrus, & Bonham, 2 011; Tomlinson Clarke & Clarke, 2010). Developing MCC can create discomfort, fear, ambivalence, and varying degrees of resistance. As such counselor educators should ensure that there is psychological and identity safety built into these courses to promote an environment for building MCC (Buckley & Foldy, 2010). The research has found that using experiential or immersion activities in MC courses has led to improved multicultural counseling knowledge, increased examination of cultural bias, improved case con ceptualization, powerful learning experience, and knowledge of social justice advocacy (Burnett, Hammel & Long, 2004; Goodman, & West Olatunji; Tomlinson Clarke & Clarke; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, & St. Juste). Additionally, emerging literat ure is also suggesting the importance of multicultural supervision in MCC development in counselor trainees (Lassiter, Napolitano, Culbreth, & Kok Mun, 2008; Ober, Granello, & Henfield, 2009; Vereen, Hill, & McNeal). S F C Collaboration and Multicultural C ounseling Competence The term S F C is rarely used in combination with multicultural counseling. Terms such as ecological, ecosystemic (Lewis, Lewis, Daniels, & D Andrea, 2003), holistic (West Olatunji, Frazier, & Kelley, 2011), and environmental are used . These terms, like S F C, examines the client in context (Lewis, Lewis, Daniels, & D Andrea), generally from a multicultural or culture centered perspective. This perspective examines the macrosystem or sociopolitical context in which the individual lives , how it impacts the person, and how to respond, as a counseling

PAGE 70

70 professional, in a culturally appropriate manner. West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, and St. Juste (2008) in their research outlines a community as client approach where counseling stude nts entered a community and conducted a needs assessment aimed at promoting community empowerment. The students were challenged to examine the narratives they created of those people and to create community wide interventions in dialogue with the communi ty that answer the needs of the community and utilized the strengths and cultural capital of the community members. Research in the school setting conducted by Cooper, Chavira, and Mena (2005) examined the theories of overlapping spheres of influence and sociocultural theory as they contribute to building S F C partnerships. The authors stated that sociocultural theory as expounded by Tharp, Estrada, Dalton and Yamuachi (2000) complements Epstein s theory of overlapping spheres by focusing on community sp ecific practices to enrich science, practice, and policy on diversity in education. In essence, the authors are stating that, Epstein s theory does not address these sociocultural areas such as community and cultural influences on learning. The sociocult ural theory addresses issues of cultural discontinuities between school, home, and community. This theoretical perspective also views culturally diverse families as having expertise rather than lacking it. The focus is on building social continuities betwe en home and school that fosters children s learning. Bales and Saffold (2011) conducted a mixed methods research study that focused on a field based pedagogy lab in a teacher education program. The aim of the lab was to provide an environment to allow t eacher candidates to examine their ethnicity, gender and social class, and their impact on pedagogy at the K 12 level and use their new awareness/knowledge to enhance their instructional activities. The use of case based instruction, discussion in groups i n class,

PAGE 71

71 electronic discussion boards allowed the marrying of multicultural content with candidates disciplinary based coursework. Allowing space for putting it all together as it involved consolidation and application of all the content learned in the ed ucation students different classes (content, pedagogy, and multicultural). The result was that 1) the teacher candidates made rich and contextualized links between their pedagogy course content and the diverse needs of pupils. In other words their pedagogi cal content knowledge (PCK) was strengthened through a deeper understanding of culturally relevant subject specific course content. 2) The cased based content helped the teacher candidates to develop more complex clinical skills; more thoughtful and cultur ally relevant responses to the cases and allowed them to connect theory with practice in a supportive environment. The cases also helped the students to unpack their assumptions and were critical to their development as multicultural teachers , and cri tically examine and interrogate their ideological orientations as part of their learning process . It was found that an ecological model of home school partnerships with culturally diverse families created a bridge between the home and school cultures. T he authors explored the use of an ecological model based on the postulation that an individual is an inseparable part of an interrelated system composed of the micro, meso, exo, and macro systems (Vazquez Nuttall, Li, & Kaplan, 2006). The current/traditi onal parent involvement practices did not take these systems into consideration and were not working with culturally diverse families. Links between the various settings or subsystems need to be acknowledged if we are to prevent the discontinuity between home and school that often occur for culturally diverse children. The literature is rife with conceptual (Bemak & Chung, 2008; Holcomb McCoy, 2004) and research (Chao, 2013; Hipolito Delgado, Cook, Avrus, & Bonham, 2011; Holcomb McCoy & Day Vines, 2004; Ho lcomb McCoy 2005) articles about developing multicultural counseling

PAGE 72

72 competency in school counselors S F C collaboration. However, there is little research to speak to the application of multicultural counseling competence in S F C collaboration. There are conceptual pieces that speak to the importance of employing a multicultural/culture centered or ecological or ecosystemic perspective when working with students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (Holcomb McCoy, 2004; Moore Thomas & Day Vines, 2 010). Holcomb McCoy (2004) suggested, in a conceptual piece where she identified a multicultural checklist, that for school counselors S F C collaboration is a part of developing multicultural competence. This checklist has not been used in a study. Her instrument, the Multicultural Counseling Competence and Training Survey -Revised (MCCTS R; Holcomb McCoy & Myers, 1999) which is not similar to the checklist, identified multicultural knowledge, multicultural terminology, and multicultural awareness as the three prongs of multicultural counseling competence for school counselors (Holcomb McCoy & Day Vines, 2004; Holcomb McCoy, 2005). These three areas do not include developing S F C collaboration. Moore Thomas and Day Vines (2010), speaking specifically about school counselors developing collaborative relationships with African American parents, stated that there are historical and contemporary factors and barriers that affect African American students and their families as they partner with schools and c ommunities. However, there is the need to have a reciprocal relationship between African American parents and the school and community to promote students academic success. This can be achieved by employing a culture centered or multiculturally appropriat e perspective in working with this population. Williams and Barber s (2007) research agree with the conclusions made by Moore Thomas and Day Vines. Their study uncovered four themes that governed the relationship between schools and African American parent s; the absence of culturally competent teachers of color, inappropriate identification and

PAGE 73

73 placement of African American children in special education systems, disenfranchisement of African American parents, and distrust of the system . The researchers i dentified the need for creating an environment that supports a culturally reciprocal relationship between African American parents and the school. An exploratory study conducted by Nelson, Bustamante, Wilson, & Onwuegbuzie, (2008) suggest that school couns elors should be instrumental in creating school wide cultural competence. Their research focused on the creation of the School Wide Cultural Competence Observation Checklist (SCCOC) that was developed to be used as a tool in conducting culture audits of sc hools to assess school wide cultural competence. From an exploratory factor analysis the researchers found two factors, policy and practice, that accounted for a total of 72.1% of the variance in the items on SCCOC. Research and conceptual literature on cr eating school wide cultural competence is in its infancy. Multicultural/Culture Centered Counseling and Social Justice Advocacy Social Justice and multicultural counseling competence go hand in hand (Evans, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffey, 2010; Crethar, Torres Rivera, & Nash, 2008; Ratts, 2009). To be a social justice advocate one must also be multiculturally competent (Griffin & Steen, 2011). Many of the multicultural counseling competencies involve advocacy (Trusty & Brown, 2005). Social justice and multicult ural counseling have been referred to as two sides of the same coin (Ratts). As a part of professional identity development, according to CACREP standards, a counselors role involves promoting social justice and advocacy (CACREP, 2009). The ACA Code of E thics also agrees and specifically states that counselors are to advocate at individual, group, institutional, and societal levels to examine potential barriers and obstacles that inhibit access and/or the growth and development of clients. (ACA , 2005). F or school counselors

PAGE 74

74 ASCA requires that the school counselors are social advocates challenging inequity in the school system (ASCA, 2005). It is therefore of import that SJAC be developed in counselor trainees. Like MCC, the suggested method is through imm ersion and experiential course work. In their research Goodman and West Olatunji (2009) spoke about counseling trainees developing critical consciousness (Freire, 2003) and multicultural counseling competence through immersion. The results showed that wit h an increase in critical consciousness and cultural competence, it was observed that the participants also demonstrated social justice oriented perspectives. Developing critical consciousness or consciousness raising is also an important part of a Communi ty Based Block counselor preparation program described by Odegard and Vereeri, (2010). This Community Based Block counselor preparation program has as its aim creating experiential and didactic experiences for students from a culture centered and social ju stice orientation to promote the development of counselors who are culturally competent social justice advocates. From a Freirean lens this program allows students to find their voice as they help their clients to find theirs, practice power sharing and s tudent empowerment, and create the environment for students self awareness and self examination. Service learning is also another method through which SJAC can be developed. Research done by West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, and St. Juste, (2008) spe ak to the integration of multicultural competency and social justice advocacy in service learning. During this research study the counselor trainees conducted a ethnographic investigation of a community that allowed them to be immersed in the community, ob serve the residents, have dialogue with the residents, and develop, in conjunction with the residents, a plan to create a community counseling center that would meet the needs of the community. These actions fit in with a Freirean perspective of liberatory practices (Freire, 2003). At the end of the investigation, the counselor trainees had;

PAGE 75

75 increased awareness, more culturally appropriate case conceptualization, more self knowledge of their own biases, and knowledge of social action and advocacy issues. Social Justice Advocacy Social justice and advocacy are terms that are seen as different but intricately linked (Ratts, Lewis & Toporek, 2010). A social justice approach to counseling recognizes the issues of power, privilege, and oppression (Ratts, 2009). It provides a theoretical framework for understanding the role of and individuals sociopolitical context in shaping human behavior. It also encourages counselors to develop a more balanced perspective between the individuals and their broader context (Rat ts & Hutchins, 2009). It uses social advocacy and activism to address inequities in social and political contexts that obstruct the development of individuals, families and communities academically, and in their career and personal/social development (Ratt s). Advocacy is therefore seen as, the act of speaking up, or taking action to make institutional and systemic changes on behalf of our clients. This can be at the client, system, and/or social/political levels (Lewis & Bradley, 1999; Lewis, House, Arnold & Toporek, 2002). Another way of conceptualizing advocacy is as the belief that, individual and collective actions, which lead to improving conditions for both individuals and groups, are necessary to fight injustices (House & Martin, 1999). For this stud y the researcher has combined the terms, social justice and advocacy, to create a meaning that encompasses the major characteristics of each term. Conceptualized from a Frierian lens, social justice can be likened to gaining critical consciousness, becomin g aware of power, privilege, and oppression and their role in positioning individuals within society. While this awareness is necessary to be involved in social justice advocacy, it is only one part of the equation. The other part of the equation is Advoc acy or from a Freirean lens, activism, taking action to create/promote a fairer environment. Action without the awareness is activism and

PAGE 76

76 critical consciousness without the action is verbalism. Critical Consciousness + Action = Praxis (Freire, 2002). One i s not sufficient without the other. So the researcher will use the term social justice advocacy to refer to the wholeness of bringing to awareness power, privilege, and oppression and taking action to promote equity for all. Social Justice + Advocacy = Soc ial Justice Advocacy. This term the author believes, encompasses the variety of terms and definitions used in the literature to speak about social justice, social action, advocacy, and social advocacy. Steele (2008) also unites the terms social justice an d advocacy and defines it as: Professional practice, research, or scholarship intended to identify and intervene in social policies and practices that have a negative impact on the mental health of clients who are marginalized on the basis of social status . (pp. 75 76) Social justice advocacy has been identified as the emerging fifth force in counseling (Ratts, 2009). This fifth force has always been quietly working in the background but without much support from the counseling profession until recently wh en the ACA Advocacy competencies were adopted by the ACA governing council in 2003 (Ratts, Lewis, & Toporek, 2010; Toporek, Lewis & Crethar, 2009). There are three levels of advocacy; advocacy with and for the client or client group at the client/student (micro level), the school/community (meso level), and the public arena (macro level). There is a further division at each level where the counselor may intervene with or on behalf of the client/client group. At the client/student level, there is advocacy w ith the client client empowerment and advocacy on behalf of the client client advocacy. At the school/community level, advocacy with the client/client group takes the form of community collaboration and advocacy on behalf the client/client group throug h systems advocacy. In the public arena, acting with the client involves public information and on behalf of the client involves social/political advocacy (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2002).

PAGE 77

77 Social justice advocacy challenges the traditional role of community counselors/ mental health counselors and school counselor. Operationalizing these competencies requires the counselor to utilize interventions aimed at the needs of the individual client as well as sociopolitical issues in society. Social justice advocacy focuses on addressing issues of power, privilege, resource distribution, discrimination and violence toward marginalized individuals or groups (Ratts, 2009; Ratts, Lewis, & Toporek, 2010). The main goal is to address social illness by challenging existing power structures and systems of privilege while fighting discrimination. As such there is a movement away from pathologizing the individual to focusing on social illness as a major source of client problems and issues (Smith, Reynolds, & Rovnak, 2009). S F C Collaboration and Social Justice Advocacy Like the link between S F C collaboration and MCC, there is little in the literature about the link between S F C collaboration and SJA, especially in the sphere of counseling. However, Holcomb McCoy and Bryan (2010) propose, in their conceptual piece, that S F collaboration from the perspective of expanding multicultural parent consultation, should be expanded to include an advocacy and empowerment framework. The authors were of the view that school b ased consultants (school counselors, teachers, school psychologist etc) do not possess adequate cultural knowledge of the members of the diverse populations that they serve and this may act as a barrier to establishing an effective consultant parent relati onship. Consultants are urged to acknowledge and address the cultural difference between themselves and the parents and to get an understanding of the culture and history of ethnically diverse families as these will help them in understanding societal issu es that the families face every day. From the framework of advocacy and empowerment, within multicultural parent consultation, the role of the consultant is to collaborate with families to increase their personal, interpersonal, or political power base,

PAGE 78

78 th ink critically about their problems (critical consciousness) so that they can take action (advocate) to create solutions. In a qualitative study on S F collaboration and advocacy for children with disabilities, one of the subthemes pointed to quality of ed ucation mediating advocacy stress of parents. The parents stated that when school personnel were advocates for their children and were willing to partner with parents, it made the parents role as advocate easier and there was easier access to services for their children (Wang, Mannan, Poston, Turnbull, & Summers, 2004). Griffin and Steen s (2010) exploratory study on school counselors S F C collaboration based on Epstein s theory of six types of involvement (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learnin g at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community). It was found that school counselors were more involved in parenting and collaborating with the community. The authors also found a new partnership interaction practiced by school counselors which they categorized as leadership and advocacy practices. Hoffman, Dahlman, and Zierdt (2009) spoke about S C collaboration in a mixed methods longitudinal study about the process of developing professional learning communities (PLC) towards advocacy. Each PLC had a different focus with one group being focused on developing S F C collaboration. The participants were school administrators, teachers from 7 professional development schools (PDS), faculty from education departments of neighboring universit ies, and community members. A few parents were on the various PLC but did not speak up or attend the meeting regularly. The results showed that at the end of the three (3) years several of the PLC were involved in advocacy activities, such as calling for s ystemic changes at the local school district level as well as at the state level, writing grants to conduct further research, and inter

PAGE 79

79 district collaborations between professionals. One concern for future research was how to include more parents and to cr eate an environment where they felt they had a voice. Ethnicity of school counselor and S F C collaboration In their research on school counselor involvement in school, family and community partnerships with linguistically diverse families, Aydin, Bryan a nd Duys (2012) found that school counselors who were non White had statistically significant higher involvement scores in S F C compared to school counselors from White back grounds. Even though Bryan and Holcomb McCoy (2007) and Bryan and Griffin (2010) c ollected information on ethnicity of the school counselors in their study, they did not report on the relationship between ethnicity and S F C collaboration. There is a lack of research on school counselor ethnicity and S F C collaboration. History of Scho ol Counselor s Role School counselors have been an integral part of the educational system since the 1920s (Erford, 2007). However, the professional identity and daily activities of school counselors have changed significantly since the infancy of the prof ession (Foster, Young & Hermann, 2005). The issues of role, practice, and professional identity have been the subject of continuous discussion and change (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Amatea & West Olatunji, 2007; American School Counselor Association (ASCA), 20 05; Education Trust, 1997; Bemak & Chung, 2005 , Clemens, Shipp, & Kimbel, 2011). For example Parsons, known as the father of vocational guidance, and his acolytes focused their work on providing vocational guidance to prepare students to be successful in the workplace and also vocational assistance for those who dropped out of school. Then early school counselors provided direct services to students in the form of developmental services that focused on vocational guidance, increased self awareness and grow th, individual counseling, crisis intervention, or referrals to community agencies (Crethar,

PAGE 80

80 2010; Dodson, 2009). National school reform initiatives in the 1990s, led to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Governing Board developing the Nati onal Standards for School Counseling Programs (NSSCP) (Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Dahir, 2001). In March 2001, ASCA's Governing Board agreed to the development of a national school counseling model (Bowers & Hatch, 2002). Even though the ASCA's Governing Boar d has outlined the role of school counselors, there is still some discrepancy in what school counselors ought to be doing and what is expected of them especially by other school personnel (Clemens, Shipp & Kimbel, 2011; Monteiro, Leitner, Asner Self, Milde , Leitner & Skelton, 2006; Scarborough & Culbreth, 2008) The call then came to include multiculturalism as an additional lens for bringing awareness to the impact of culture on students and providing service in a way that enhances equity in academic achie vement (Crethar, 2010; Evans, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffy, 2010 Holcomb McCoy, 2004; 2005). The school counseling profession is at the cusp of another paradigm shift where school counselors are being asked to rethink their roles. School counselors are being a sked to see themselves as educational leaders, student advocates, and social change agents (ASCA, 2005; Bemak & Chung, 2005; Crethar; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007) while providing direct and indirect guidance and counseling ser vices to students. For example, school counselors have been called on to be instrumental in the integration of community wide mental health services and promoting school family community collaboration (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Amatea & West Olatunji, 2007; B ryan, & Griffin, 2010; Bryan, & Holcomb McCoy, 2007; Evans, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffy). The ASCA national standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) and the ASCA National Model, emphasize that school counselors should promote all equitable access to education for a ll students.

