# data[].attributes.body
Implementing Large-Group Consultation in Comprehensive School Counseling Programs

# data[].attributes.headline
Implementing Large-Group Consultation in Comprehensive School Counseling Programs  

# data[].attributes.subject
Implementing Large-Group Consultation in Comprehensive School Counseling Programs  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Large-group consultation (LGC) is a tool in which professional counselors deliver key expertise to faculty and staff in their schools while using their group work skills to facilitate meaningful learning. As part of a comprehensive school counseling program, LGC is an efficient, systemic strategy for counselors to impact students' academic, career, and social/emotional success. In this article, we present best practices when designing and implementing LGC. We also highlight two school counseling case studies to demonstrate the usefulness of LGC.

Keywords: Large-group consultation; school counselors; group work; consultation

The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommends a student-to- school-counselor ratio of 250:1. However, the average student-to- school-counselor ratio in the United States is 455:1 (American School Counselor Association, [ 5]). Given these large student caseloads, professional school counselors often struggle to meet their students' needs efficiently (Carlson & Kees, [12]; Cholewa et al., [13]). Considering the many roles of school counselors and their goal to support all students, maximizing the ability to support all students' needs is a critical consideration. In addition to counseling, school counselors regularly engage in consultation with a range of stakeholders (e.g., administrators. teachers, parents, and community members) (Parikh Foxx et al., [30]).

Consultation is the interaction between a consultant with a specific expertise and a consultee requesting support in congruence with the consultant's area of expertise (Caplan, [10]; Cholewa et al., [13]). Although consultation typically occurs between just two parties - the consultant and consultee - a third party, the client/student, is indirectly impacted by consultation as well (Baker et al., [ 7]). As a result, when a consultant offers a direct service to a consultee, the consultee can then deliver a direct service to a client/student in need (Baker et al., [ 7]).

The use of consultation has been well-established within the school counseling profession (Baker et al., [ 7]; Cholewa et al., [13]; Perera-Diltz et al., [31]; Warren & Baker, [43]). Because the role of a school counselor shifted from that of a guidance counselor working independently to a professional school counselor collaborating with school stakeholders, consultation practices have become more prevalent and useful for school counselors (Parikh Foxx et al., [30]). Through careful planning and implementation, consultation in schools can be an effective tool for supporting the various needs of students, families, and other educators (Parikh Foxx et al., [30]; Perera-Diltz et al., [31]).

Caplan and Caplan ([11]) outline two different types of consultation: client-centered consultation and consultee-centered consultation. Client-centered consultation refers to a consultee ( school stakeholder) seeking support from the consultant ( school counselor). The school counselor then works with the client (student), with the primary goal of supporting the student directly, and any consultee education or consultee skill development becomes a secondary goal (Caplan & Caplan, [11]). This may occur when a teacher asks for guidance on how to support a student with specific behavioral needs, and the school counselor works with the student directly to provide direct counseling service. In comparison, consultee-centered consultation focuses on the difficulties a consultee faces with a particular student. The primary goal of consultee-centered consultation is to support the consultee by addressing the consultee's own development and concerns, with student improvement as the secondary goal (Caplan & Caplan, [11]). Contemporary definitions of consultee-centered consultations highlight a non-hierarchical helping role relationship between the consultant and the consultee, focusing on the work required of the consultee who has a direct impact on the student (Knotek & Sandoval, [28]). This may occur when a teacher is struggling to provide behavioral interventions and may seek out the school counselor to collaborate on creative ways to provide support within the classroom for a particular student.

Teachers, parents, guardians, and administrators are most likely to act as consultees to utilize the school counselor as a consultant (Perera-Diltz et al., [31]). These consultees are often drawn to professional school counselors for assistance with student situations, including academic and career support, as well as social/emotional development (Baker et al., [ 7]; Parikh Foxx et al., [30]). Moreover, researchers have confirmed the positive outcomes that result from school counseling consultation. When educators engage in consultation, their experiences can result in decreased student problem behaviors, improved student achievement, and improved positive attitudes toward school among students (Duda et al., [20]; Murray et al., [29]). Although individual consultation (between one consultant and one consultee) can have a positive impact on students in need, large-group consultation (LGC) appears to be a more systemic tool that school counselors can use to positively impact student and school outcomes. To date, however, we have found no literature that highlights this tool and its use in comprehensive school counseling programs. In this article, we outline what LGC is, best practices in LGC design and implementation, and three case studies of successful LGCs in a comprehensive school counseling program.

