THE ROLE OF THE COUNSELOR IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM
The interest in systemic intervention in schools, based on the research of the Mara Selvini Palazzoli group in Milan, led to a research project (1972-1975) that resulted in the publication of the book “The Wizard Without Magic.” In this book (published in Spain in 1987 by Editorial Paidós), a series of attitudes are identified from the members of the school system (teachers, management teams, families, students) toward the school psychologist, the most frequent demands, and the “traps” faced by psychology professionals in their work within the school system.
Thirty years have passed, and the situation for school counselors remains similar to what the Mara Selvini research group described: a multitude of functions to attend to. These include advising the different organizational structures of the school (Management Team, Pedagogical Coordination Commission); advising on School Plans (Diversity Attention Plan, Tutorial Action Plan, Coexistence Plan); advising on the educational response to students with specific educational support needs as requested by tutors; intervening with families; coordinating with external agents, etc. All of this within a brief and limited time to meet with tutors, families, and students. Additionally, there are difficulties in following up on the interventions (guidance) that are carried out.
Another particularity of school counseling is that the professionals involved come from different educational backgrounds (psychologists, pedagogues, teachers, administrators), which leads to a lack of a unified intervention procedure. For example, a tutor might find themselves with different interventions (guidance) from one year to the next, which causes confusion and a lack of credibility.
The expectations regarding the role of the counselor, as identified in the research by M. Selvini, are still similar in today’s schools and determine the counselor’s actions in various problematic situations. Often, the individuals who require our services do not see themselves as clients*, as they request an intervention for someone else: “The problematic situation the counselor must face not only does not concern the requester, but it also has nothing to do with the relationships the requester has within the school. This approach makes it difficult to establish a clear definition of the relationship and the therapeutic context.” A common practice by teachers is to request intervention in cases involving children “with behavior problems.” The expectation may be that the counselor confirms a diagnosis (Disability, ADHD, conduct disorder, etc.) and assumes responsibility for the case, absolving the requester of responsibility for the change, while confirming the “pedagogical validity” of the teacher. “These attitudes contain a great deal of resistance to change: the teacher, in general, does not want to be ‘questioned’ and rejects the psychologist (counselor) as ‘incompetent’ if they try to involve them as the bearer of the problem, as the person they are complaining about does not allow them to perform their task appropriately.”
*denotes the person most motivated to promote change in the system they are part of, in the Problem-Solving Brief Therapy Model (TBRP)
When this happens, the counselor faces the difficulty of knowing who to work with first in order to achieve effective change in the system where the student is not learning, and the teacher cannot teach, resulting in only losers. Another situation arises when there is a request to change the child presenting the symptom. In all these examples, a linear-causal intervention procedure is used: request-diagnosis-guidance, meaning the causes are sought (the myth of bad parents, jealousy, the myth of permissiveness, etc.), attention is shifted from the present to the past (neglecting the here-and-now of the school situation), and “the circular relational aspects of human interaction as a communication system are ignored.” Finally, we postulate that guidance is requested in the form of “recipes” (the magical stereotype society holds regarding the role of counselors), which are often not followed, partly because there is no clear person responsible for what needs to be done to promote the desired change.
Parents generally attend our meetings only at the request of teachers. Often, the fact of attending these interviews makes them feel questioned as “bad parents” or as parents with a “child with some pathology/difficulty.” This perception may lead to criticism of the school or teachers because they do not understand their child, and the need for an urgent evaluation by the counselor to confirm that their child has no problem or, if they do, the teacher must help them. Overprotection? Perhaps, but not from the parent’s point of view. In M. Selvini’s research, it is noted that “the role that parents appreciate most is that of an expert in talks, because in this context, the problems are diluted, generalized, and almost always become the problems of others.”
According to the expectations mentioned, both management teams, teachers, and families attribute to the counselor a limited intervention regarding “the difficulties of others,” with the expectation of a quick (often immediate) solution to the problem that benefits them and does not imply any change for the person who made the request. For Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch, this would be a “one-type change,” meaning actions are taken that involve shifting relationships within the system, with variations that do not stray from the previous functional framework. However, to implement lasting changes, which are the actual demands, transformations—sometimes small—are needed, which imply a change in the entire system organization or a “two-type change,” as they call it.
There is a “magical” type of expectation that, aligning with M. Selvini’s view, “besides involving implicit disqualification of the counselor, sets a trap for them, as the demonstration of their impotence will serve to reassure those posing the problem: if the psychologist/counselor was not successful, why should I be? If the counselor accepts to intervene from this position and allows themselves to be caught in such management, the intervention, far from promoting change, only serves to reinforce these expectations. There is also the option of overcoming this situation and giving credibility to the counselor’s technical work, starting by defining their role from an intervention model that helps them overcome these stereotypes.”
For this reason, we propose the Palo Alto Problem-Solving Brief Therapy (TBRP) model to work in schools. If we choose to view the school as a system, it seems logical to adopt a more global perspective of the phenomena occurring within it, expanding the focus from the intrapsychic/individual to the relational system of which the student is a part. This approach is therefore more useful and pragmatic for school counselors, as it is based on a series of theoretical premises applicable to the school system.