PAGE 81

81 School Family Community Collaboration and the School Counselor Addressing students academic struggles in isolation from external/environmental factors limits the schools ability to adequately deal with the needs of students in a way that bui lds on the students , families , and community s assets (Adelman & Taylor, 2002; Griffin & Steen, 2011). School counselors are concerned with the whole child for his or her academic, career, and personal/social development (ASCA, 2005). They are uniquely positioned in the school to work with students, parents, teachers, and administrators promoting teamwork and effecting school change. As a team, resources and strengths of each team member can be utilized to meet the needs of all students in the school. As team leaders, school counselors have been trained in leadership, advocacy, and collaboration skills. Principals, teachers, parents, and community stakeholders all must commit to create an environment that supports and values parents' involvement in and co ntributions to their children's learning both in school and at home (Bryan, & Griffin, 2010; Van Voorhis, & Sheldon, 2004; Walker, Shenker, & Hoover Dempsey, 2010). Family school community partnerships are critically important for the academic success of a ll students (Dotson Blake, 2010). School should provide access and opportunity for all (Bemak & Chung, 2005; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007; Griffin & Steen, 2011). To address academic discrepancies the school counselors cannot do this work alone. They must work with the other stakeholders in the family, school and community (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Amatea & West Olatunji, 2007; Bryan, & Griffin, 2010; Evan, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffey, 2010; Griffin & Steen). The school counselor and other stakeholders mu st examine the issues faced by students within the context of the systems that students are members of, such as school, family and community (Griffin & Steen). In order to do this there should be collaboration between the school, family and community. ASCA outlines the role of the role of the school counselor to include promoting,

PAGE 82

82 facilitating, and advocating for school family community partnerships to help meet students needs (ASCA, 2005). The importance of this type of collaboration is supported by ASCA a nd the US Congress. ASCA (2008) incorporated collaboration as part of its new School Counselor Competencies. These competencies include collaborating with parents, teachers, administrators, community leaders, and other stakeholders to promote and support s tudent success. Additionally, the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring each school to create partnerships by the year 2000 to increase parental involvement (National Educational Goals Panel, 1999). School counselors are in a unique position to provide lead ership in initiating parent involvement strategies that address community needs. School counselors are encouraged to take the lead in implementing community centric and family centric strategies to build partnerships to enhance children's school experience s as well as their overall quality of life (Galassi & Akos, 2008; Griffin & Steen, 2011). The aim of encouraging this collaboration between the school, family and community and charging school counselors to take on the role of a social justice advocate is to promote a socially just school environment in which all students are treated equally (Dixon, Tucker & Clark, 2010). Social Justice Advocacy in Schools Students are affected by a number of social, psychological, and environmental factors, such as pover ty, family distress, violence and other issues outside of school (Crethar, 2010; Coleman et al. ., 1966; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Rothstein, 2004). These factors can impact student mental health and can be barriers to academic, social, and personal developmen t (Ratts & Hutchins, 2009). Current policies do not address the complexity and intersection of these issues and how they impact student achievement. This speaks to the need for the inclusion of social justice advocacy in the work/role of school counselors since oppression manifests itself at the

PAGE 83

83 individual, social/cultural, and institutional levels (Hardiman, Jackson, & Griffin, 2007; Ratts & Hutchins, 2009). School should provide access and opportunity for all (Bemak & Chung, 2005; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007; Griffin & Steen, 2011). The social justice advocacy approach and competencies equips the school counselor to challenge injustices, increase access, and improve educational outcomes (Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). Social justice advocacy has always been important in the field of counseling (Trusty & Brown, 2005; Crethar, 2010) but only recently has it received attention as a part of the role of school counselors (ASCA, 2005). A social advocacy orientation has the counselor developing ski lls, knowledge and dispositions (Trusty & Brown, 2005) that allows him/her to act with or on behalf of the client/student, school/community, and or the public at large. Ratts, DeKruyf, and Chen Hayes (2007) postulated that using the advocacy competencies t o attend to student concerns can be empowering for students and it can transform how school counseling is practiced. It addresses and combats educational inequities that create barriers for all students achieving academic success (Cox & Lee, 2007). As suc h, social justice advocacy should be seen as an integral part of the role of the 21st century school counselor. They should be the ones who lead the charge to challenge the inequities in schools in the achievement gap, increased access, and improved educat ional outcomes. It is the schools counselor s moral and ethical responsibility to serve as agents of social and political change. Sometimes it is the system and not the students that need adjusting (Lewis & Bradley 2000; Menacker 1976). School counselors c annot ignore the realities of the impact of students context. They need to examine how family and community factors impact children s learning (Bailey et al. , 2007). They are uniquely positioned to challenge the status

PAGE 84

84 quo, use data to increase access and address equity for all students and provide services within the school as well as within the community (Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). The historical role of the school counselor has contributed to maintaining the status quo of inequities (West Ol atunji, Shure, Pringle, Adams, Lewis, & Cholewa, 2010) between students of color, low socioeconomic status (SES), and middle and upper SES and white students. Counseling as a profession focuses on individualism, maintenance and perpetuation of current powe r structures in society, and has disregard for sociopolitical issues faced by clients and students. When school counselors adapt this system of practicing, they intentionally or unintentionally conform to the status quo and reinforce oppression (Bemak & Ch ung, 2005). To not advocate is to support the status quo. However, to advocate is to open oneself up to personal and professional challenges. In the position of advocate the school counselor at times has to challenge the politics, policies, and structure o f the school (Bemak & Chung; Steele, 2008). The ACA Advocacy competencies complement the ASCA National model (2005). It aligns with the ASCA model s themes of leadership, advocacy, collaboration, teaming, and systemic change. As a part of building the adv ocacy competencies, school counselors need to examine their positioning, are they inside or outside of the system, privileged or oppressed, effective or ineffective, depth and breadth of their knowledge base, and what the personal and or organizational con sequences are of becoming an advocate (Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). School counselors need to redefine their role to ensure that they are contributing to the academic success of all students by: Emphasizing social and educational equity for all stu dents Refocusing interventions to work in groups Teaching students and parents about their rights

PAGE 85

85 Formulating partnerships with students who lack skills and knowledge to advocate for themselves Aligning with parents Forging partnerships with principals and administrators Utilizing data Getting training in leadership and advocacy skills Joining with other school counselors in your school and or the district especially for data collection Volunteering and participating in school reform efforts Understanding how to promote social action within a socio political context Collaborating actively with community agencies (Bemak & Chung, 2005). With a social justice advocacy approach, closing the achievement gap between poor and minority children and their more advan taged peers becomes the primary goal of every school counselor (House & Martin, 1999). School counselors who work as change agents/social justice advocates can help to eradicate the achievement gap, increase academic expectations, and proactively work towa rds creating safer and more inclusive learning environments for all students (Erford, 2007; Martin, 2002; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). Theor etical Framework The theoretical framework to be utilized in this study is anchored in both Epstein s theory of overlapping s p heres and in Friere s (2003) liberatory education theory . Epstein s Theory In the field of school family community collaboration, Joyce Epstein s (1992; 1995; 2002) theory of overlapping spheres has been very influential. It has been used in research at the elementary (Sheldon, 2003, 2007), middle (Catsambis & Beveridge, 2001) an d high schools (Catsambis, 2001; Mapp, Johnson, Stickland, & Meza, 2008) on topics such as student

PAGE 86

86 achievement (Sheldom, 2003), attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon, 2007), parent involvement (Epstein, 2008), and impact on student behavior (Bryan & Henry, 2008). It is also the basis of the standards for family school partnerships for the National Parent Teacher s Association (National PTA, 2002). Epstein s theory of overlapping spheres posits that the spheres of home, school, and communities interac t to impact students academic and personal success (Epstein, 1995, 1998, 2002). Based on her research in the National Network of Partnership School out of John Hopkins University, Epstein outlines six types of involvement; parenting, communicating, volu nteering, learning at home, decision making and collaborating with community (Epstein, 1996; 2005; Epstein & Sheldon 2002; Sanders & Epstein, 1998). 1) Parenting assisting families with parenting, child rearing skills, and establishing a home environmen t to support children as students. 2) Communicating creating effective communication strategies from school to home and home to school about school programs and student progress. 3) Volunteering recruiting and organizing parent volunteers to support th e school and students. Additionally, this type of involvement includes providing opportunities to volunteer in various locations (at the school and from home) and at various times. 4) Learning at home involving parents and other family members with their children in homework and other activities related to the curriculum. It also involves providing families with ideas and information about how to help students at home with their homework. 5) Decision making including families as participants in school g overnance and advocacy and developing parents as leaders and representatives. 6) Collaborating with the community collaborating with businesses and agencies in the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and develo pment.

PAGE 87

87 Epstein s definition of S F C collaboration is school centric in nature (Jordan, Orozco, & Averett, 2001; de Carvalho, 2001). The emphasis is on how to integrate all other places to support and promote the goals of the school. Her research also fo cuses mainly on school family collaboration, parent involvement in particular and does not adequately address school community collaboration or the role of the community in the school family community collaboration. Epstein does not address the cultural co ntext, funds of knowledge of families, and issues of social justice advocacy in schools. As such her theory does not lend itself to analysis of the questions posed in this study. To address these gaps in overlapping spheres the researcher has chosen to uti lize Friere s liberatory education theory. Freire s Liberatory Education Theory The theoretical framework for this research study is Paulo Freire s theory of liberatory education. This theory was chosen as it encompasses in its tenets the ideals of social justice advocacy (critical consciousness and praxis) from a culture centered perspective and postulates a dialogic which speaks to the collaborative nature of S F C. Also addressed in this section are other reasons this theory was chosen and the link of li beratory education to counseling. Paulo Freire was a Brazilian educator who worked with the Catholic Action group in Brazil to promote adult literacy for the poor and marginalized of Brazil. His work transformed the way the poor and marginalized we re conc eptualized. Freire reconceptualized them as learners and participants in their own education. This theory will be used in this study to explore the relationship between school counselors social justice advocacy competence and multicultural competence (ie. their ability to conceptualize students as cultural being impacted by their sociopolitical context) and their S F C collaborative behaviors (ie. willingness to include other educators, families and community members in the dialogue to promote equity in st udents educational outcomes).

PAGE 88

88 The aim of libratory education is to promote academic and personal success for all students through involving the participants (families, school and communities) in the education process in dialogue to promote the awareness and knowledge of the assets of the school, families, and communities and to take action to promote equity in student educations outcomes. This is summed up by Friere (2003) as critical consciousness + action = Praxis. The main tenets of Freire s liberato ry education are: Each person has knowledge from their own lived experiences. The families, school and community are equal members of the partnership and have knowledge (Moll,1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) to contribute to the collaborative process. Each person has to give voice to their beliefs for knowledge to be constructed. The school, family and community members are equal participants in the learning process in which all are involved in the production of knowledge. New k nowledge come s from dialogue. The learning process is developed by a continuous dialogue between the school, family, and community. This dialogic process involves; collaboration, organization, and synthesis of the culture of the participants in the dialogue. Knowledg e construction is not static; it encompasses action . The learners are the subject and not the object of the learning process. They are not objectified by alienating them from thei r own decision making. This means that nobody liberates anybody else, and nob ody liberates themselves all alone. People liberate themselves in fellowship with each other. Freire postulated that education for liberation creates an environment for reflection, dialogue, and action. Freire's work in the counseling and education present s a way of approaching inequity to address the pain and suffering and challenge systems of oppression to promote client empowerment and liberation (Demmitt, & Oldenski, 1999). A Freirean approach in counseling emphasizes building collaborative and reciproc al relationships between counselors and clients with an aim to generate authentic healing and action (West Olatunji & Goodman 2011). Research in counseling has shown that critical consciousness can be utilized to promote the development of social justice a dvocacy and multicultural counseling competence (Goodman

PAGE 89

89 & West Olatunji, 2009; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, St. Juste, 2008). As social justice advocates, school counselors are called on not only to build awareness or critical consciousness but also to advocate with and on behalf of their client or client group at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Freire states, (2003), Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it (p. 79). It h as been identified that there are inequities in the education system for students from low SES and other ethnic and cultural groups (Cooks, 2003; Maher & Thompson Tetreault, 200; National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), 2011). School counselors a re being called upon to be culturally competent social justice advocates and change agents (Bemak & Chung, 2005; Crethar, 2010; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007). This means building awareness of inequities and the sociopolitical c ontexts of their clients, utilizing a culture centered lens, and how they impact their academic success (Crethar; Evans, Zambrano, Moyer, & Duffy, 2010). This process is similar to Freire s building critical consciousness (Freire, 2003). Counselors who h ave competence in social justice advocacy and multicultural counseling are involved in collaboration with their clients and other stakeholders (Goodman & West Olatunji, 2009; Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2002; Ratts, 2009; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson , Frazier, St. Juste, 2008; Vera & Speight, 2003). For school counselors this is achieved through school family community collaboration. Addressing students academic struggles in isolation from external/environmental factors limits the schools ability to adequately deal with the needs of students in a way that builds on the students , families , and community s assets (Adelman & Taylor, 2002; Griffin & Steen, 2011). This type of partnering speaks to the dialogic process in libratory education which involve s collaboration, union, organization, and cultural synthesis. Having social justice advocacy and multicultural competence provides the school

PAGE 90

90 counselor with the skill and knowledge background to promote equity in their schools to address the issues of the underachievement gap between students from ethnically diverse backgrounds and low SES and their white higher SES counterparts. Summary There is persistent underachievement of students from ethnically diverse backgrounds and low SES in the school system. Pr evious attempts to address this problem, such as compensatory education, culturally appropriate pedagogy (CAP), and educational policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act, have not succeeded in reducing this underachievement gap. The school counselor is strategically positioned to serve as a bridge between school, families and communities, consultant to school personnel, and as an advocate for students from ethnically diverse backgrounds and low SES and their families. To undertake this role, school coun selors should be involved in S F C collaboration from a multiculturally competent social justice advocacy perspective. This chapter has addressed the following areas: persistent underachievement; previous attempts to address this underachievement; S F C co llaboration; MCC; SJAC; the relationship between S F C and MCC; the relationship between S F C and SJAC; MCC, SJAC and the Freirian lens; the school counselors role; and the theoretical lens to be used in this study.