LGC consists of consultation between one consultant and a group of people, rather than one individual consultee. LGC allows school counselors to efficiently share their knowledge with groups of consultees, who can, in turn, better support students directly. When school counselors deliver LGC sessions, they engage in two key behaviors. First, they share their expertise in critical areas of support (i.e., academic, career, and social/emotional) with faculty and staff members. Second, they use their group counseling skills to lead successful group work experiences for participants.

The term large-group consultation is not synonymous with delivering professional development to faculty and staff. Most faculty members have engaged in some form of school professional development in which a presenter shares expertise on a designated topic (Brown & Militello, [ 8]; Guskey, [25]). Professional development rarely makes room for participants to connect the content to their individual contexts to build understanding (Darling-Hammond et al., [17]). Professional development also provides inadequate opportunities for participants to learn skills or strategies by trying them out in the training session (Darling-Hammond et al., [17]). Additionally, professional development leaders are usually not equipped with group counseling skills. School counselors, however, are typically the only professionals working in the school setting who have training to facilitate an effective group work environment (Akos et al., [ 1]). Although there may be times when school counselors may deliver professional development, they may be relying on their expertise more than their group counseling skills.

Many professional school counselors lead data-driven comprehensive programs in an effort to ensure that all students have equitable access to education (American School Counselor Association, [ 3]). The ASCA National Model is a recommended framework for comprehensive school counseling programs and is characterized by four themes: collaboration, leadership, advocacy, and systemic change. These themes reflect emphases for all school counselors to include in their programs (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]). Furthermore, the ASCA National Model is comprised of four components: define, manage, deliver, and assess (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]). Delivery accounts for 80% of the services provided by the school counselor and consists of both indirect and direct services to promote student academic, social/emotional, and career development (American School Counselor Association, [ 3]). Direct student services occur when working with students, such as in individual student planning or responsive services. Indirect services, however, are provided on behalf of students and in interactions with others. Consultations with parents, guardians, teachers, other educators, and community members are categorized as indirect services and serve as a key component of comprehensive school counseling programs (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]; Cholewa et al., [13]). Therefore, LGC is an indirect service delivery component for school counselors.

Given that student-to- school-counselor ratios typically exceed the ASCA recommended ratio, school counselors often struggle to serve all of their students directly (Carlson & Kees, [12]; Cholewa et al., 2017). When school counselors consult with a group of faculty and staff members, they maximize their ability to reach more students in less time (Cholewa et al., 2017). In using LGC, school counselors can provide a direct service to school faculty and staff members, who then provide direct services to students in classrooms and other settings. LGC also supports the 2019 ASCA National Model, specifically within the domains of define and manage. The Professional Standards listed in the define section of the model outline the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that school counselors must be equipped with to meet the rigorous demands of the profession (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]). In addition, school counselors must successfully and proficiently manage the school counseling program (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]). Despite the apparent value LGC brings to comprehensive school counseling programs, an extensive literature review revealed no previous research on the use of LGC by school counselors, possibly indicating this intervention is an underutilized practice. To understand more specifically how LGC can be used in school counseling programs, we next explain the specific group work skills and best practices used in designing and implementing LGC.

Group work is an essential tool in comprehensive school counseling programs to help school counselors maximize their support of students. ASCA describes group work as counseling multiple students working on shared tasks and developing supportive relationships in a group setting (American School Counselor Association, [ 2]). By using group work in schools, school counselors can offer robust interventions for academic, career, and social/emotional concerns (American School Counselor Association, [ 2]; Gerrity & DeLucia-Waack, [22]). Research evidence supports the effectiveness of group work in schools (Riva & Haub, [35]; Steen et al., [40]). Through their specialized training in group work interventions, school counselors have opportunities to support the various needs of large numbers of students throughout the school year (Springer, Land, et al., [38]). When school counselors offer this direct service, students are able to achieve insights into themselves, cope with complex environments, and learn to communicate and cooperate with others (American School Counselor Association, [ 2]). However, providing group counseling to students is not the only group work modality for creating positive change in schools. School counselors can also utilize their group work skills via LGC to efficiently support students in indirect, but powerful ways.

Group counseling is one of the eight common core areas that represent the foundational knowledge required of all entry-level counselor graduates. Section 2 of the 2016 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) standards highlights the professional counseling curriculum required for accreditation in counseling programs (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, [16]). Included in these accreditation standards are a mandate that graduate counseling students, including school counseling students, learn the characteristics and functions of effective group leaders, considerations that affect conducting groups in varied settings, dynamics associated with group process and development, and ethical and culturally relevant strategies for designing and facilitating groups (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, [16]). Students who are trained in group work learn about its process, developmental stages, therapeutic factors, member roles, and leadership styles (Association for Specialists in Group Work, [ 6]; Ieva et al., [26]).

The Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW) outlined best practices in planning, performing, and processing groups (Thomas & Pender, [41]). Aspects of these guidelines include assessment, therapeutic conditions, and reflective practice. School counselors are expected to have a basic knowledge of groups and the principles of group dynamics. Group dynamics, the interacting forces that define how the group functions, occur in all groups and affect the actions and outcomes of the group. Some aspects of group dynamics include leadership, group culture and norms, and member roles (Rutan et al., [36]). In addition to understanding group dynamics, when group leaders possess skills like group management, group process, role modeling, awareness, willingness, agreeableness, and openness, they are more effective in leading groups (Pomery et al., [32]). By using the best practices outlined by ASGW and possessing these leadership qualities, school counselors can be responsible and responsive to their group members.

Given Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs's ([16]) group work standards and Association for Specialists in Group Work's ([ 6]) guidelines, most school counselors are trained in the skills needed to run successful groups, including verbal tracking, active listening, open-ended questions, paraphrasing, summarizing, immediacy, blocking, evaluating, and linking (Downing et al., [19]; Gladding, [23]). They also can execute the interpersonal skills needed in group work, while recognizing and implementing appropriate counseling skills in the moment (Gladding, [23]). Thus, school counselors possess the necessary group work skills not only to effectively facilitate groups with students, but also with faculty and staff members (Association for Specialists in Group Work, [ 6]). These group work techniques, combined with the expert knowledge required in leading a comprehensive school counseling program, serve as the foundation of LGC.

School counselors can use LGC to address specific and important topics in schools, such as multicultural and social justice education, understanding warning signs of suicidal students, advocating for the role of school counselors, and supporting marginalized students (e.g., English Language Learners, students experiencing homelessness, immigrant students). Given that LGC consists of consultation between one consultant and a group of people, we suggest that school counselors implement LGC using the group work skills outlined by Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs ([16]) and ASGW (2000), as well as specific strategies for working backward. These are highlighted next.

School counselors are trained in being both a leader in schools and a collaborative resource to other educators (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]; Ponterotto et al., [33]). In using LGC, school counselors can efficiently expand their impact on the lives of their students. However, knowing the needs of their school and students is crucial before delivering LGC. We suggest that school counselors first conduct a needs assessment, collecting feedback from both students and faculty/staff to gain insight into what topics warrant addressing (DeLucia-Waack & Gerrity, [18]).

Once school counselors decide what topics ought to be addressed in LGC, they can begin planning their sessions. The effectiveness of any LGC, regardless of content or format, depends on how well it is planned (Guskey, [25]). Best practices in planning LGC can be borrowed from Guskey's ([25]) recommendations for designing quality professional development in schools. Guskey reports that these sessions often lack purpose, direction, and cohesiveness. Because so often the purpose goes unaddressed or misunderstood, participants develop confusion and/or apathy (Guskey, [25]). Thus, school counselors would benefit from demonstrating the importance of their LGC sessions early and effectively to participants. Working backward is also best practice in designing group experiences like LGC. This means school counselors need to begin where they want to end and then work backward to the processes that will get them there (Guskey, [25]). Working backward entails five specific steps.

The first step in backward planning successful LGC sessions is determining desired student outcomes (Guskey, [25]). Although school counselors deliver LGC sessions to faculty, staff, and school stakeholders other than students, these efforts are designed to support K-12 students, thus school counselors need to consider desired student outcomes upfront. If the ideal student outcomes are unclear, school counselors can interview teachers, professional learning communities, and other essential school personnel to identify trouble areas that need to be addressed to help all students (DuFour, [21]). Stakeholders may also reach out to school counselors with student concerns that require planning backward. The first step of planning backward aligns with the best practices in group work (Guskey, [25]), as group leaders are expected to assess community needs and resources. In identifying student learning outcomes first in the LGC planning process, school counselors can ensure a school-wide impact after the conclusion of the LGC, rather than just an increase in knowledge or skills by faculty members who attended the LGC (Guskey, [25]).

The second step in planning backward is determining what new programs, interventions, or initiatives will be implemented (Guskey, [25]). School counselors need to determine if those particular programs and initiatives will produce the student outcomes they are hoping for. This means school counselors would benefit directly by relying on data-driven and evidence-based programs or interventions. The newly revised ASCA National Model ([ 4]) emphasizes the importance of data-driven practices with the change from an accountability component to an assess component. The ASCA National Model was intentional about this change, reflecting the need for school counselors to evaluate their effectiveness and make necessary adjustments. Using the verb assess instead of the noun accountability is more active and descriptive of what school counselors do (American School Counselor Association, [ 4]).