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of personal and contextual factors influencing the levels of school family community collaboration and social justice advocacy of school counselors working in public schools in the United States. In this chapter the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection procedures, research hypotheses, and data analytic procedures a re described. Research Design This is a multicorrelational study that examined the contribution of 5 contex tual and 10 personal factors to the prediction of the level of school counselor engagement in three aspects of school family community collaboration. Study V ariables The independent variables for this study are divided into two categories, contextual and p ersonal. The five contextual variables examined were: (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level. The ten personal variables examined were: (a) school family community c ollaboration training, (b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action ; (g) social justice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) and (j) ethnicity of counselor. Three aspects of school family community collaboration ( involvement in school home partnerships, involvement in school community partnerships, and involvement in collaborative teams) we re the dependent variables. The latent variables are school family community collaboration, multicultural counselling competenc e, and

PAGE 92

92 social justice advocacy. The observed variables are: school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, school level, school family community collaboration training, multicultural counseling training, mul ticultural counseling competence knowledge, multicultural counseling competence awareness, social justice advocacy training, social justice advocacy collaborative action, social justice advocacy social /political advocacy, social justice advocacy client empowerment, social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) ethnicity of counselor and school family community collaboration ( involvement in school home partnerships, involvement in school community partnerships, and involvement in collaborative teams ) . Population and Sample The population of interest in this study was composed of school counselors who we re members of the American School Counselors Association (ASCA) and we re currently working in public schools across the United St ates. The members of ASCA w ere sampled because it wa s a national organization of professional school counselors that ha d an email member directory. There are approximately 29,000 members of ASCA of which 15% are male and 85% are female. The members work in various settings, 18% in elementary schools, 10% in middle schools, 24% in high schools, 8% in K 12, 12% are counselor educators, work at the district level or in other settings. The criteria for selection of study participants we re : (a) a counselor wor king full time, (b) in school in the U nited S tates, and (c) a member of ASCA. It was expected that a minimum of 670 participants w ould be necessary to adequately conduct confirmatory factor analyses on the variables of interest in this study.

PAGE 93

93 Resultant Sample The ASCA directory ha d only the email contact information of its members. There were 19,669 identified as school counselors in the ASCA directory. The survey was sent to each of these persons via email. Seven hundred and eighty six (786) individual s responded. Three (3) were removed because they were school counselors from international schools outside of the United States. Of th e remaining 783, seventeen (17) did not complete the survey, leaving a total of 766. However not all of these persons comp leted all portions of the surve y. Hence all available data from the partially completed surveys were included in the model. Five hundred and forty five (545) participants completed the questions related to multicultural competence (MCKAS); 451 participants completed the questions related to social justice advocacy (Social Justice Advocacy Scale); and 412 participants completed the School Counselor Involvement in Partnership Scale (SCIPS). The demographic questionnaire which appeared at the end of the surve y also had various rates of completion. Three hundred and eighty six participants provided information on their gender and ethnicity, 383 on their involvement in advocacy, 376 on the accreditation of their school counseling program, 388 on the number of ho urs of their school counseling program, 387 on their highest degree, community setting of their school (suburban, urban, rural, other), and the type of school (elementary, middle, or high), 384 provided information on their age, years after graduation, and number of counselors at their schools and 386 provided information on the number of years of counseling experience ( Table 3 4 ) . Among the participants who gave information on their gender, 327 were female (84.7%) with 59 males (15.3%) (Table 3 3 ) , which i s comparable to the gender make up of ASCA. White counselors represented 78% (301) of the study sample while the percentage of participants from

PAGE 94

94 ethnically diverse backgrounds w as 22% (84) (Table 3 4) . The average age of th e study sample was 43 . Participan ts reported that they had graduated from their school counseling program an average of 11 years ago and ha d an average of 11 years of experience. Th e study participants work ed in school s that ha d an average of 2.5 counselors ( Table 3 5 ) . Approximately, 75.5% graduated from CACREP accredited programs with varying credit hours; thirty six (36) hours 6.7%; 48 hours 27.1%, 60 hours 42%, and other 24.2%. The major ity of the counselors, 78.3%, he ld a masters de gree in school counseling, 6% he ld a Ph.D. o r Ed.D., 8.3% hold a advanced specialist degree, and 7.5% hold other degrees. The school counselors in this study work ed in a variety of community settings : 38.7% work in suburban schools, 38.4% work in urban schools, 32.3% work in rural schools and 3.6% w ork in other settings ( Table 3 6 ) . The se respondents were also from varying levels of the education system, 28.4% worked at the elementary level, 22.7% worked at the middle/junior high level, 34.4% worked at the high school level, and 14.5% worked at othe r types of schools ( Table 3 7 ) . The descriptive data was calculated by using the descriptive stats option of SPSS version 21. Data Collection Procedures ASCA was contacted to request permission to use their current membership directory to contact school c ounselors who we re currently working in public schools at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The informed consent process used in the study was submitted for approval to U niversity of Florida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) . Following the r eceipt of approval from the UFIRB and ASCA, the researcher contacted the school counselors by email to solicit their participation in the study. Emails were sent to all 19,669 individuals who identified as school counselors in the ASCA directory to ensure that a minimum sample size of 670 participants would be attained . A follow up email was sent one week after the initial email.

PAGE 95

95 This follow up email served as a reminder to the participants to complete the online survey. The use of multiple mea ns of reaching the population (mail, email, and telephone) provides increased response rates (Dillman , 2007 ). For this study there were time, personnel, and budget constraints that will not allow contact through mailing and telephone therefore only email c ontact w as used . To mediate for the use of one contact method, the emails w ere sent at different times of the day . Instrumentation Four different instrument s were used in this study: (a) the Social Justice A dvocacy S cale (b) the M ulticultural C ounseling K nowledge and A wareness S cale (MCKAS) , (c) the S chool C ounselor I nvolvement in P artnerships S urvey (SCIPS), and (d) a demographic questionnaire. Social Justice Advocacy Scale Social Justice has been called the next paradigm shift in counseling and psychology field , and has been described as the fifth force in counseling (Ratts, 2009). The Social Justice Advocacy Skills Survey was created by Dean (2009) based on the ACA Advocacy Competencies. The aim of this 42 item scale was to assess the social ju stice advocacy competency of counseling/ mental health practitioners . The scale was normed on a sample of 119 counseling and counseling psychology graduate students (doctoral and masters students who had done at least 1 semester of practicum). Alphas for t he scores of the four factors identified are; Factor 1, collaborative action .92; Factor 2, social /political advocacy .91; Factor 3, client empowerment .76; and Factor 4, client/ community advocacy .76. In constructing this instrument content val idity was established in two phases. In phase 1, the instrument item development phase, the instrument was given to 3 practicing counselors (also doctoral students) to receive feedback on the clarity of the items and their experience completing the instrum ent. In phase 2 the content validity was established by using a panel of experts who

PAGE 96

96 were professors and activist s from 5 different universities. Construct validity was examined by establishing convergent validity with the following instruments using Pear son product moment correlation; the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale, the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale, the Miville Guzman Universality Diversity Scale Short Form and the Personal Belief in a Just World Questionnaire. No statistical ly significant relationship was found between the Social Justice Advocacy Scale and the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale. There was a correlation of .54 between the Social Justice Advocacy Scale and the Multicultural Counseling Knowledg e and Awareness Scale, and a .295 correlation with the Miville Guzman Universality Diversity Scale Short Form and no statistical ly significant relationship was found with the Personal Belief in a Just World Questionnaire. Additionally, a principal axis f actor analysis was conducted using direct oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalization that identified four factors that account ed for 42% of the total variance. Some concerns for the use of this scale are; the content and construct validation was done using a small sample size, use of students to test instrument, limited diversity of sample, and there is only 42% of variance attributable to four factors. Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) Information on the guidance counselor s multicultural competency was gathered by the use of the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) (Ponterotto et al. . 2002). The MCKAS is a 32 item inventory. This instrument was originally called the Multicultural Counseling Awarenes s Scale (MCAS) and was developed using qualitative and quantitative methods, including card sort, item analysis, and factor analysis ( Ponterotto & Alexander, 1996). Due to critiques of the MCAS ( Ponterotto & Alexander ; Ponterotto, Rieger, Barrett, & Sparks , 1994; Kocarek, Talbot, Batka, & Anderson, 2001 ; Pope Davis, Dings, & Ottavi, 1995; Pope Davis, Reynolds, & Dings, 1994) further research was conducted to revise

PAGE 97

97 the scale. This additional development and analysis demonstrated a two factor structure (i.e. , knowledge and awareness) of multicultural competency (Ponterotto et al. .) with alpha coefficients for the scores of the Knowledge and Awareness subscales reported as .85 and .85, respectively. The additional development and analysis of the MCKAS took th e form of a two part study which was conducted by Ponterotto and his associates to: (a) examine the factor structure of the MCAS items using a relatively large national sample, (b) revise the MCAS, and (c) then to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis and tests of validity and reliability of the revised instrument. The first part of the study had a 525 sample of counseling and counseling psychology students and professionals. The items measuring social desirability were removed along with items testing kno wledge of specific scholars in the field, and items whose factor loading did not meet the cutoff point. This resulted in the 32 item instrument. The second part of the study tested the goodness of fit of the two factors, the convergent, criterion related and discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability. There was a 199 sample of counselors in training used for this phase of the study. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the goodness of fit for the two factors. Convergent validity was es tablished with the subscales of the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI) instrument by measuring the Pearson product moment correlation. The MCKAS Knowledge subscale had a significant correlation with the MCI knowledge (.49), skill (.43), and awareness (.44) subscales. The MCKAS Awareness subscale had a significant correlation with the MCI Counseling Relationship subscale (.74). However, the awareness subscales of both instruments were not correlated (r= .06). Criterion validity established the correla tion of the MCKAS with the subscales of the Multi group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). The MCKAS Knowledge subscale is significantly correlated to the MEIM s Ethnic

PAGE 98

98 Identity score (r= .31) and the MCKAS Awareness subscale correlation to the MEIM s Other G roup Orientation subscale did not reach significance (.20). The discriminant validity was established by measuring the correlation with the Crowne and Marlowe (1960) Social Desirability Scale (SDS). The correlation (r = .39) was significant. The signi ficant correlation shows that individuals that obtain low scores in the MCKAS tend to respond in a social desirable way to the SDS scale (Ponterotto et al. . 2002) . School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships Survey (SCIPS). This survey assessed the extent of school counselors school family community involvement and the factors that influence d this involvement. This instrument was originally created by Bryan (2003) in her dissertation. It has been revised by Bryan and Griff in (2010). The revision included revising items to better capture school related factors, adding new items to measure role perception, rewording some items to decrease ambiguity, deleting items if they had communalities < .3, factor loadings < .4, multiple factor loadings, and if the coe fficient alpha would increase with the deletion of the item. These revisions were done in consultation with a panel of 3 counselor educators, 2 school psychologists who conduct research in S F C partnerships, and 2 education researchers with expertise in s urvey development. The revised instrument was pilot tested with a sample of 30 practicing school counselors (10each from elementary, middle, and high school) before being administered to the 217 sample of school counselors. Bryan and Griffin (2010) conducted t wo principal factor analyses (PFA1 & PFA2 ) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) on the survey items to determine the factor structure of the survey. The first PFA was performed on the 16 items that intended to measure perceived involvement in partnerships. The second PFA was performed on the set of 65 items intended to measure the school and school counselor factors; 47 items were retained. Also included in the

PAGE 99

99 scale were single item indicators (Bryan & Griffin, 2010) . The revised 67 item scale has the factors outlined in tables 3 1 and 3 2 . Table 3 1. P rincipal f actor a nalysis (PFA1) of p erceived involvement in S F C partnerships Factors Number of Items Factor Loading range Variance % Alpha Coefficient 1. Involvement in school home partnerships 8 .34 .79 34.62 . 84 2. Involvement in school community partnerships 5 .35 .70 4.12 .75 3. Involvement in collaborative teams 3 .34 .90 5.04 .68 Table 3 2 . P rincipal f actor a nalysi s (PFA2) of s chool factors and s chool c ounselor f actors Factors Number of Items Factor Loading range Variance % Alpha Coefficient School Factors 1. Collaborative school climate 7 .41 .76 8.90 .89 2. Principal support 9 .63 .82 10.66 .94 School Counselor Factors 1. Role perceptions 6 .42 .65 4.50 .81 2. Self efficacy about partnerships 6 .48 .90 4.38 .84 3. Commitment to advocacy 5 .41 .75 4.54 .79 4. Attitude about partnership 6 .70 .85 7.08 .92 5. Attitude about families 6 .61 .72 8.24 .90 6. Lack of resources 2 .83 .87 3.45 .87 Additional items 1. Role perception 1 2. Principal expectations 1 3. School counselor time constraint 1 4. Self efficacy 1 The factor loadings in a CFA are a gauge of the significance of a particular variable to a particular factor, determining which variables make up which factors (Field, 2005). The

PAGE 100

100 significance of the factor loading will depend on the sample size. Based on a table of critical values created by Stevens (1992, in Fields, 2005), for a sample size of 200, factor loadings should be greater than .364 to be considered significant. This study had a sample size of 217. The factor loading range for the three factors in the first PFA is from .34 .90. Some of the items have factor loadings below . 364; however, the majority of the items for these three factors have factor loadings of .36 and above (personal communication Bryan, 2012). Therefore, the items related to thes e three factors can be considered to be appropriately loaded to the factors identified. The other eight factors in the second PFA have a factor loading range of .41 to .90. The items associated with these 8 factors can be said to be appropriately loaded to the factors identified. In PFA1, three factors explain the variance in school counselor s perceived involvement in S F C partnerships; (a) involvement in school home partnerships, (b) involvement in school community partnerships, and (c) involvement in co llaborative teams. Involvement in school home partnerships explains most of the variance at 34.62%. These factors, cumulatively, explain 43.78% of the variance associated with perceived involvement in S F C partnerships. In PFA2, eight factors explain the variance in school and school counselor factors related to school counselors partnerships in schools. School factors are; collaborative school climate and principal support. These two factors explain 8.9% and 10.66% respectively, of the variance in schoo l factors related to school counselors partnerships in schools. School counselor factors are: role perceptions, self efficacy about partnerships, commitment to advocacy, attitude about partnership, attitude about families, and lack of resources. These six factors cumulatively explain 32.19% of variance.