Next, step three involves ensuring that the school counselor has the necessary organizational support to successfully implement the LGC. School counselors need to gain support from their school leaders and determine what resources are required for successful implementation (Guskey, [25]). It is important for administrators to support school counseling initiatives, as school administrators play critical roles in supporting school improvement (Grogan & Andrews, [24]). When designing the LGC, school counselors ought to carefully consider who holds power in a school building, who makes and finalizes decisions, and who might interfere with initiatives (Jeltova & Fish, [27]). In some cases, the informal power holders may be the most senior teachers or staff members in the building, or the teachers who are most vocal with their ideas and opinions (Jeltova & Fish, [27]). It is beneficial for school counselors to identify these individuals, then gather them together before the LGC in an attempt to understand their viewpoints on the topic. School counselors can coordinate appropriately with the person(s) who will support their LGC efforts and be mindful of faculty or staff members who may not be as supportive.

The fourth step in planning the LGC backward involves reflecting on faculty and staff members' existing and desired knowledge and skills. School counselors can help faculty and staff members gain appropriate knowledge, skills, and awareness to more effectively facilitate future challenges or concerns with students (Cholewa et al., [13]). When delivering the LGC, school counselors need to determine what their faculty and staff already know, as well as what they need to learn. In addition, school counselors ought to consider how faculty and staff will be able to successfully implement new practices they learn about in the LGC and what knowledge and skills are needed to do so. Faculty and staff typically need direction on how to implement strategies presented to them, especially in time-efficient ways so those strategies do not take away from valuable classroom instruction. ASGW group work guidelines (Association for Specialists in Group Work, [ 6]) also suggest that school counselors should understand the group members and make sure the LGC participants have needs and goals compatible with the goals and outcomes of the LGC.

The final step in planning backward is determining appropriate professional learning activities in the LGC session. This requires deciding on the most effective way to present LGC content to build participants' needed knowledge and skills. Learning activities can range from seminars to workshops to action research projects (Guskey, [25]). However, deciding on the most effective professional learning activity will ultimately depend on school counselors' student outcomes identified in step one of planning backward.

Given that the final stage of planning LGC involves determining appropriate activities, it is further important that school counselors reflect on the group skills that will be most needed to effectively facilitate the group experience. School counselors need to utilize their group work skills and training in LGC, so we recommend they reflect in advance on which skills would be most appropriate. For example, if a chosen LGC topic may elicit resistance from faculty and staff members, the school counselor may plan to be prepared for linking or drawing out versus cutting off in order to facilitate a therapeutic environment (Corey & Corey, [15]). Similarly, if a LGC entails multiple sessions, the school counselor will want to be aware of the group stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, [42]), as these may occur among the LGC participants. For each LGC topic and format a school counselor chooses, they benefit from recognizing the group work stages, understanding the most appropriate group work skills needed, and planning to intertwine their group counseling skills with the group stages for the LGC.

Although the five backward planning steps outlined here are adapted from Guskey's ([25]) recommendations for planning effective professional development, we must highlight the difference between professional development and consultation. As previously stated, LGC is a consultation between one consultant and a group of people, instead of just one individual. Unlike school counselors, professional development leaders are usually not equipped with group counseling skills. There may be times when school counselors deliver professional development, but they are often relying on their expertise in an area more than their counseling skills to deliver information. Given the required training in group work, (Akos et al., [ 1]; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, [16]; Springer, [37]), school counselors can intertwine their knowledge of Guskey's ([25]) five stages with their knowledge of group work and their counseling skills to effectively deliver LGC. In summary, LGC involves school counselors delivering an indirect service based on the need of the students or school while utilizing their group work skills and techniques to maximize the effectiveness of the consultation experience.

When school counselors combine best practices in planning backward (Guskey, [25]) with their knowledge and skills in group work (Akos et al., [ 1]; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, [16]; Ieva et al., [26]), they can provide LGC to faculty and staff members to indirectly support their students. To best understand how LGC can exist in comprehensive school counseling programs, we next present two case studies highlighting LGC with diverse topics and methods. These case studies are adapted from our own LGC experiences as former professional school counselors. For the purpose of confidentiality and anonymity, the names and details of the school counselors have been altered.

Mr. Ramirez - A Suicide Prevention LGC to Faculty and Staff

Mr. Ramirez is a high school counselor in a rural school with approximately 1,500 students. Mr. Ramirez identifies as Puerto Rican, and the students at his school identify as 80% White, 12% Latinx, and 8% Black. It is only October, but on four separate occasions, teachers have contacted him with serious concerns about students struggling with suicidal ideation. These contacts have occurred after school has been dismissed for the day and all students have gone home. Normally, when the school counselors are notified of a student who is presenting with suicidal ideations, they complete a suicide assessment process required by the district. Part of the assessment includes asking students to describe the type of support they receive from the school. It concludes with an evaluation of suicidal risk and steps for referring out and contacting a parent/guardian. Mr. Ramirez understands that teachers struggle to find time between classes to notify him, but he is concerned that waiting until after students dismiss at the end of the day could lead to serious consequences if a student at risk for suicide does not receive immediate support.

Mr. Ramirez and his co-counselor, Ms. Jones, decide to offer a brief LGC to their faculty and staff about suicide prevention and the appropriate steps to take if a student shares or hints at self-harmful behaviors or suicidal ideation. The counselors first establish the desired student outcomes as a result of the LGC - reduced reports of suicidal ideation after the school day has ended. They then, using the second step of planning backward, gather evidenced-based research regarding what faculty and staff members can look for in their students to prevent suicide, including recent changes in their normal behavior and potential warning signs. It was also important for them to critically examine how suicidal ideations might impact marginalized groups differently. Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones were aware of how their student's worldview, beliefs, social identities, and experiences with privilege and oppression might play a role in their suicidal ideations. After thorough research of evidence-based, data-driven interventions, they speak with their principal about their plan, who indicates support for their LGC given the increase in incidents of student suicidal ideation and referrals made to outside mental health agencies.

Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones then present their LGC in the form of a mandatory didactic workshop during their next monthly faculty meeting. During the session, they educate faculty and staff about what school counselors do once a faculty or staff member notifies them about a student with suicidal ideation. They explain the potential courses of action school counselors take after receiving a student referral for suicidal ideation, the importance of notifying the counselors as soon as possible about suicide concerns, the parameters of confidentiality, and the role the parent/guardian might play when there are concerns about a student and suicide.

Ms. Jones and Mr. Ramirez hope that by explaining the role of the school counselor in these situations, they can alleviate any misconceptions that faculty or staff members may have about what school counselors can do when there is concern about a student who may be suicidal. They also facilitate an activity with a series of hypothetical case studies about suicidal ideation so that faculty and staff members can practice choosing the best course of action based on the content learned. At the end of the workshop, Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones have the faculty and staff members complete a brief exit survey that allows them to demonstrate their understanding and express additional related questions if they have them.

Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones are intentional in utilizing key group work skills while leading the LGC. They use open questions and drawing out to engage the faculty and staff members in dialogue. They also use linking to connect faculty and staff members who express similar experiences with students expressing suicidal ideation. Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones also rely on their active listening skills, being aware of the tone of the room, the language used by the members, and nonverbal gestures for a successful and effective LGC experience. Overall, the - pre-established outcomes of their LGC were ultimately achieved. Teachers had a better understanding of the warning signs of suicidal ideations and an appreciation of the protocol school counselors must follow Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones were able to drastically reduce the number of teachers who contact them with concerns about students after the school day was over. With teachers taking a proactive approach to notify the school counselors of students, Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Jones were able to meet with referred students during the day and provide immediate assistance. Therefore, students were able to receive the necessary support from their school counselor during the school day.

Mrs. Lafferty - A Faculty LGC on Multicultural Education

Mrs. Lafferty is in her fifth year as a school counselor at a suburban middle school that recently experienced re-districting. As a result, the student demographics shifted from a school with 80% White students and 20% Latinx students to one with 40% White students, 30% Latinx students, and 30% Black students. Mrs. Lafferty identifies as a cisgender White female while 70% of the faculty at the school also identifies as White. She is excited about having a more diverse student body in her school, but she recognizes that the rapid change in demographic make-up might present challenges for faculty and staff if not acknowledged and addressed. For example, several months into the new school year, she examines school data on recent bullying reports and notices a high number of reports due to bullying about race and language. Mrs. Lafferty shares her findings with the principal and they conclude that multicultural education would be an appropriate topic to address with students as part of the school counseling core curriculum. They also conclude that teachers should also participate in a separate multicultural activity through LGC, as they are the first line of bullying defense in classrooms.