PAGE 101

101 Cronbach s alpha s were reported for each of the subscales. An acceptable value for Cronbach s alpha is .7 to .8. In both PFA s the Cronbach s alpha for the various factors was .75 and above with the excep tion of involvement on collaborative teams which was .68. It is not however, low enough to cause concern about the reliability of that subscale. This is a lengthy scale and one concern is that this may contribute to reluctance on the part of the participan ts to complete the survey in full (Bryan & Griffin, 2010) . School Counselor Demographic Information Survey This constituted a list of questions that was created to ascertain demographic information about the guidance counselors. These demographic characteristics include: 1. Gender (categorical) 2. Completing a multicultural course during training (categorical) 3. Completing social justice course work or experience during training e.g. I mmersion (categorical) 4. Completing S F C collaboration course work or experience during training e.g. I mmersion (measured by S F C self efficacy about partnership continuous) 5. Comple ted degree from CACREP accredited program (categorical) 6. Diversity of students in school counselor s school (percentage continuous) 7. School counselor s ethnicity (categorical) 8. Number of students on free and reduced lunch (percentage continuous) 9. Employment in elementary, middle, or high school (categorical) As noted counselor gender, completing multicultural and social justice training, completed degree from CACREP accredited program, counselor ethnicity, and school level were categorical variables .The categ orical variable gender, had two categories male and female with female being set as the reference category. Both completing a multicultural course during training and completing social justice course work or experience during training both had two categor ies; yes and no, with yes being set as the reference category for both. Completed degree from CACREP accredited program had two categories; yes and no. Yes wes set as the reference category. School counselors ethnicity was categorized in White and non Whi te with White being set as the reference category. School level (employment in elementary, middle or high

PAGE 102

102 school) had four categories; elementary, middle/junior high, high school and other. The high school category was set as the reference group. Research Hypotheses In this study the following hypotheses were tested: H1: There is a significant positive relationship between the level of engagement in school family community collaboration and the social justice advocacy competence reported by school counselor s. H2: There is a significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and school level) to predicting school counselor engagement in S F C collaboration. H 3: There is a significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and school level) and the ten personal factors (a) extent of school counselor training in S F C collaboration, (b) extent of school counselor training in SJA, (c) extent of school counselor training in MC, (d) school counselor multicultural counseling awareness, (e) school counselor multicultural counseling knowledge, (f) social justice advocac y collaborative action; (g) social justice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy and (j) )school counselor ethnicity) to predicting school counsel or engagement in S F C collaboration. Data Analysis Procedures In this study, structural equation modeling was used to test the study hypotheses . Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been described as a combination of confirmatory factor analysis and m ultiple regression or path analysis (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). SEM allows for latent variable analysis, the testing of models with multiple dependent variables, and the analysis of complex phenomena measured with multiple indicators. I t h andle s variables with measurement error, missing values and complex theoretical models. Two of the instruments used in this study , Social Justice Advocacy Skills Survey (Dean, 2009) and the School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships Survey ( SCIPS) , have had limited use in research studies . Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used t o continue the construct

PAGE 103

103 validation , confirm the factorial structure and ascertain the stability of the factor loading of these two instruments as well as the Multicult ural Counseling Knowle dge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) . During this process, modification indices were used to improve the fit of the measurement models before examining the full model. The general form of the CFA model used was : Y ij = i + i + j + ij Where Y ij was the re sponse to item i by person j. i was the intercept. i (lambda) was the factor loading of the latent variable on item i. j was the latent factor score for person j and ij is the measurement error. SEM analysis allowed the researcher t o test the first hypothesis and to explore the relationships between the three scales of the S F C and the contextual and personal factors as well as between the five scales of the SJAC and the contextual and personal factors . After the resultant examinat ion of the coefficients of the hypothesized relationships, Chi square , root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Tucker Lewis index (TLI), and the comparative fit index w ere used to assess model fit. Multiple imputations w ere utilized to account for missing data. The statistical program Mplus7. 1 was used. The structural equations tested in the study appear below. Hypothesis Two Structural Equation The structural equation associated with Hypothesis Two: = + 1 X 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 X 4 + 5 X 5 + 6 X 6 Where represent ed the latent variable, school family community collaboration ; was the intercept and the mean of the population when the value of X is zero; was the path coefficient for a continuous predictor, which represent ed the chang e in associated with a one unit increase

PAGE 104

104 in the independent variable when all other independent variables (X 1 , 2, 3, X 4 to X 6 ) we re held constant. ' wa s the regression coefficient for a dummy coded predictor, which represent ed the difference between the outcome mean of the dummy coded group from the outcome mean of the reference group in the original units of the outcome. was the independent exogenous variable. The continuous predictor s were : number of students on free and re duced lunch (X 1 ) supportive school climate ( 2 ), principal support ( 3 ), racially/ethnically diverse student body (X 4 ),The dummy coded predictor was : middle school (X 5 ), high school (X 6 ). Hypothesis Three Structural Equation Hypothesis three examined whet her, i n addition to the five contextual factors of (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level, d id the personal counselor factors of (a) school family community collabor ation training, (b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness, (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) so cial justice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) and (j) ethnicity of school counselor predict the extent of S F C collaboration practices report ed by school counselors? The structural equation associated with Hypothesis 3 appear s below. = + 1 X 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 X 4 + 5 5 + 6 6 + 7 7 + 8 8 + 9 9 + 10 10 + 11 11 + 12 X 12 + 13 X 13 + 14 X 14 + 15 X 15 ++ 16 X 16 + 17 X 17 Where represent ed the latent variable, school family community collaboration ; wa s the intercept and the mean of the population when the value of X is zero; wa s the regression coefficient for a continuous predictor, which represent ed the change in associated with a one -

PAGE 105

105 unit increase in the independent variable when all other independent variables (X 1 , 2 to 11, and X 12 to X 1 7 ) are held constant. ' wa s the path coefficient for a dummy coded predictor, which represents the difference between the outcome mean of the dummy coded group from the outcome mean of the reference group in the original units of the outcome. was the independent exogenous variable. The continuous variable predictor s were : number of students on free and reduced lunch (X 1 ) , s upportive school climate ( 2 ), principal support ( 3 ), racially/ethnically diverse student body ( 4 ), completing S F C collaboration course work or experience during training e.g. Immersion ( 5 ), multicultural counseling competence knowledge ( 6 ), multicultural counseling competence awareness ( 7 ), social justice advocacy collaborative action ( 8 ), social justice advocacy social /political advocacy( 9 ), social justice advocacy client empowerment ( 1 0 ), social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) ( 1 1 ) . The categorical variable predictor of school level was dummy coded as elementary (X 12 ): middle school (X 13 ), and other, (X 14 ), completing a multicultural course during training (X 15 ), completing social justice course work or exp erience during training e.g. Immersion (X 16 ), racially/ethnically diverse school counselor (X 1 7 ). To address the challenge of missing data during the measurement section of the data analysis, maximum likelihood was used. For the structural section of th e data analysis, where the model was examined, multiple imputations with 10 imputations were used to address missing data. Summary Outlined in this chapter are the methods that were used to conduct the study. School counselors in public schools who we re members of ASCA were sampled using the membership directory provided by ASCA. Four instruments were administered to participants through an online survey : a) Social Justice Advocacy Skills Survey, (b) Multicultural Counseling

PAGE 106

106 Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS), (c) the School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships Survey (SCIPS) and (d) Guidance Counselor Demographic Information Survey. To answer the four research questions, confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson product moment correlation and structural equation modeling were conducted on the resulting data using MPlus 7.1 software. Model estimation was performed using maximum likelihood. Table 3 3 . Gender Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Female 327 41.8 84.7 84.7 Male 59 7.5 15.3 100 Total 386 49.3 100 Missing System 397 50.7 Total 783 100 Table 3 4 . Counselor Ethnicity Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid White 301 38.4 78 78 Non white 85 10.8 22 100 Total 386 49.3 100 Missing System 397 50.7 Total 783 100

PAGE 107

107 Table 3 5 . Frequencies for age, years after graduation, years of counseling experience and number of counselors at counselor s school Age GrdYr Coexp CO# N Valid 384 384 386 384 Missing 399 399 397 399 Mean 43.773 10.779 11.2698 2.589 Median 43.500 8.000 9.0000 2.000 Std. Deviation 15.4895 10.2840 8.44757 3.7689 Minimum .0 .0 .00 .0 Maximum 72.0 114.0 40.00 50.0 Table 3 6 . School Setting Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Suburban 138 17.6 35.7 35.7 Urban 110 14.0 28.4 64.1 Rural 125 16.0 32.3 96.4 Other 14 1.8 3.6 100.0 Total 387 49.4 100.0 Missing System 396 50.6 Total 783 100.0 Table 3 7 . School Level School Level Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Elementary 110 14.0 28.4 28.4 Middle/Junior High 88 11.2 22.7 51.2 High 133 17.0 34.4 85.5 Other 56 7.2 14.5 100.0 Total 387 49.4 100.0 Missing System 396 50.6 Total 783 100.0

PAGE 108

108 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of five contextual variables and ten personal variables on the school family community (S F C) collaboration practices reported by a national sample of school counselors. The five contextual variables examined we re: (a) school climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of student body and (e) school level. The ten personal variables examined we re; (a) school family community collaboration training, (b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness (e) social justice ad vocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social justice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) , and (j) ethnicity of counselor. It was hypothesized that there are significant relationships between school counselors S F C collaboration and contextual as well as personal factors. This chapter outlines the results of the data analysis to test the study hypotheses . Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Structural equation modeling can be seen as made up of two parts; confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression or path analysis (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). For this research study a series of con firmatory factor analyses were conducted to obtain evidence of the construct validity of the three instruments used in the study : (a) the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale MCKAS, (b) the Social Justice Advocacy Scale (SJAS) , and the School Counselor Involvement in P artnerships ( SCIPS ).

PAGE 109

109 Multiple Multicultural Counseling Knowledge Awareness and Scale (MCKAS) The overall minimum and maximum scores for the MCKAS for this sample were 84 and 219 respectively. The mean score was 169 out of a possible 224 total with a SD of 22.1. For the two factors Knowledge and Awareness the minimum sores were 32 and 27 and the maximum scores were 140 and 84 respectively. The means for these factors were; Knowledge 101 with a SD of 17 and Awareness 68 w ith an SD of 10. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to obtain evidence of the construct validity of the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge Awareness and Scale . The model fit measures indicated that the model did not fit well as the comparative fi t index (CFI) was .773, the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) was .757, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .068. Modification indices suggested that questions 26 and 29 that load ed on the Awareness factor also load ed on Knowledge. These 2 items were added to the Knowledge factor and rerun and the resultant model fit indicators were; CFI .808, TLI .793, and RMSEA .063. Adding these questions to the Knowledge factor improved the fit of the model. Based on three more modification ind ices results; question 19 which load ed on the Awareness factor was found to also load on the Knowledge factor, question 29 and 26 were found to covary as well as questions 30 and 18. The final model fit indicators were; CFI .865, TLI .853, and RMSEA .053. This shows that only one model fit indicator (RMSEA) supported the model to fit with (RMSEA being less than .06), however, the other model fit indicator criteria for model fit w ere not met. Therefore, we found preliminary support for the construct validity of the MCKAS. School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships (SCIPS) Measuring SFC The overall minimum and maximum scores for the three factors that measure SFC Collaboration (school home partnerships, school community partnerships, collaborative teams) f or this sample were 12 and 80 respectively. The mean score was 57 with a SD of 13. For the

PAGE 110

110 three factors; school home partnerships, school community partnerships, and collaborative teams the minimum sores were 8, 1, and 0 and the maximum scores were 40, 25 and 15 respectively. The means for these factors were; school home partnerships 27 with a SD of 7, school community partnerships 17 with a SD of 5, and collaborative teams 12 with a SD of 3. A confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted to obtai n evidence of the construct validity of the School Counselor Involvement in P artnerships. The model fit measures indicated that the model did not fit well as the comparative fit index (CFI) was . 862 , the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) was . 851 , and the root mean square error o f approximation (RMSEA) was .065 . Modification indices suggested that the question coordinating the integration of community services into the school (e . g. Mental health and social services housed in schools) which load ed on the collaborativ e teams factor also load ed on the involvement in school community partnership factor. The resultant model fit measures indicated that the model did not fit well as the comparative fit index (CFI) was .867, the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) was .856, and the roo t mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .064. Based on the results of three more modification indices , the question training parents and students to access services in the community which load ed on factor involvement in school home partnershi ps and load ed on the factor involvement in collaborative teams, additionally, items assessing the counselor s attempts to coordinat e school community outreach efforts to involve the community in the school (e g. Reaching out to local church and business le aders, police/fire officers) that load ed on the factor I nvolvement in school home partnerships also load ed on the factor named I nvolvement in school community partnerships, a s did the questions as a school counselor I lack the training necessary to build effective partnerships with parents and as a school counselor I lack the training necessary to build effective partnerships in the community . The resultant model fit indicators

PAGE 111

111 we r e; CFI .8 89 , TLI .8 79 , and RMSEA .05 8 . This shows that only one model fit indicator (RMSEA) supported the model to fit with (RMSEA being less than .06), however, the other criteria for model fit were not met. This provides preliminary evidence of construct validity. Social Justice Advocacy Scale (SJAS) measuring SJAC The overall minimum and maximum scores for the SJAC for this sample were 104 and 286 respectively. The mean score was 197 with a SD of 38. For the four factors; collaborative action, social/po litical advocacy, client empowerment, and client/community advocacy the minimum sores were 34, 7, 15, and 23 and the maximum scores were 140, 49, 56, and 56 respectively. The means for these factors were; collaborative action 84 with a SD of 20, social/p olitical advocacy 25 with a SD of 10, client empowerment 40 with a SD of 8, and client/community advocacy 45 with a SD of 6. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to obtain evidence of the construct validity of the Social Justice Advocacy Sca le . The model fit measures indicated that the model did not fit well as the CFI was .789, the TLI was .777, and the RMSEA was .062. Modification indices suggested that question 31 I can use effective listening skills to gain understanding of community gro up goals that load ed on the factor client/community advocacy also load ed on the factor client empowerment . Moreover question 11 I do not know of any counselors who lobby legislators and or other policy makers that load ed on the factor Social/Political A dvocacy also load ed on the factor collaborative action. The resultant fit indicators were : CFI .804, TLI .792 and RMSEA .060. Including this modification improve d the model fit. Based on three more modification indices results; question 11 also loads on fa ctor client empowerment, question 26 my research interest focuses on giving voice to underserved populations that load ed on factor client empowerment also loads on factor collaborative action, question 23 I use interventions that utilize client resourc es to buffer against the effects of oppression that load ed on client

PAGE 112

112 empowerment also loads on factor collaborative action, questions 57 I am not actively involved with organizations working towards social justice and 55 I work with professional organi zations to influence public policy pertaining to social justice covar ied negatively, and questions 62 I assess the influence of my public information /awareness efforts and 61 I seek feedback from my client regarding the impact of my advocacy efforts o n their behalf covary. The resultant model fit indicators were ; CFI .832, TLI .821, and RMSEA .055. This shows that only one model fit indicator (RMSEA) supported the model to fit with (RMSEA being less than .06), however, the other model fit indicators c riteria for model fit were not met. Results of Hypothesis Testing The overall model fit was preliminary. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) measurement of model fit was .052 and the Standard root mean square residual (SRMR) was .072 showed that there was a model fit. However, the comparative fit index (CFI) .695 and Turner Lewis index (TLI) was .688 which indicate that the criteria for these model fit indicators were not met. There was sufficient fit to interpret the resultant model. H1: T here is a significant positive relationship between the level of engagement in school family community collaboration and the social justice advocacy competence reported by school counselors. As can be seen in Table 4 1 , t here wa s a marginally significant positive relationship between school family community collaboration (S F C) relationship and the collaborative action factor of social justice advocacy (p=.051) . However, the relationship between S F C collaboration and the three (3) other social justice a dvocacy factors were not significant . Hence there is preliminary evidence supporting Hypothesis 1 but a replication study is needed.

PAGE 113

113 H2: There is a significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of stu dent body, economic status of student body, and school level) to predicting school counselor engagement in S F C collaboration. As can be seen in Table 4 2 , n one of the five contextual factors has significant ly contribut ed to the prediction of school coun selor engagement in S F C collaboration. Hence Hypothesis 2 is rejected. H3: There is a significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and school leve l) and the ten personal factors (a) extent of school counselor training in S F C collaboration, (b) extent of school counselor training in SJA, (c) extent of school counselor training in MC, (d) school counselor multicultural counseling awareness, (e) scho ol counselor multicultural counseling knowledge, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social justice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy and (j) )school counselor ethnicity) to predicting three aspects of school counselor engagement in S F C collaboration. As can be seen in Tables 4 2 and 4 3 , there were only two variables that contributed to the prediction of school counselor inv olved in school family community collaboration. These were the personal factor of training in S F C collaboration ( as measured by S F C self efficacy about partnership ) (p=.022) and the social justice advocacy factor of collaborative action (p=.051) , h enc e there is preliminary evidence to support Hypothesis Three , but a replication study is needed.

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 1 . S F C on Social Justice Advocacy Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P Value Social Justice Advocacy Collaborative Action (SJACA) .127 .65 1.955 .051 Social Justice Advocacy Social /Political Advocacy (SJASPA) .008 .02 .396 .692 Social Justice Advocacy Client Empowerment (SJACE) .049 .06 .814 .416 Social Justice Advocacy Client/Community Advocacy (SJACCA) .014 .034 .422 .673 Table 4 2 . Prediction of S F C Collaboration by Contextual Factors Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P Value Collaborative School Climate (SFCCSC) .127 .069 1. 843 . 065 Principal Support (SFCPS) .026 .024 1. 076 .2 82 Ethnicity of Student Body (STETH) Percent White .001 .005 .098 .922 Ethnicity of Student Body (STETH) Percent Minority .000 .0005 .005 .996 Economic Status of Student Body (LUNCH) .000 .000 .339 . 734 School Level (LEVEL) Elementary .006 .023 .259 . 796 School Level (LEVEL) Middle .007 .025 .296 .767 School Level (LEVEL) Other .021 .026 .810 .418

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 3 . Prediction of S F C Collaboration by Personal Factors Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P Value Training in S F C Collaboration (SFCSE) .198 .087 2.287 .022 Training in Social Justice Advocacy (SJT) .007 .019 .385 .7 Training in Social Justice Advocacy (SJTO) .007 .006 1.224 .221 Training in Multicultural Counseling (MCT) .002 .029 .075 .94 Training in Multicultural Counseling (MCTO) 0 .005 .061 .951 Multicultural Counseling Awareness (MCC A) .033 .022 1.494 .135 Multicultural Counseling Knowledge (MCC K) 0 .023 .001 .999 Social Justice Advocacy Collaborative Action (SJACA) .127 .65 1.955 .051 Social Justice Advocacy Social /Political Advocacy (SJASPA) .008 .02 .396 .692 Social Justice Advocacy Client Empowerment (SJACE) .049 .06 .814 .416 Social Justice Advocacy Client/Community Advocacy (SJACCA) .014 .034 .422 .673 Minority Status of Counselor (COETH) .034 .029 1.179 .239 This chapter has presented the results of the confirmatory factor analys es for the three instrument utilized in this study. It was found that the model fit indicator RMSEA showed that the model of factor relationship fit, however, the CFI and TLI did not see model fit. This also

PAGE 116

116 obtained for the overall structural equation . It was a lso found that only two personal factor s w ere found to have significantly or marginally significantly contribute d to the prediction of school counselor S F C collaboration.

PAGE 117

117 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion of Findings H1: There is significant positive relationship between the level of engagement in school family community collaboration and the social justice advocacy competence reported by school counselors. Authors in the fie ld have made a strong argument, conceptually and through research, ( Bemak & Chung, 2005; Crethar, 2010; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007 ; Rothstein, 2004; Ratts & Hutch ins, 2009; Trusty & Brown, 2005) about the inclusion of social justice advocacy in the skill set of school counselors. They argue that this skill set enables school counselors to better serve their clients and also aligns with the ASCA National model (2005) . However, there is a paucity of research evidence examining the relationship between S F C collaboration and social justice advocacy. The results from this study leads to preliminary acceptance of the hypothesis that there is a significant positive relationship between the level of engagement in school family com munity collaboration and the social justice advocacy competence reported by school counselors. From this research it shows that this marginally significant positive relationship lies in the relationship between S F C collaboration and the social justice ad vocacy factor of collaborative action. A possible explanation for this result is that the collaborative action social justice factor, in contrast to the social/political advocacy, client empowerment, and client/community advocacy factors, relates closely to the activities involved in S F C collaboration. From a Freirean perspective a major aim of counseling is to build collaborative and reciprocal relationships between counselors and clients with an aim to generate authentic healing action (West Olatunji & Goodman, 2011). Counselors who are social justice advocates are involved in collaboration

PAGE 118

118 with their clients and other stakeholders (Goodman & West Olatunji, 2009; Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2002; West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, & St. Juste , 2008). For school counselors this is achieved through school family community collaboration. This type of partnering speaks to the dialogic process in libratory education which involves collaboration, union, organization, and cultural synthesis. S ocial j ustice advocacy competence provides the school counselor with the skill and knowledge background to promote equity in their schools to address the issues of the underachievement gap between students from ethnically diverse backgrounds and low SES and their white higher SES counterparts. H2: There is a significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and school level) to predicting school counselor engageme nt in S F C collaboration. Hypothesis 2 is rejected. In this study there wa s no significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and school level) to pr edicting S F C collaboration. This result is surprising as there is evidence from other research studies that school climate and principal support may impact school counselor self efficacy and role perfo rmance in general (Mawhinny & Smrekar, 1996; Scarboro ugh and Culbreth , 2008; Sutton and Fall, 1995) and account for a significant portion of variance in school counselors overall involvement in S F C collaboration in particular (Bryan and Griffin, 2010; Bryan and Holcomb McCoy, 2007). The small sample si ze and the amount of missing data in this study may have contributed to not being able to identify a significant contribution of these contextual factors . For the other contextual factors; ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and sc hool level there is preliminary research on the interaction of these factors with S F C

PAGE 119

119 collaboration. More targeted research should be done on each of these factors and their relationship to S F C collaboration. H3: There is a significant contribution of the five contextual factors (school climate, principal support, ethnicity of student body, economic status of student body, and school level) and the ten personal factors (a) extent of school counselor training in S F C collaboration, (b) extent of school counselor training in SJA, (c) extent of school counselor training in MC, (d) school counselor multicultural counseling awareness, (e) school counselor multicultural counseling knowledge, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social justice advocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy and (j) )school counselor ethnicity) to predicting three aspects of school counselor engagement in S F C collaboration. T wo factors, training in S F C collaboration (as measured by S F C self efficacy about partnership) and the social justice advocacy factor of collaborative action , significant ly and marginally significantly, respectively, contribut ed to t he predict ion of school counselor involvement in school family community collaboration. It was surprising that there were a number of personal factors that were not found to be significant predictors of school counselor involvement in school family commu nity collaboration. The re were five factors : (a) training in SJA, (b) training in MC , (c) multicultural counseling awareness, (d) multicultural counseling knowledge, and (e) school counselor ethnicity that did not have a significant contr ibution to counsel or S F C collaboration. The measurement for S F C training is a factor (significant contribution to S F C collaboration) that has several questions measuring it while SJAC and MC training are measured by the respondent listing whether they were involved in training in their school counseling program and any other

PAGE 120

120 training they have been involved in. Maybe these indicators of training for MCC and SJAC may need better means of measurement. With regards to counselor ethnicity and its contribution to S F C coll aboration, one research study, using a revised version of the SCIPS (measuring S F C collaboration) in school counselors who worked with ethnically diverse students (Aydin, Bryan, & Duys, 2012) reported that school counselors who were non White had statist ically significant higher involvement scores in S F C collaboration when compared to counselors from white backgrounds. However , t here is a paucity of research in this area. In this study there was no significant relationship this may be due to the challen ges with sample size and missing data. A n additional surprising non significant relationship is between multicultural counseling competence as measured by its two factors awareness and knowledge and S F C collaboration. Since multicultural counseling compe tence (MCC) and social justice advocacy has been referred to as two sides of the same coin (Ratts, 2009) and authors in the field postulate that to be a social justice advocate ones should also be multiculturally competent (Griffin and Steen, 2011) and man y of the multicultural counseling competencies involve advocacy (Trusty and Brown, 2005). Since SJAC has a significant contribution to S F C collaboration, it was expected that there would be a significant relationship between MCC and S F C collaboration. A p ossible reason for this non significant result was the lack of a strong model fit for MCC factor loadings Limitations There are several limitations for this study associated with the scales utilized, the research design, and the sampling method. The Social Justice Advocacy Scale used in this project was created in a dissertation (Dean, 2009) based on the ACA Advocacy Comp etencies. To date it is the only published instrument designed to measure social justice advocacy competency. This project provided an opportunity for continued validation of this instrument. Additionally, The

PAGE 121

121 School Counselor Involvement in Partnerships Survey (SCIPS) (Bryan, 2003) was also in the early stages of its validation process and this project added to the research on its validation. In conducting the confirmatory it was found that there was a not a strong enough model fit for all three latent va riables (MCC, SFC, and SJAC). This may have occurred due to the sample size and the missing data challenges faced in this study. Additional model specification is needed to strengthen the evidence of good fit. The instruments used for this study (Social Ju stice Advocacy Scale, Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale MCKAS, and the School Counselor Involvement in partnerships SCIPS) are all dependent on self report and are subject to participants providing responses that appear more so cially desirable . This may result in Type one error. A n inherent limitation in this study is the sample selection process. The members of the American School Counseling Association (ASCA) were approached for voluntary participation. This sample could be biased because participants who volunteer ed need ed internet access, had to be comfortable with technology in order to respond to online questionnaires, and may have had a n interest in the topic. This may mean that the resulting sample may not adequately re flect/represent the population and may limit generalization of the results. Additionally, the participants were ASCA members and do not necessarily represent the entire population of school counselors as there are school counselors who are not members of ASCA but may identify more broadly as professional counselors and be members of other associations, such as the American Counseling Association (ACA). In addition to the sampling method, there are limitations related to the resultant sample. Of the 19, 669 individuals contacted, only 786 persons responded (4%) which is well below the expected level of 32%. Although the resultant sample was a small percentage of the individuals

PAGE 122

122 contacted, it would have been sufficient to complete the type of data analysis req uired for this study. However, not all the respondents completed all sections of the survey leading to a challenge with missing data. Several statistical modifications had to be undertaken to address this issue. A final study limitation involves the study design. This research project utilized a correlational research design. Correlational designs are unable to establish causality between the variables under study; therefore it limits the generalization of the results. There is also a possibility of histor y operating as a threat to validity connected with collecting data at only one point in time. Implications for T heory and P ractice This study adds to the field as it furthers the examination of the construct validity of the School Counselors Involvement in Partnerships Survey (SCIPS), the Social Justice Advocacy Scale (SJAS) through the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A CFA was also conducted on the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS). This provides beginning data on factor loadings for this population. This has taken the research in this area a step further and the researcher encourages further research on the construct validity of these instruments especially as it relates to the school counselor population. This stu dy also adds to the theory in the field. It expands the understanding of areas that impact the school counselor s participation in S F C collaboration. In the past research has shown that that institutional characteristic appears to have a greater effect than individual characteristics on school counselor s role performance (Mawhinny & Smrekar, 1996). This study found that personal factors (social justice advocacy, in particular, collaborative action and S F C training (as measured by self e fficacy about partnership)) also have a significant contribution to school counselor s involvement in S F C collaboration for this sample of participants. One

PAGE 123

1 23 implication to be drawn from these findings is that training in S F C collaboration is necessary to orient counselors to their potential role as leaders in implementing S F C collaboration especially in schools serving low income and culturally diverse students (Amatea, 2013; Amatea & West Olatunji, 2007) . This study expands the definition of S F C community collaboration beyond the school centric definition that obtains in the field currently (Epstein, 1992, 1995, 2005; Mapp, Johnson, Strickland, & Meza, 2008; Sheldon, 2003, 2007). Epstein s model of S F C focuses on the overlapping spheres of home , school, and community interacting to impact student s success academically and personally (Epstein, 1995, 1998, 2002). This is operationalized in the six types of involvement; parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and communicating with communities. This language sounds the similar to that postulated by Freire s Liberatory Education Theory; however the difference is in the emphasis. Epstein s focus is school centric in that in focuses on how to integrate all the other spheres in the student s life to support the goals of the school (Jordan, Orozco, & Averett, 2001; de Carvalho, 2001). Her research does not address the cultural context, funds of knowledge of families and issues of social justice advocacy. The results o f this study seem to suggest that the personal factor of social justice advocacy, particularly collaborative action impacts the school counselor s involvement in S F C collaboration. This result seems to support the use of Liberatory Education Theory (Frie re, 2003) in discussing the involvement of school counselors in S F C collaboration. The significant contribution of social justice advocacy in S F C collaboration supports some of the tenets of liberatory education. First, e ach person has knowledge fro m their own lived experiences. The

PAGE 124

124 families, school and community are equal members of the partnership and have knowledge (Moll, 1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) to contribute to the collaborative process. Second, e ach person has to give voice to their beliefs for knowledge to be constructed. The school, family and community members are equal participants in the learning process in which all are involved in the production of knowledge. Third, k nowledge construction is not static; it encompasses action. The learners are the subject and not the object of the learning process. They are not objectified by alienating them from their own decision making. This means that nobody liberates anybody else, and nobody liberates themselves all alone. People li berate themselves in fellowship with each other. This speaks to the collaborative action in social justice advocacy. Additionally, A Freirean approach in counseling emphasizes building collaborative and reciprocal relationships between counselors and clie nts with an aim to generate authentic healing and action (West Olatunji & Goodman 2011). As social justice advocates, school counselors are called on not only to build awareness or critical consciousness but also to advocate with and on behalf of their cli ent or client group at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Freire states, (2003), Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it (p. 79). The action component of this interaction could be view ed as the implementation of the S F C collaboration programs. As it relates to the implications for practice it would seem that the results of this study point to the need for the inclusion of training in social justice advocacy competence along with trai ning in S F C collaboration in school counselors training programs. However, it speaks to a particular brand of S F C collaboration. This brand of S F C collaboration training would involve didactic, experiential and service learning with a social justice advocacy foundation. Similar to the pedagogy lab set up in Bales and Saffold s (2011) mixed research study in a

PAGE 125

125 teacher education program, this course of S F C collaboration training would provide an environment to allow school counselors in training t o examine their biases, social justice competence, their comfort to enact their training in S F C collaboration and the impact of these on pedagogy at the K 12 level. It would be suggested that this course be conducted alongside the school counselor traine es practicum experience and be a part of the supervision process. So that student s can use real life cases to as a part of instruction and in class discussion groups to allow the marrying of social justice advocacy competence content, S F C collaborati on content with their work at their practicum sites. From a Freirean lens this program would allows students to find their voice as they help their clients to find theirs, practice power sharing and student empowerment, experiment with collaborative practi ces in and out of class, and create the environment for students self awareness and self examination. Service learning is also another method through which SJAC can be developed. Research done by West Olatunji, Watson, Nelson, Frazier, and St. Juste, (200 8) speak to the integration of social justice advocacy in service learning. During this research study the counselor trainees conducted a ethnographic investigation of a community that allowed them to be immersed in the community, observe the residents, ha ve dialogue with the residents, and develop, in conjunction with the residents, a plan to create a community counseling center that would meet the needs of the community. These actions fit in with a Freirean perspective of liberatory practices (Freire, 200 3). At the end of the investigation, the counselor trainees had; increased awareness, more culturally appropriate case conceptualization, more self knowledge of their own biases, and knowledge of social action and advocacy issues. This social learning framework could govern the onsite aspect of the school counselor trainees practicum experience.