To plan for the LGC, Mrs. Lafferty engages in the first step of planning backward by sending out a brief assessment to an instructional staff of 73 to explore their multicultural knowledge, skills, and awareness. When she reviews the results, she notices that the faculty feels very confident in their multicultural knowledge, not at all confident in their multicultural skills, and somewhat confident in their multicultural awareness. Thus, she plans a two-session LGC for faculty focusing on improving multicultural skills and awareness using evidence-based activities. The first session is spent exploring the instructional staffs' multicultural background and experiences. As a group, they discuss unconscious and conscious biases, as well as how their upbringings have shaped their current beliefs. The second session is spent learning about specific multicultural skills when working with diverse students. Mrs. Lafferty introduces research on constructivist learning and cooperative learning strategies to support students from marginalized backgrounds, like students of color and English Language Learners. She also discusses the importance of inclusive language and how to create a classroom that is representative of all students. She uses the same questionnaire used as a measure of pretest knowledge and attitudes, and then sends out a follow-up survey a week after her LGC to measure whether the teachers gained the necessary skills and knowledge to impact the student learning outcomes. She analyzes the data, finding clear improvements in faculty multicultural skills and awareness.

In addition to thoughtfully planning her content for the LGC, Mrs. Lafferty also plans and uses group counseling skills during the session to facilitate it smoothly. She recognizes that topics about multiculturalism can be sensitive to some faculty and staff members, and thus she used skills like active listening, reflection, encouraging, and linking to work to build a supportive learning environment in the group. She is also utilizing best practices guidelines in group work by demonstrating competence to participant differences (Thomas & Pender, [41]). She demonstrates modeling and self-disclosure, as well as holding the focus when needed. As a White woman facilitating LGC on this topic, Mrs. Lafferty needed to be aware of her own social identity, assumptions, beliefs, and biases. In this large group setting, she acknowledged her own privilege and how that influences her worldview, serving as a model to others while using her group skills to connect and link participant's shared experiences.

Because the purpose of the LGC was to help create an environment where conversations about diversity and multicultural awareness are encouraged, Mrs. Lafferty plans on how to communicate the necessary boundaries of the humanizing space by having faculty members work together to establish rules and group norms for the two LGC sessions. In any affirming space, she also prepares herself for possible blocking, understanding that some unfocused members may be disruptive, and she would either need to redirect them or prevent them from monopolizing the conversation. She understands the possibility of intergroup conflict given the LGC topic and relies on her skills of de-escalating and meditative strategies to ensure positive outcomes (Burton & Furr, [ 9]). Lastly, Mrs. Lafferty recognizes that although a group with only two sessions is not ideal, even single-session groups experience the group work stages (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning), she still prepares for the potential of the group to encounter the stages of forming, storming, and norming.

Best practices in group work emphasize the importance of group workers, including school counselors, having the basic knowledge of group skills and the principles of group dynamics. The role of the school counselor as the group facilitator is to build trust, get acquainted, and accept, not judge, their participants. Group dynamics come into play regardless of the topic. Given this sensitive-nature of this topic, the power differential between school counselors, faculty, and staff need to be considered, as well as how the school counselor would facilitate a LGC environment that permits individuals to feel comfortable to express genuine ideas.

As group members begin to interact and engage in activities, group dynamics begin to come into play. For example, there may be a teacher or staff member that takes on the role of the scapegoat. The scapegoat is someone who channels tensions and establishes a type of unity among group members by diverting conflicts (Clark, [14]). Mrs. Lafferty, at an early stage of LGC, should attempt to strike a balance between allowing members to openly express their feelings and providing protection to individuals from undue pressure and intimidation.

When a teacher expresses an idea that might be different from other teachers, Mrs. Lafferty might need to engage in blocking depending on the idea expressed. Blocking by Mrs. Lafferty limits harmful interactions by the teachers. By empathetically responding to a teacher, she demonstrates the respect that is required of everyone. Although discussing multicultural topics can be difficult for some, the LGC led by Mrs. Lafferty provided the faculty an opportunity to become aware of and understand their own biases and how these preconceived stereotypes might indirectly or directly impact student outcomes and achievement. Given her understanding of cultural humility, she strives to practice this concept with the group and works together to understand how their individual cultural identity shapes the worldview and experiences of their students. Using her knowledge of multicultural considerations and her group work skills, she was able to indirectly support her marginalized students by creating a more welcoming and accepting school environment. Now that the teachers were able to explore this topic, Mrs. Lafferty felt more competent in exploring multicultural education with her students knowing her 73 coworkers are more adequately prepared to support her in her direct services to the students.

Although the case studies we described include a particular concern in a specific school or district, they both demonstrate the value of LGC. The school counselors in each example followed the planning backward strategy by first identifying the learning outcomes of their students and how a LGC with faculty and staff can help them achieve their outcome goals. They also gained support from their school or district leaders and designed a consultation experience that increased faculty and staff knowledge and skills about a certain topic. Furthermore, the school counselors used questionnaires and assessments to determine if their LGC led to desired outcomes on the faculty. Lastly, all of the school counselors took on leadership roles within their school, used their expertise, and applied their group work skills to deliver quality LGC to faculty and staff, which will indirectly impact key student outcomes. The case studies highlight the importance of LGC and the impact LGC can have in a comprehensive school program to support students, faculty, and staff members. However, much like any implementation of a program, it is important to note the limitations of this approach and special considerations.