PAGE 126

126 The results of this study support the involvement in school counselor s training of a S F C collaboration that is based on the inclusion of the tenets of social justice advocacy and Liberatory Education Theory. This supports the view of the ASCA National model (2005) of the school counselor as a social justice advocate as well as a leader, collaborator and an instrument of systemic change. It also seems to support the proponents of the school counselor as a social justice advocate (Crethar, 2010; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen Hayes, 2007; Trusty & Brown, 2005) and the inclusion of a social justice advocacy role in the school counselor s role comp lement. Recom mendations for Future Research The preliminary results from this study examined the relationships between contextual and personal factors impacting SFC particularly, MCC and SJAC. Given the lack of fit with the data generated in the curren t study, it seems that future research ers should examine more limited relationships such as: (a ) those between school family community collaboration and contextual factors, (b) S F C collaboration and multicultural counseling and ( c) S F C collaboration a nd social justice advocacy as well as other personal factors. Additionally, more research needs to be conducted to further examine the construct validity of the instruments measuring social justice advocacy and school family community collaboration. Final ly, additional studies utilizing larger samples would be useful . It has been written that SJAC and MCC should be a part of a school counselor s tool kit especially as the ASCA M odel and the No Child L eft B ehind initiative is asking them to be more involved in S F C collaboration . But what does the school counselor really need to be effective especially dealing with lower SES and ethnically and diverse student population? How does MCC and SJAC figure into this arena or does it figure at all? Conclusions In our school system, students from lower SES and ethnically diverse backgrounds continue to achieve at a lower rate than their counterparts who are from a higher SES and those

PAGE 127

127 who are White . S F C collaboration is seen as one of the possible ways to address this inequity; however, it has not had the expected success. There are those in the fields of counseling and education who state that students are affected by a number of social, psycholo gical, and environmental factors (Crethar, 2010; Coleman et al. ., 1966; Griffin & Steen, 2011; Rothstein, 2004). As such school counselors are being called upon to be the systemic change makers to challenge the status quo (Bemak & Chung). T his study under took to ascertain the contribution of contextual ((a) s chool climate (b) principal support, (c) ethnicity of student body, (d) economic status of st udent body and (e) school level) and personal factors ( (a) school family community collaboration training, ( b) multicultural counseling training, (c) multicultural counseling competence knowledge, (d), multicultural counseling competence awareness (e) social justice advocacy training, (f) social justice advocacy collaborative action; (g) social justice adv ocacy social /political advocacy, (h) social justice advocacy client empowerment, (i) social justice advocacy client/ community advocacy) , and (j) ethnicity of c ounselor) on school counselor s involvement in S F C collaboration. Owing to limitations related to sample size, missing data, weak model fit, and instruments in need of continued validation, it can be conservatively concluded that social justice advocacy (collaborative action), and S F C training (self effi cacy about partnership) have a significant contribution to school counselors involvement in S F C collaboration. This implies that school counselor preparation programs should include a curriculum that is embedded in social justice advocacy principles and also provides their trainees with the skill set to be involve d in S F C collaboration. Additionally, more research is nee ded in these areas to establish the construct validity of the instruments social justice advocacy and S F C collaboration.

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX A PA RTICIPANT CONSENT LETTER School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education P.O. Box 117048 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 7048 Dear Counselor: My name is Dadria Lewis, and I am a doctoral candidate in the School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education at the University of Florida. I would like to invite you to participate in my doctoral study that will explore the relationship between school counselors social justice advocacy competence, multicultural counseling competence and their school family community involvement. You will be asked answer questions in a questionnaire format. This should take approximately 1 hour to complete. You have been selected to participate based on your status as a school co unselor. There are no anticipated risks of participation. You are free to withdraw your permission to participate at any time without consequence. Your participation will be much appreciated. I will be happy to provide you with a summary of the research re sults, when the study is completed, upon request. Please indicate your consent to participate in my study below. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at drlewis@ufl.edu or my advisor, Dr. Ellen S. Amatea , at eamatea @coe.ufl.edu. Q uestions or concerns about research participant s right may be directed to the UFIRB at (352) 392 0433 or P. O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250. Thank you in advance for your support. Sincerely Dadria Lewis, Ed.S., M.Ed. School of Human Developmen t and Organizational Studies in Education College of Education University of Florida Please read the above description, sign below, and return. I, _______________, have read the procedures described above and voluntarily agree to participate in this stu dy. I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the above description. ____________________ _______________ Signature Date THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

PAGE 129

129 APPENDIX B MPLUS SYNTAX USED IN ANALYSES 1. Title: MCC Data: File is finaldata.dat; Variable: Names are CONS1 MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJ C46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv80 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv83 SFCin v84 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv93 SFCinv94 SFCpr95 SFCpr96 SFCpr97 SFCpr98 SFCpr99 SFCpr100 SFCpr101 SFCpr102 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr105 SFCpr106 SFCpr107 SFCpr108 SFCpr109 SFCpr110 SFCpr111 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr116 SFCpr117 SFCpr118 SFCpr119 SFCpr120 SFCpr121 SFCpr122 SFCpr123 SFCpr124 SFCpr125 SFCpr126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 Gend147 AGE148 COETH149 SJT150 SJTO151 MCT152 MCTO153 ADVin154 CCRP155 SChrs156 EDdeg157 GrdYr158 COexp159 LUNCH160 STNG161 LEVEL162 STPOP163 STETH164 STETH165 CONUM166; Usevariables are MC3 MC4 MC6 MC7 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC 16 MC17 MC18 MC20 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC28 MC29 MC32 MC33 M C2 MC5 MC8 MC12 MC19 MC21 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC30 MC31; Missing are all ( 8); Analysis: Estimator = mlr; Model: MCCK by MC3 MC4 MC6 MC7 MC9 MC10 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC20 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC28 MC27 MC29 MC30 MC32 MC33; MCCA by MC2 MC5 MC8 MC11 MC12 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC30 MC31; MC30 WITH MC27; MC31 WITH MC19; OUTPUT: Modindices;

PAGE 130

130 2. Title: SFC Data: File is finaldata.dat; Variable: Names are CONS1 MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC 10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv80 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv83 SFCinv84 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94 SFCpr95 SFCpr96 SFCpr97 SFCpr98 SFCpr99 SFCpr100 SFCpr101 SFCpr102 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr105 SFCpr106 SFCpr107 SFCpr108 SFCpr109 SFCpr110 SFCpr111 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr117 SFCpr118 SFCpr119 SFCpr120 SFCp r121 SFCpr122 SFCpr123 SFCpr124 SFCpr125 SFCpr126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 Gend147 AGE148 COETH149 SJT150 SJTO151 MCT152 MCTO153 ADVin1 54 CCRP155 SChrs156 EDdeg157 GrdYr158 COexp159 LUNCH160 STNG161 LEVEL162 STPOP163 STETH164 STETH165 CONUM166; Usevariables are SFCinv83 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv 84 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr123 SFC127 SFC128 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFCpr95 SFCpr100 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr107 SFCpr111; Missing are all ( 8) ; Analysis: Estimator = mlr Model: SFCINSHP by SFCinv83 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94; SFCINSCP by SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv84 SFCinv83; SFCINCT by SFCinv84 S FCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv92; SFCCSC by SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SF Cpr123 SFC127 SFC128; SFCPS by SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142; SFCSE by SFCpr95 SFCpr100 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr107 SFCpr111; SFCPR107 WITH SFCPR103; OUTPUT: Modindices;

PAGE 131

131 3. Title: SJAC Data: File is finaldata.dat; Variable: Names are CONS1 MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJ C46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv80 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv83 SFCin v84 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv93 SFCinv94 SFCpr95 SFCpr96 SFCpr97 SFCpr98 SFCpr99 SFCpr100 SFCpr101 SFCpr102 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr105 SFCpr106 SFCpr107 SFCpr108 SFCpr109 SFCpr110 SFCpr111 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr116 SFCpr117 SFCpr118 SFCpr119 SFCpr120 SFCpr121 SFCpr122 SFCpr123 SFCpr124 SFCpr125 SFCpr126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 Gend147 AGE148 COETH149 SJT150 SJTO151 MCT152 MCTO153 ADVin154 CCRP155 SChrs156 EDdeg157 GrdYr158 COexp159 LUNCH160 STNG161 LEVEL162 STPOP163 STETH164 STETH165 CONUM166; Usevariables are SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76; Missing are all ( 8) ; Analysis: Estimator = mlr Model: SJACA by SJC34 SJC37 SJC38 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC46 SJC48 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC57 SJC58 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC67 SJC70 SJC73 SJC75 SJC59 SJC56; SJ ASPA by SJC36 SJC39 SJC40 SJC44 SJC47 SJC55 SJC69; SJACE by SJC3 5 SJC51 SJC56 SJC59 SJC63 SJC65 SJC6 6 SJC68 SJC64 SJC44; SJACCA by SJC45 SJC49 SJC50 SJC64 SJC71 SJC72 SJC74 SJC76 SJC44;

PAGE 132

132 SJC57 WITH SJC55; SJC62 WITH SJC61; OUTPUT: Modindices; 4. Imputed data run for SEM Data: File is modSEMdummy.csv; Variable: Names are MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJ C55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv80 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv83 SFCinv84 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCin v90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94 SFCpr95 SFCpr96 SFCpr97 SFCpr98 SFCpr99 SFCpr100 SFCpr101 SFCpr102 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr105 SFCpr106 SFCpr107 SFCpr108 SFCpr109 SFCpr110 SFCpr111 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr117 SFCpr118 SFCpr119 SFCpr120 SFCpr121 SFCpr122 SFCpr123 SFCpr124 SFCpr125 SFCpr126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 Gend147 AGE148 COETH149 SJT150 SJTO151 MCT152 MCTO153 AD Vin154 CCRP155 SChrs156 EDdeg157 GrdYr158 COexp159 LUNCH160 STNG161 LEVEL162 ELEM MIDD OTHR STPOP163 STETH164 STETH165 CONUM166; Usevariables are MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 M C24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv80 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv83 SFCinv84 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87

PAGE 133

133 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94 SFCpr95 SFCpr96 SFCpr97 SFCpr98 SFCpr99 SFCp r100 SFCpr101 SFCpr102 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr105 SFCpr106 SFCpr107 SFCpr108 SFCpr109 SFCpr110 SFCpr111 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr117 SFCpr118 SFCpr119 SFCpr120 SFCpr121 SFCpr122 SFCpr123 SFCpr124 SFCpr125 SFCpr126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 Gend147 AGE148 COETH149 SJT150 SJTO151 MCT152 MCTO153 ADVin154 CCRP155 SChrs156 EDdeg157 GrdYr158 COexp159 LUNCH160 STNG161 LEVEL162 ELEM MIDD OTHR STETH164 STETH165 CONUM166; Missing are all ( 888); Categorical are COETH149 SJT150 MCT152 ADVin154 ELEM MIDD OTHR; Analysis: Type = basic; processors = 8; Estimator = mlr; Data imputation: Impute = MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC 10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv80 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv83 SFCinv84 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94 SFCpr95 SFCpr96 SFCpr97 SFCpr98 SFCpr99 SFCpr100 SFCpr101 SFCpr102 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr105 SFCpr106 SFCpr107 SFCpr108 SFCpr109 SFCpr110 SFCpr111 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr117 SFCpr118 SFCpr119 SFCpr120 SFCp r121 SFCpr122 SFCpr123 SFCpr124 SFCpr125 SFCpr126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141

PAGE 134

134 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 STETH164 STETH165 LUNCH160 ELEM(c) MIDD(c) OTHR(c) COETH149(c) MCT152(c) SJT150(c) ADVin154(c); ndatasets = 10; save = sfcimp*.dat; Output:tech8; 5. Title: SEM run Data: file is sfcimplist.dat; type = imputation; Variable: Names are COETH149 SJT150 MCT152 ADVIN154 ELEM MIDD OTHR MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 MC6 MC7 MC8 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC12 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC28 MC29 MC30 MC31 MC32 MC33 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 SJC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73

PAGE 135

135 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCINV77 SFCINV78 SFCINV79 SFCINV80 SFCINV81 SFCINV82 SFCINV83 SFCINV84 SFCINV85 SFCINV86 SFCINV87 SFCINV88 SFCINV89 SFCINV90 SFCINV91 SFCINV92 SFCINV94 SFCPR95 SFCPR96 SFCPR97 SFCPR98 SFCPR99 SFCPR100 SFCPR101 SFCPR102 SFCPR103 SFCPR104 SFCPR105 SFCPR106 SFCPR107 SFCPR108 SFCPR109 SFCPR110 SFCPR111 SFCPR112 SFCPR113 SFCPR114 SFCPR115 SFCPR117 SFCPR118 SFCPR119 SFCPR120 SFCPR121 SFCPR122 SFCPR123 SFCPR124 SFCPR125 SFCPR126 SFC127 SFC128 SFC129 SFC130 SFC131 SFC132 SFC133 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFC143 SFC144 SFC145 SFC146 GEND147 AGE148 SJTO151 MCTO153 CCRP155 SCHRS156 EDDEG157 GRDYR158 COEXP159 LUNCH160 STNG161 LEVEL162 STETH164 STETH165 CONUM166; Usevariables are MC3 MC4 MC6 MC7 MC9 MC10 MC11 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC20 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC28 MC29 MC32 MC33 MC2 MC5 MC8 MC12 MC19 MC21 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC30 MC31 SJC34 SJC35 SJC36 SJC37 SJC38 SJC39 SJC40 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC44 SJC45 SJC46 SJC47 S JC48 SJC49 SJC50 SJC51 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC55 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC67 SJC68 SJC69 SJC70 SJC71 SJC72 SJC73 SJC74 SJC75 SJC76 SFCinv83 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94 SFCinv77 SF Cinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv84 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr123 SFC127 SFC128 SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142 SFCpr95 SFCpr100 SFCpr103

PAGE 136

136 SFCpr104 SFCpr107 SFCpr111 STETH164 STETH165 LUN CH160 ELEM MIDD OTHR COETH149 MCT152 SJT150 ADVin154; Missing are all ( 888); Analysis: Estimator = mlr; processors = 8; Model: MCCK by MC3 MC4 MC6 MC7 MC9 MC10 MC13 MC14 MC15 MC16 MC17 MC18 MC20 MC22 MC23 MC24 MC28 MC27 MC29 MC30 MC32 MC33; MCCA by MC 2 MC5 MC8 MC11 MC12 MC19 MC20 MC21 MC25 MC26 MC27 MC30 MC31; MC30 WITH MC27; MC31 WITH MC19; SJACA by SJC34 SJC37 SJC38 SJC41 SJC42 SJC43 SJC46 SJC48 SJC52 SJC53 SJC54 SJC56 SJC57 SJC58 SJC59 SJC60 SJC61 SJC62 SJC67 SJC70 SJC73 SJC75; SJASPA by SJC36 SJC39 SJC40 SJC44 SJC47 SJC55 SJC69; SJACE by SJC35 SJC44 SJC51 SJC56 SJC59 SJC63 SJC64 SJC65 SJC66 SJC68; SJACCA by SJC44 SJC45 SJC49 SJC50 SJC64 SJC71 SJC72 SJC74 SJC76; SJC57 with SJC55; SJC62 WITH SJC61; SFCINSHP by SFCinv83 SFCinv85 SFCinv86 SFCinv87 SFCinv90 SFCinv91 SFCinv92 SFCinv94; SFCINSCP by SFCinv77 SFCinv78 SFCinv79 SFCinv81 SFCinv82 SFCinv84 SFCinv83; SFCINCT by SFCinv84 SFCinv88 SFCinv89 SFCinv92; SFCCSC by SFCpr112 SFCpr113 SFCpr114 SFCpr115 SFCpr123 SFC127 SFC 128; SFCPS by SFC134 SFC135 SFC136 SFC137 SFC138 SFC139 SFC140 SFC141 SFC142; SFCSE by SFCpr95 SFCpr100 SFCpr103 SFCpr104 SFCpr107 SFCpr111; SFCPR107 WITH SFCPR103; SFC by SFCINSHP SFCINSCP SFCINCT; SFC on SJACA SJASPA SJACE SJACCA; SFC on SFCCSC SFCPS STE TH164 STETH165 LUNCH160 ELEM MIDD OTHR; SFC on SFCCSC SFCPS STETH164 STETH165 LUNCH160 ELEM MIDD OTHR SFCSE COETH149 MCT152 MCCA MCCK SJACA SJASPA SJACE SJACCA SJT150 ADVIN154;

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX C PROPOSED SEM MODEL

PAGE 138

138 APPENDIX D SEM MODEL PRODUCED

PAGE 139

139 LIST OF REFERENCES Adelman, H. S., Taylor, L., (1999). Mental health in sch ools and system restructuring. Clinical Psychology Review , 19 (2), 137 163 Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L (1997). Addressing barriers to learning: Beyond school linked services and full service schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 67, 408 421. Adelman, H. S. & Taylor, L., (2002). School Counselors and School Reform: New Directions. Professional School Counseling , 5(4), 235. Alexander, C. M., Kruczek, T., & Ponterotto, J. G . (2005). Building multicultural competencies in school counselor trainees: An international immersion experience. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44 (4), 255 266. doi:10.1002/j.1556 6978.2005.tb01754.x Amatea, E. (2013). Building culturally responsiv e family school relationships. (2 nd edition) Boston, MA: Pearson. Amatea, E. S., & Clark, M. (2005). Changing schools, changing counselors: A qualitative study of school administrators' conceptions of the school counselor role. Professional School Counsel ing , 9(1), 16 27. Amatea, E. S., & West Olatunji, C. A. (2007). Joining the conversation about educating our poorest children: Emerging leadership roles for school counselors in high poverty schools. Professional School Counseling , 11(2), 81 89. American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author American School Counselor Association. (2008). School counselor competencies . Retrieved April, 8, 2012, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/files/SCCompetencies.pdf American School Counselor Association. (2010) Ethical Standards for School Counselors. American School Counselor Association, n.d. Web. 24 April 2010. Retrieved July, 29, 2013 from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/files/EthicalStandards2010.pdf Arredondo, P., & Toporek, R. (2004). Multicultural competencies ethical practice. Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 26 (1), 44 55. Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Pack Brown, S., Sanchez, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., & Stadler, H. (1996). Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 24 , 42 78.

PAGE 140

140 Au, K. & Kawakami, A. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. Hollins, J. King and W. Hayman (Eds.). Teaching diverse populations: Formulating knowledge base (pp.5 23). Albany, NY: State university of New York Press. Ayd n, N., Bryan, J. A., & Duys, D . K. (2012). School counselors partnerships with linguistically diverse families: An exploratory study. The School Community Journal , 22 (1), 145 166. Bailey, D. F., Getch, Y. Q., & Chen Hayes, S. F. (2007). Achievement advocacy for all students through t ransformative school counseling programs. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (2nd ed., pp. 98 120). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Bales, B. L., & Saffold, F. (2011). A New era in the preparation of teachers for urban schools: Linking multiculturalism, disciplinary based content, and pedagogy. Urban Education , 46 (5), 953 974. Baruth, L. G., & Manning, M. L. (2000). A call for multicultural counseling in middle schools . Clearing House, 73 (4), 243. Baruth, L. G., & Manning, M. L. (2003). Multicultural counseling and psychotherapy: A lifespan perspective (3 rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Beatty, B. (2012). Rethinking compensatory education: Historical perspectives on race, class, culture, language, and the discourse of the "disadvantaged child.". Teachers College Record , 114 (6), 1 11. Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C. Y. (2005). Advocacy as a critical role for urb an school counselors: Working toward equity and social justice. Professional School Counseling , 8, 196 203. Bemak, F. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies for school counselors: A multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond t he nice counselor syndrome. Journal of Counseling & Development , 86 (3), 372 382. Bemak, F., Chung, R. C. Y. Talleyrand, R.M., Jones, H., & Daquin, J., (2011). Implementing multicultural social justice strategies in counselor education training programs. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology 3 (1), 29 43 Bergeron B. S. (2008). Enacting a culturally responsive curriculum in a novice teacher's classroom: Encountering disequilibrium. Urban Education, 43 (4), 4 28 . Billingsley, A. (1968). Bl ack families in White America . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Borman, G.D. & D Agostino, J.V. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18 , 309 326.

PAGE 141

141 Bowers, J. L., & Hatch, P. A. (2002). The national model for school counseling programs. Alexandria,VA: American School Counselor Association. Brazziel, W. F. (1973). White research in black communities: When solutions become a part of the problem. Journal of So cial Issues, 29 (1), 41 44. Bronstein, L. R., Anderson, E., Terwilliger, S. H., & Sager, K. (2012). Evaluating a model of school based health and social services: An interdisciplinary community university collaboration. Children & Schools , 34 (3), 155 165. doi:10.1093/cs/cds004 Bryan, J. (2003). An investigation of school counselor involvement in school family community partnerships: Exploring the gap between current and prescribed practice . Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (12), 4367A Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2008). Strengths based partnerships: A school family community partnership approach to empowering students . Professional School Counseling, 12 (2), 149 156. Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2012). A model for building school family community partnership s: Principles and process. Journal Of Counseling & Development , 90 (4), 408 420. Bryan, J. A., & Holcomb McCoy, C. (2004). School counselors perceptions of their involvement in school family community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 7 , 162 1 71. Bryan, J. A., & Holcomb McCoy, C. (2007). An examination of school counselor involvement in school family community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 10 (5), 441 454 Buckley, T. R., & Foldy, E. (2010). A pedagogical model for increasing race related multicultural counseling competency. The Counseling Psychologist, 38 (5), 691 713. doi:10.1177/0011000009360917 Burnett, J. A., Hamel, D., & Long, L. L. (2004). Service learning in graduate counselor education: Developing multicultural counsel ing competency. Journal Of Multicultural Counseling & Development , 32 (3), 180 191. Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). Sharing the vision: The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association. C appella, E., Frazier, S., Atkins, M., Schoenwald, S., & Glisson, C. (2008). Enhancing schools capacity to support children in poverty: An ecological model of school based mental health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35 , 395 409.

PAGE 142

142 Carpenter Aeby, T., Aeby, V. G. (2005). Program evaluation and replications of school based mental health services and family community interventions with chronically disruptive students. The School Community Journal, 15(2), 37 61. Catron, T., & Weiss, B. (1994). The Vanderbilt school based counseling program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2 , 247 253 Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children s secondary education: Connections with high school seniors academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5 (2), 149 177. Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A.A. (2001).Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathematics achievement. S ociological Focus, 34 ,435 457. Chao, R. (2013). Race/Ethnicity and multicultural competence among school counselors: Multicultural training, racial/ethnic identity, and color blind racial attitudes. Journal Of Counseling & Development, 91 (2), 140 151. Ch olewa, B., & West Olatunji, C. (2008). Exploring the Relationship Among Cultural Discontinuity, Psychological Distress, and Academic Outcomes with Low Income, Culturally Diverse Students. Professional School Counseling , 12(1), 54 61. Cicirelli, V. G. (196 9). The impact of Head Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on children s cognitive and affective development . Athens, OH: Westinghouse Learning Corporation. Clemens, E. V., Shipp, A., & Kimbel, T. (2011). Investigating the psychometric prope rties of school counselor self advocacy questionnaire. Professional School Counseling , 15 (1), 34 44. Cole, M. (2013). Differences and deficits in psychological research in historical perspective: A commentary on the special section. Developmental Psycholo gy , 49 (1), 84 91. doi:10.1037/a0029623 Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., Mc Partland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Collignon, F.F., Men, M., Tan, S. (2001). Finding ways in: Community based perspectives on Southeast Asian family involvement with schools in a New England State. Journal for Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6 , 27 44. Cook, C., Heath, F, & Thompson, R. L. (2000). Meta analysis of response rates in web or internet based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821 836. doi: 10.1177/00131640021970934

PAGE 143

143 Cooks, L. (2003). Pedagogy, performance, and positionality: Teaching about Whitenes s in interracial communication. Communication Education , 52, 245 257. Cooper, C. R., Chavira, G., & Mena, D. D. (2005). From pipelines to partnerships: A synthesis of research on how diverse families, schools, and communities support children's pathways through school. Journal Of Education For Students Placed At Risk , 10 (4), 407 432. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1004_4 Cox, A. A., & Lee, C. C. (2007). Challenging educational inequities: School counselors as agents of social justice. In C. C. Lee (Ed.), Couns eling for social justice (2nd ed., pp. 3 14). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: planning, Conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jers ey: Pearson Education. Crethar, H. C. (2010). ACA Advocacy Competencies in school counseling. In M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, J. A. Lewis, M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, J. A. Lewis (Eds.) , ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice framework for counselors (pp. 107 117). Alexandria, VA US: American Counseling Association. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Crethar, H. C., Torres Rivera, E., & Nash, S. (2008). In search of common threads: Linking multicultural, feminist, and social justice counseling paradigms. Jour nal Of Counseling and Development, 86(3), 269 278. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group Dahir, C. A. (2001). The national standards for school counseling programs: Development and implementation. Professional School Counseling , 4, 320 327. Dean, J. K. (2009). Quantifying social justice advocacy competency: Development of the social justice advocacy scale . Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 69 deCarvalho. M. (2001). Rethinking Family School Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Delpit, L.D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58 (3), 280 298 Demmitt, A., & Oldenski, T. (1999). The diagno stic process from a Freirean perspective. Journal Of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development , 37 (4), 232. Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

PAGE 144

144 Dixon, A. L., Tucker, C., & Clark, M. (20 10). Integrating social justice advocacy with national standards of practice: Implications for school counselor education. Counselor Education & Supervision , 50(2), 103 115. Dodson, T. (2009). Advocacy and impact: A comparison of administrators' perceptio ns of the high school counselor role. Professional School Counseling , 12(6), 480 487. Dotson Blake, K. P. (2010). Learning from each other: A portrait of family school community' partnerships in the United States and Mexico. Professional School Counseling , 14(1), 101 114. Dryfoos, J. G. (1994). Full service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth, and families . San Francisco, CA US: Jossey Bass. Dryfoos, J. (1995). Full service schools: Revolution or fad. Journal of Resear ch on Adolescence, 5(2), 147 172 Dryfoos, J. (1997). Full service schools . San Francisco: Jossey Bass Duran, R.P., Duran, J., Perry Romero, D., & Sanchez, E. (2001). Latino immigrant parents and children learning and publishing together in an after scho ol setting. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6 , 95 113. Education Trust. (1997). Working definition of school counseling. Washington, DC: Author. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/ family/ community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan , 76(9), 701 712. Epstein, J. L. (1996). Advances in family, community, and school partnerships. New Schools, New Communities , 12 (3), 5 13. E pstein, J. L. (2005). A case study of the partnership schools comprehensive school reform (CSR) model. Elementary School Journal , 106 (2), 151 170. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through fam ily and community involvement. Journal Of Educational Research , 95 (5), 308. Erford, B. T. (2007). Transforming the school counseling profession. Columbus, OH: Pearson. Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational Administration Quarterly 23 (4): 11 24. Evans, M. P., Zambrano, E., Moyer, M., & Duffey, T. (2010). Enhancing School Counselor Leadership in Multicultural Advocacy. Journal Of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 38(2), 52 67.

PAGE 145

145 Flaherty, L . T., Weist, M. D., & Warner, B. S. (1996). School based mental health services in the United States: History, current models and needs. Community Mental Health Journal, 32, 341 352 Foster, L. H., Young, J., & Hermann, M. (2005). The work activities of pr ofessional school counselors: Are the national standards being addressed? Professional School Counseling, 8(4), 313 321. Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Continuum International Publishing group Inc. Galassi, J. P., Griffin, D., & Akos, P. (2008). Strengths based school counseling and the ASCA national model. Professional School Counseling , 12(2), 176 181. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching : Theory, research, and practice . Teachers College Press. Gonzlez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendn, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C (1992). Teacher Research on f unds of knowledge: Learning from language minority households. Washington, DC : National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity a nd Second Language Learning Goodman, R. D., & West Olatunji, C. A. (2009). Applying critical consciousness: Culturally competent disaster response outcomes. Journal of Counseling & Development , 87, 458 465. Gordon, E. W., & Wilkerson, A. (1966). Compensa tory education for the disadvantaged. New York: College Entrance Examination Board Griffin, D., Steen, S. (2011). A social justice approach to school counseling. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology . 3(1), 74 85 Hardiman, R., Jackson, B ., & Griffin, P. (2007). Conceptual foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 35 66). New York: Routledge. Hewitt, D. T. (2011). Reauthorize, revise, and remember: Refocusing the No Child Left Behind Act to fulfill Brown's promise. Yale Law & Policy Review, 30 (1), 169 194. Hipolito Delgado, C., Cook, J., Avrus, E., & Bonham, E. (2011). Developing counseling students' multicultural competence through the m ulticultural action project. Counselor Education & Supervision , 50 (6), 402 421.

PAGE 146

146 Hoffman, P., Dahlman, A., & Zierdt, G. (2009). Professional learning communities in partnership: A 3 year journey of action and advocacy to bridge the achievement gap. School University Partnerships , 3 (1), 28 42. Holcomb McCoy, C. C. (2004). Assessing the multicultural competence of school counselors: A checklist. Professional School Counseling , 7(3), 178 183. Holcomb McCoy, C. C. (2005). Investigating school counselors' perceived multicultural competence. Professional School Counseling , 8 (5), 414 423. Holcomb McCoy, C. (2010). Involving low income parents and parents of color in college Readiness activities: An exploratory study. Professional School Counseling , 14 (1), 115 124. Holcomb McCoy, C. C., & Bryan, J. (2010). Advocacy and empowerment in parent consultation: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development , 88(3), 259 268. Holcomb McCoy, C. C., & Day Vines, N. (2004). Exploring schoo l counselor multicultural competence: A multidimensional concept. Measurement & Evaluation In Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association) , 37(3), 154 162. Holcomb McCoy,C. & Myers, J. E. (1999). Multicultural competence and counselor traini ng: A national survey. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77 (3), 294 302. House, R. M., & Martin, P.J. (1999). Advocating for better futures for all students: A new vision for school counselors. American Association for Higher Education . 119(2), 284 2 91 Jacob, E., & Jordan, C. (1987). Moving to dialogue. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18 (1), 259 261 . Jenks, C., Lee, J. O., & Kanpol, B. (2001). Approaches to multicultural education in preservice teacher education: Philosophical frameworks and models for teaching. The Urban Review , 33, 87 105. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39(1), 1 123 Jones, J. M., Sander, J. B., Booker, K. W. (2013). Multicultural competency building: Practical solutions for training and evaluating student progress. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7(1), 12 22. doi: 10.1037/a0030880 Jordan, C., Orozco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connec tions . Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from Southwest Educational Development Laboratory website: http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/emergingissues.pdf

PAGE 147

147 Jorgensen, M.A., & Hoffman, J. (2003). History of the No Chil d Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Kocarek, C. E., Talbot, D. M., Batka, J. C., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Reliability and validity of three measures of multicultural competency. Journal of Counseling & Develo pment, 79, 486 496. Kury, K., & Kury, G. (2006). An exploration into the internal dynamics of a shool based mental health collaboration. Journal of School Health, 76 (5), 164 168. doi:10.1111/j.1746 1561.2006.00089 Ladd, H. F. (2012), Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis Management, 31 , 203 227. doi: 10.1002/pam.21615 Ladson Billings, G. (1990). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Jo urnal , 32(3), 465 491. Ladson Billing, G. (1995). But That's Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Theory Into Practice , 34(3), 159 165. Lassiter, P. S., Napolitano, L., Culbreth, J. R., & Kok Mun, N. (2008). Developing multicultural competence using the structured peer group supervision model. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47 (3), 164 178. Laungani, P. (1997). Replacing client centered counseling with culture centered counseling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 1 0 (4), 343 351. Lauen, D., & Gaddis, S. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB s subgroup specific accountability on student achievement. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis , 34 (2), 185 208. Lee, C. C. (2006). Multicult ural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (3rd. ed.) . Alexandria, VA US: American Counseling Association. Levine, M., & Levine, A. (2012). Education deformed: No child left behind and the race to the top. This almost reads like our business plans . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82 (1), 104 113. doi:10.1111/j.1939 0025.2011.01142.x Lewis, J. A., Arnold, M. S., House, R., & Toporek, R. (2002). ACA advocacy competencies. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.counseling.org/Publications / Lewis, J. & Bradley, L. (Eds.). (2000). Advocacy in counseling: Counselors, clients, and community. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. Lewis, J. A., Lewis, M.D., Daniels, J.A., D Andrea, M.J. (2003). Community couns eling: Empowerment strategies for a diverse society . Pacific Grove [Calif.]: Brooks/Cole Pub.