Although school counselors have been extensively trained in group work, it is crucial that they stay up-to-date with innovative counseling group work skills. In addition, despite Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs ([16]) requiring pre- service school counselors to have exposure to leading or co-leading groups during their internship experiences, research suggests that some do so without the benefit of observing an experienced professional first (Springer, Moss, et al., [39]). This may result in a lower sense of self-efficacy and the potential for lower performance outcomes (Springer, Moss, et al., [39]). It is essential that pre- service school counselors receive adequate supervision and training to ensure that upon graduation, they are competent in providing LGC as a professional school counselor. It is also worth noting the important role of multicultural education and advocacy while implementing LGC. As outlined in the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC), school counselors must align their group work skills with critical thinking skills to culturally respond to stereotypes, discrimination, power, privilege, and oppression (Ratts et al., [34]) and how those aspects might influence the group dynamic.

Our case studies highlight how LGC could work in different school settings. However, it is also worth noting potential drawbacks of this approach. LGC is not a panacea, and some situations exist in which individual student contact is still required rather than relying on the consultation with faculty and staff to support students. LGC can set the groundwork for important discussions, awareness, and knowledge, but students or faculty may require direct support in furthering the initiatives introduced in the LGC, especially related to suicide prevention and multicultural education. LGC is also most successful when school stakeholders buy into the topics they are learning about. As with most comprehensive school counseling programming, school counselors should understand the culture of their school and navigate school politics and leadership as needed to gain support for LGC topics.

By planning backward and utilizing their group counseling skills, school counselors can offer LGC that ultimately supports the academic, career, and emotional needs of students. Using data, school counselors can identify the desired student outcomes, engage in best practices, and make meaningful change. School counselors can offer LGC to teachers and staff on a variety of topics including bullying, suicide, multicultural education, professional advocacy, and mental health awareness. However, school counselors who utilize LGC are relying on their group work skills to encourage active participation, promote thoughtful discussion, and provide intentional activities that elicit meaningful exploration of the topic. Participants, whether teachers, students, or other school counselors leave LGC with a clear understanding of how the topic directly impacts them.

Although this article offers a conceptual understanding of LGC for school counselors through school counselor case studies, future research should assess the impact of implementing LGC. It would be beneficial to qualitatively understand the experiences of teachers and staff who participate in a LGC, as well as explore LGC outcomes from a quantitative or mixed methods perspective. To better assess the impact of LGC, school counselors can track school data by noting metrics such as the number of teacher and student referrals to counselors.

In summary, LGC represents a new and valuable tool school counselors can use to impact their faculty, staff, and students. By harnessing their group work skills and sharing their expertise in a range of areas, school counselors can efficiently work to support students. Although any educator may be able to provide professional development, school counselors can deliver LGC to facilitate a nurturing group environment for faculty and staff to explore important topics in meaningful ways using their group work skills. In turn, with the knowledge and skills gained in LGC, faculty and staff members can better serve all students in need.
1 Akos, P., Goodnough, G. E., & Milsom, A. S. (2004). Preparing school counselors for group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 127 - 136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920490275637 2 American School Counselor Association. (2014). The school counselor and group counseling. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS%5fGroup-Counseling.pdf 3 American School Counselor Association. (2017). The school counselor and comprehensive school counseling programs. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS%5fComprehensivePrograms.pdf 4 American School Counselor Association. (2019a). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.). 5 American School Counselor Association. (2019b). Student-to-School-Counselor ratio 2016-2017. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Publications/ratioreport.pdf 6 Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2000). Professional standards for the training of group workers. Association for Specialists in Group Work, 25 (4), 327 - 342. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920008411677 7 Baker, S. B., Robichaud, T. A., Dietrich, V. C. W., Wells, S. C., & Schreck, R. E. (2009). School counselor consultation: A pathway to advocacy, collaboration, and leadership. Professional School Counseling, 12 (3), 200 - 206. https://doi.org/10.1177/215679X0901200301 8 Brown, C., & Militello, M. (2016). Principals' perceptions of effective professional development in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 54 (6), 703 - 726. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0109 9 Burton, S., & Furr, S. (2014). Conflict in multicultural classes: Approaches to resolving difficult dialogues. Counselor Education & Supervision, 53 (2), 97 - 110. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00051.x Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. Basic Books. Caplan, G., & Caplan, R. B. (1993). Mental health consultation and collaboration. Jossey-Bass. Carlson, L., & Kees, N. (2013). Mental health services in public schools: A preliminary study of counselor perceptions. Professional School Counseling, 16 (4), 211 - 221. https://doi.org/10.5330/PSC.n.2013-16.221 Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2006). Groups: Process and practice (7th ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole. Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards. https://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2016-Standards-with-Glossary-5.3.2018.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf DeLucia-Waack, J. L., & Gerrity, D. (2001). Effective group work for elementary school-age children whose parents are divorcing. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9 (3), 273 - 284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480701093006 Downing, T. K. E., Smaby, M. H., & Maddux, C. D. (2001). A study of the transfer of group counseling skills from training to practice. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 26 (2), 156 - 167. https://doi.org/10.1080/0193392018415735 Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental evaluation of positive behavior support in a community preschool program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24 (3), 143 - 155. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140240030201 DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational Leadership, 61 (8), 6 - 11. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may04/vol61/num08/What-Is-a-Professional-Learning-Community%C2%A2.aspx Gerrity, D. A., & DeLucia-Waack, J. L. (2007). Effectiveness of groups in the schools. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 32 (1), 97 - 106. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920600978604 Gladding, S. T. (2020). Group work: A counseling specialty (8th ed.). Pearson. Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (2), 223 - 256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02382007 Guskey, T. R. (2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71 (8), 10 - 16. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/15/ Ieva, K. P., Ohrt, J. H., Swank, J. M., & Young, T. (2009). The impact of experiential groups on master students' counselor and personal development: A qualitative investigation. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 34 (4), 351 - 368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920903219078 Jeltova, I., & Fish, M. C. (2005). Creating school environments responsive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families: Traditional and systemic approaches for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16 (1), 17 - 33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2005.9669525 Knotek, S. E., & Sandoval, J. (2012). Current research in consultee-centered consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14 (3), 243 - 250. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2003.9669487 Murray, M. M., Mereoiu, M., & Handyside, L. M. (2013). Building bridges in teacher education: Creating partnerships with parents. The Teacher Educator, 48 (3), 218 - 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2013.795636 Parikh Foxx, S., Baker, S. B., & Gerler, E. R. (2017). School counseling in the 21st century (6th ed.). Routledge. Perera-Diltz, D. M., Moe, J. L., & Mason, K. L. (2011). An exploratory study in school counselor consultation engagement. Journal of School Counseling, 9 (13), 1 - 25. http://jsc.montana.edu Pomery, A., Schofield, P., Xhilaga, M., & Gough, K. (2016). Skills, knowledge, and attributes of support leaders: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, 99 (5), 672 - 688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.11.017 Rutan, J. S., Stone, W. N., & Shay, J. J. (2007). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy (4th ed.). Guilford Pub. Springer, S. I. (2016). Examining predictors of group leader self-efficacy for preservice school counselors. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 41 (4), 286 - 311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2016.1228723 Springer, S. I., Land, C. W., Moss, L. J., & Cinotti, D. (2018a). Collecting school counseling group work data: Initiating consensual qualitative research through practitioner-research partnerships. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43 (2), 128 - 143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2018.1431346 Springer, S. I., Moss, L. J., Cinotti, D., & Land, C. W. (2018b). Examining pre-service school counselors' site supervisory experiences specific to group work. The Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 43 (3), 250 - 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/019333922.2018.1484537 Thomas, V. R., & Pender, D. A. (2008). Association for specialists in group work: Best practice guidelines 2007 revisions. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33 (2), 111 - 117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920801971184 Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group, 2 (4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404 Warren, J. M., & Baker, S. B. (2013). School counselor consultation: Enhancing teacher performance through rational emotive-social behavioral consultation. In G. R. Walz, J. C. Bleuer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.), VISTAS Online. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/school-counselor-consultation-enhancing-teacher-performance.pdf?sfvrsn=11
~~~~~~~~

By Rachel Saunders and Clare Merlin-Knoblich

Reported by Author; Author

Rachel Saunders is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling at the University of Cincinnati.

Clare Merlin-Knoblich is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling at UNC Charlotte. She currently serves as Director of the Master's in Counseling Program, as well as the Post-Master's in School Counseling Certificate.

This article is copyrighted. All rights reserved. Source: Journal for Specialists in Group Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing Large-Group Consultation in Comprehensive School Counseling Pr...: @ Walden University Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Large-group consultation (LGC) is a tool in which professional counselors deliver key expertise to faculty and staff in their schools while using their group work skills to facilitate meaningful learning. As part of a comprehensive school counseling program, LGC is an efficient, systemic strategy for counselors to impact students' academic, career, and social/emotional success.