PAGE 148

148 Maher, F. A., & Thompson Tetreault, M. K. (2001). The feminist classroom . New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishes, Inc. Manning, M. L., & Baruth, L. G. (2004). Multicultural education of children and adolescents (4e). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Martin, P. J. (2002). Transforming school counseling: A national perspective. Theory into Practice , 41, 148 153. Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., Strickland, C., & Meza, C . (2008). High school family centers: Transformative spaces linking schools and families in support of student learning. Marriage & Family Review , 43 (3/4), 338 368. Menacker, J. (1976). Toward a theory of activist guidance. Personnel and Guidance Journal , 54, 318 321 Menchaca, V. D. (2001). Providing a culturally relevant curriculum for Hispanic children. Multicultural Education, 8 (3), 18 20. Mercado, C. I. & Moll, L. (1996 97). The study of funds of knowledge: Collaborative research in Latino homes, Cen tro Journal The Education of Puerto Ricans 9 (1), 120. Milner, H. H. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban Review , 43 (1), 66 89. doi:10.1007/s11256 009 0143 0 Moll, L. C. (1990). Community knowledge and classroom prac tice combining resources for literacy instruction handbook for teachers and planners from the Innovative Approaches Research Project (SuDoc ED 1.310/2:341969), U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources I nformation Center . Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzlez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice , 31(2), 132 141. Monteiro Leitner, J., Asner Self, K. K., Milde, C., Leitner, D. W., & Skelton, D. (2006). The role of the rural school counselor: Counselor, counselor in training, and principal perceptions. Professional School Counseling, 9 (3), 248 251. Moore Thomas, C., & Day Vines, N. L. (2010). Culturally competent collaboration: School Counselor collaboration with African American families and communities. Professional School Counseling , 14 (1), 53 63. National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Intervention Development and Deployment. (1990). Blueprint for Change: Research on Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Washington, D.C.: National Advisory Mental Health Council.

PAGE 149

149 National Board of Certified Counselors. (2013). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from National Board for Certified Counselors website: http://www.nbcc.org/ethics National Center for Education Statistics (2011a). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2012 457). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educ ation Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2011b). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012 457). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institu te of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2011c). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011 033). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. De partment of Education. National Educational Goals Panel. (1999). The national educational goals report: Building a nation of learners , Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nelson, J. A., Bustamante, R. M., Wilson, E. D., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). The school wide cultural competence observation checklist for school counselors: An exploratory factor analysis. Professional School Counseling , 11 (4), 207 217. Nichols, W., Rupley, W. H., & Webb Johnson, G. (2000). Teachers role in providing cult urally responsive literacy instruction. Reading Horizons , 41 (1), 1 18. Noguera, P. A. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noguera, P. A. (2004). Social capital and the education of immigrant students: Categories and generalizations. Sociology of Education , 77,180 183. Noguera, P. (2006) Education, immigration and the future of Latinos in the United States. Journal of Latino Studies , 4, 313 320. Noguera, P. A. (200 8) The trouble with Black boys and other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education . San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Nwachuku, U., & Ivey, A. (1991). Culture specific counseling: An alternative training model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 106 111. Ober, A. M., Granello, D., & Henfield, M. S. (2009). A synergistic model to enhance multicultural competence in supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision, 48 (3), 204 221.

PAGE 150

150 Osborne, J. L. & Collison, B. B. (1998). School counselors and external providers: Conflict or complement. Professional School Counseling , 1 (4), 7 11. Ouellette, P. M,, Briscoe, R., & Tyson, C. (2004). Parent school and community partnerships in children's mental health: Networking challenges, dilemmas, and solutions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13,295 308. Parsons, E., & Travis, C. (2005). The Black cultural ethos, students' instructional context preferences, and student achievement: An examination of culturally congruent science ins truction in the eighth grade classes of one African American and one Euro American teacher. Negro Educational Review , 56 (2/3), 183 204. Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools . Cambridge, MA: Harv ard Education Press. Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Multiculturalism as a generic approach to counseling. Journal Of Counseling & Development , 70(1), 6 12. Pedersen, P. B. (2008). Ethics, competence, and professional issues in cross cultural counseling. In P. B . Pedersen, et al. . (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (6th ed.). (pp. 5 20). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. Phuntsog, N. (1998). Cultural identity and schooling of Tibetan children in the Diaspora. Equity & Excellence in Education , 31 (1), 36 39. Phuntsog, N. (1999). The magic of culturally responsive pedagogy: in search of the genie's lamp in multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26 (3), 97 111. Phuntsog, N. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: what do selected United S tates elementary school teachers think? Intercultural Education, 12 (1), 51 64. doi:10.1080/14675980120033966 Ponterotto, J. G., & Alexander, C. M. (1996). Assessing the multicultural competence of counselors and clinicians. In L. A. Suzuki, P. Meller, & J . G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment (pp. 651 672). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R. (2002). A revision of the Multicultural Counseling Awareness Scale. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development , 30, 153 180. Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. P., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994). Assessing multicultural counseling competence: A review of instrumentation. Journal Of Counseling & Development , 72(3), 316 322. doi:10.1002/j.1556 6676.1994.tb00941.x

PAGE 151

151 Pope Davis, D. B., Dings, J. G., & Ottavi, T. M. (1995). The relationship of multicultural counseling competency with demographic and educational variables. Iowa Psychologist , 40, 12 13. Pope Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Multicultural competencies of doctoral interns at university counseling centers: An exploratory investigation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 25, 466 470. Porter, G., Epp, L., & Bryan, S. (2000). Collaborati on among school mental health professionals: A necessity, not a luxury. Professional School Counseling, 3 (5), 315 322. Puma, M. J., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuti, A., Thompson, W., & Vaden Kiernan, M. (1997). Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes . Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates. Purnell, P. Ali, P., Begum, N., & Carter, M. (2007). Windows, bridges and mirrors: Building culturally responsive early childhood classrooms through the integration of literacy and the arts. Early Childhood Educ ation Journal , 34 (6), 419 424. Ratts, M. J. (2009). Social justice counseling: Toward the development of a fifth force among counseling paradigms. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 48 (2), 160 172. Ratts, M. J., DeKruyf, L., & Che n Hayes, S. F. (2007). The ACA Advocacy Competencies: A social justice advocacy framework for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling , 11 (2), 90 97. Ratts, M. J., & Hutchins, A. (2009). ACA Advocacy Competencies: Social justice advo cacy at the client/student level. Journal of Counseling & Development , 87(3), 269 275. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Ratts, M. J., Lewis, J. A., & Toporek, R. L. (2010). Advocacy and social justice: A helping paradigm for the 21st century. In M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, J. A. Lewis, M. J. Ratts, R. L. Toporek, J. A. Lewis (Eds.) , ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice framework for counselors (pp. 3 10). Alexandria, VA US: American Counseling Association. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the achievement gap . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Rush, L. S., & Scherff, L. (2012). NCLB 10 years later. English Education , 44 (2), 91 101. Rychly, L., & Graves, E. (2012). Teacher characteristics for culturally responsive pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives , 14 (1), 44 49. doi:10.1080/15210960.2012.646853 Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (1998). School Family Community partnerships in middle and high schools: From t heory to practice. Report No. 22.

PAGE 152

152 Scarborough, J. L., & Culbreth, J. R. (2008). Examining discrepancies between actual and preferred practice of school counselors. Journal Of Counseling & Development , 86 (4), 446 459. Schmeichel, M. (2012). Good Teaching? An examination of culturally relevant pedagogy as an equity practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 44 (2), 211 231. doi:10.1080/00220272.2011.591434 Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school based community eng agement strategies. Review of Educational Research , 76,691 743. Sheehan, K. (2001). E mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication , 60(2). Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school family community partnerships in urban e lementary schools to student achievement on state tests. Urban Review , 35 (2), 149. Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family and community partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research , 100 (5), 267 275. doi:10.3200/JOER.1 00.5.267 275 Simon, B. S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin , 85 (627), 8 19. Singh, A. A., Urbano, A., Haston, M., & McMahon, E. (2010). School counselors' strategies for social justice change: A grounded theory of what works in the real world. Professional School Counseling , 13 (3), 135 145. Sisselman, A., Strolin Goltzman, J., Auerbach, C., & Sharon, L. (2012). Innovative services offere d by school based health centers in New York City. Children & Schools , 34 (4), 213 221. doi:10.1093/cs/cds010 Smith, S., Reynolds, C., & Rovnak, A. (2009). A critical analysis of the social advocacy movement in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Developme nt , 87 (4), 483 491. Speight, S., Myers, L., Cox, C., & Highlen, P. (1991). A redefinition of multicultural counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 29 36. Steele, J. M. (2008). Preparing counselors to advocate for social justice: A liberation model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48 (2), 74 85. Steen, S., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). A broader and bolder approach to school reform: Expanded partnership roles for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 14 (1), 42 52. Steven son, R. A. (2003). Wraparound Services. School Administrator , 60 (3), 24 27.

PAGE 153

153 Stinchfield, T. A., & Zyromski, B. (2010). A Training model for school, family, and community collaboration. Family Journal , 18 (3), 263 268. doi:10.1177/1066480710372783 Tabachni ck, B., & Bloch, M. N. (1995). Learning in and out of school: Critical perspectives on the theory of cultural compatibility. In B. Swadener, S. Lubeck, B. Swadener, S. Lubeck (Eds.), Children and families 'at promise': Deconstructing the discourse of risk (pp. 187 209). Albany, NY US: State University of New York Press. Tanner, D. (2013). Race to the top and leave the children behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 45 (1), 4 15. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.754946 Teale, W. H., & Scott, J. L (2010). Making ur ban schools better places for students, teachers, and families: An interview with Charles Payne. The Reading Teacher, 63 ,701 704. Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed: achieving excellence, fairness, inc lusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Tharp, R.G., Lewis, H., Hilberg, T., Bird, C., Epaloose, G., Dalton, S.S., et al. . (1999) Seven more mountains and a map. Overcoming obstacles to reform in Native American Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4 , 5 26. Toporek, R.L., Lewis, J.L., Crethar, H.C. (2009). Promoting systemic chance through the ACA advocacy competencies. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87 , 260 268. Trusty, J., & Brown, D. (2005). Advocacy competencies for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling , 8(3), 259 265. Tyler, K. M., Uqdah, A. L., Dillihunt, M. L., Beatty Hazelbaker, R., Conner, T., Gadson, N., & ... Stevens, R. (2008). Cultural discontinuity: Toward a quantitative invest igation of a major hypothesis in education. Educational Researcher , 37(5), 280 297. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Vanderbleek, L. M. (2004). Engaging families in school based mental health treatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling , 26 (3), 211 224. Van Voorhis, F., Sheldon, S. (2004). Principals roles in the development of US programs of school, family, and community partnerships. International Journal of Educational Research , 41(1), 55 70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.005. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035505000182) Vazquez Nuttall, E., Li, C., & Kaplan, J. P. (2006). Home School partnerships with culturally diverse families: Challenges and solutions for school personnel. Journal of Applied School P sychology , 22 (2), 81 102. doi:10.1300/J370v22n02_05 Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counselingpsychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist , 31, 253 271.

PAGE 154

154 Vereen, L. G., Hill, N. R., & McN eal, D. T. (2008). Perceptions of multicultural counseling competency: Integration of the curricular and the practical. Journal Of Mental Health Counseling, 30 (3), 226 236. Vinovskis, M. (1999). Do federal compensatory education programs really work? A br ief historical analysis of Title I and Head Start. American Journal of Education , 107 (3), 187 209. Vontress, C.E. (2009). A conceptual approach to counseling across cultures. In Lee,C.E., Burnhill, D. A., Butler, A.L., Hipolito Delgado, C.P., Humphrey, M., Munoz, O., and Haejin. S. Elements of Culture in Counseling. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Voyles, M. (2012). Perceived needs of at risk families in a small town: Implications for full service community schools. School Communit y Journal , 22 (2), 31 63. Walker, J. S., Bruns, E. J., Conlan, L., & LaForce, C. (2011). The National Wraparound Initiative: A community of practice approach to building knowledge in the field of children's mental health. Best Practices in Mental Health: A n International Journal , 7 (1), 26 46. Walker, J. T., Shenker, S. S., & Hoover Dempsey, K. V. (2010). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Implications for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 14 (1), 27 41. Wang, M., Mannan, H., Poston, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. (2004). Parents' perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research And Practice For Persons With Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 29(2), 144 155. Weist, M. D. (1997). Expanded school mental health services: A national movement in progress. Advances In Clinical Child Psychology , 19 319 352. Weist, M. D., Myers, C., Danforth, J., McNeil, D. W., Ollendick, T. H., & Hawkins, R. (2000). Expanded school mental health service s: Assessing needs related to school level and geography. Community Mental Health Journal , 36 (3), 259 273. doi:10.1023/A:1001957130982 Weist, M. D., & Paternite, C. E. (2006). Building an interconnected policy training practice research agenda to advance school mental health. Education & Treatment Of Children (ETC) , 29 (2), 173 196. West Olatunji, C., Frazier, K. N. and Kelley, E. (2011), Wraparound counseling: An ecosystemic approach to working with economically disadvantaged students in urban school sett ings. Journal Humanistic Counseling , 50, 222 237. doi: 10.1002/j.2161 1939.2011.tb00121.x

PAGE 155

155 West Olatunji, C., & Goodman, R. D. (2011). Entering communities: Social justice oriented disaster response counseling. Journal Of Humanistic Counseling , 50 (2), 172 182. 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 (3), 138 144. doi:10.1080/15210960.2010.504475 West Olatunji, C., Shure, L., Pringle, R., Adams, T., Lewis, D., & Cholewa, B. (2010). Exploring how school counselors position low Income African American girls as Mathematics and Science learners. Professional School Cou nseling , 13 (3), 184 195. West Olatunji, C., Watson, Z.E., Nelson, M., Frazier, K., and St. Juste, S. (2008). Encouraging advocacy and multicultural competence among counselor trainees through service learning. Louisiana Journal of Counseling , 15, 1 18. W hite, J. A., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Community collaboration: If it is such a good idea, why is it so hard to do? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 (1), 23 38. Williams, E. R., & Baber, C. R. (2007). Part I: Advancing the conversation: Building trust through culturally reciprocal home school community collaboration from the perspective of African American parents. Multicultural Perspectives , 9(2), 3 9. Zigler, E. & Anderson, K. (1979). An idea whose time had come: The intellectual and political climate for Head Start. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine (Eds.), Project Head Start: A legacy of the war on poverty (pp. 3 19). New York: Free Press.

PAGE 156

156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dadria Lewis is a Jamaican born in the country s second city of Montego Bay. S he has pursued training in several areas. Her undergraduate degree, which was received from the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, was a double major in accounting and m anagement Studies. She worked in this field for a while as an internal accountan t for a medium sized import firm and as a project development officer for a non profit loan company providing loans for small business persons. Sh e further pursued a Diploma in business e ducation at the Church Teachers College, Mandeville, Jamaica. She h as worked in high school and adult education preparing students to sit the Caribbean Exami nation Council Examinations in principles of accounts and principles of office p rocedure. It was during her work as a high school teacher that she rea lized that her students faced issues beyond academic s and that she was unable to and unqualified to address. She then decided to attend graduate school to get equipped to work collaboratively with school counselors, students, and their families to create a positive learn ing environment and provide resources needed to ensure that students were equipped and supported for academic success irrespective of their race, gender, ethnicity and ability. This education involved a M.Ed. and Ed.S. in marriage and family education (d ual track mental health c ounseling) from the University of Florida. This interest in collaboration has s purred research in her Ph.D in counselor e ducation from the University of Florida which focuses on the influence of school counselor social justice advocacy and multicultural counseling competencies on counselor engagement in school family community collaboration.