THE PROBLEM-SOLVING BRIEF THERAPY MODEL AND ITS APPLICATION TO SCHOOLS.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
the birth of the model emerges as a research project (bateson project) focused on cybernetics, systems theory, communication, learning theory, and the beginnings of family therapy.
CONSTRUCTIVISM
This line of thought proposes that it is the subject (observer) who actively constructs knowledge of the outside world, and that reality can be interpreted in different ways depending on who is observing it. Thus, the idea of acquiring “true” knowledge about reality fades, and it is understood that “each reality” is constructed based on our cognitive tools, our experience, and our language through which we perceive and communicate it.
From a psychological perspective, the basic assumption of constructivism is that “each of us carries with us a map of the world, a representation or conception that leads us to construct what is perceived so that it becomes perceived as reality” (Sluzki, 1985).
Paul Watzlawick, in his book The Language of Change, speaks of an objective reality perceived through the senses (the first-order reality) and a subjective reality, which is the result of our opinions and thoughts about the first one (second-order reality).
From this model, when working with clients (teachers, parents, students, administrators), the idea is that each person has their own construction of their truth based on their experiences and context. Truth is not singular but is constructed based on what each person observes. In this way, we only see reality through our lenses and do not have access to a single objective truth, which is why it is important to understand the other and try to understand their worldview and their problem. From this perspective, parents who see their child as ‘suffering at the hands of a teacher’ are just as right as the teacher who believes the parents do not set enough boundaries for the same student.
Intervention from the TBRP model can use techniques (redefinition) that help the person change the meaning, attribution, or interpretation of the events that cause them distress.
GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY
Applied to the field of human relationships, systems are those natural groups formed by subjects “with history” who have special rules, valid only within their own group, and live from the interactions between the members (relationships) considered as circular. They are defined as open systems because they maintain a continuous relationship with other systems and have a series of properties: totality, feedback (circularity), equifinality, and homeostasis. Thus, as M. Selvini points out, if we think of a classroom, it is characterized by a “totality” since each of its members is in such a relationship with others that when a change occurs, whatever it may be, it causes a change in the entire system. Every behavior of a member of the class influences the others and is influenced by them (circular relationship), meaning that the classroom is a feedback system. In the classroom, the exchange of information is constant, and feedback can act in such a way as to guarantee the homeostasis or balance of the group and its consequent stability, or they may act in an antihomeostatic manner, meaning functioning as agents of change, compromising the stability and balance of the group.
The concepts of homeostasis and change are closely related since the simultaneous presence of both tendencies seems necessary for the survival of systems. It is said that when a functional equilibrium between both tendencies is not established within the system, the system enters a crisis, and this is when external intervention is usually requested.
From these theoretical postulates, the Theory of Change proposed by TBRP and the systemic view of problems emerge.
Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch make a distinction between two types of change: the one that can be verified within a system that remains unchanged as a system, that is, in its global organization (change one), and the one that affects the entire system and changes it (change two). The objective of intervention from TBRP is always to achieve a change two because it is based on the postulate that when someone asks for help, ‘solutions’ that did not work have already been tried. When our intervention is requested for behavior problems of a child, we must pay attention to what teachers, parents, and school administrators are asking: they want to change only what is necessary to recover the previous equilibrium condition, or in other words, they want to change what is necessary to avoid change (change one), always with the best of intentions.
From this systemic view, problems are conceived in terms of some system of relationships that maintains the problem (student-teacher, student-classmates, or child-parents). Therefore, it is believed that it is enough for one person to change so that the interaction can no longer continue as before. Thus, it is said to be a “Minimalist Model”. Useful interventions can be made at any point in the system, and it often seems more effective to focus efforts on someone other than the “identified patient”, that is, to focus on the person most motivated to make the change. Likewise, for TBRP, the problem persists only when it is repeatedly reinforced during the social interaction between the patient and the other significant people. Usually, it is precisely what the patient and others are doing in their efforts to deal with the problem that maintains it. In this sense, it is important to understand what they have been doing to deal with the problem (ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS).
THE THEORY OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION. THE FIVE AXIOMS
As a result of the research (Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, and Jackson, 1967) on communication, Paul Watzlawick published his book “The Theory of Human Communication”. From this work, the five axioms of human communication emerged, which are present in the working model of TBRP. We list them below, but we suggest that the reader delve deeper into the books for further understanding.
- One cannot not communicate: Every behavior is a form of communication (for example, speaking/being silent). “In an interpersonal situation, every behavior influences others, communicates some message, and they cannot avoid responding to those messages, behaving and communicating in turn.”
- In every communication, there is a content aspect and a relational aspect: “In every communication, besides the meaning of words, information is also transmitted about the relationship with the recipient of the information.”
- All communication is based on the punctuation of the sequence of events: “Both the sender and the receiver of the communication structure the flow of communication in different ways, and thus, they interpret their own behavior as a reaction to the other’s behavior. Each one believes the other’s behavior is the cause of their own behavior, when in reality, human communication cannot be reduced to a simple cause-and-effect game, but is a cyclical process in which each part contributes to the continuity of the exchange.”
- Human communication involves two modalities: digital and analog: “Communication involves — what is said (spoken words) — and also — how it is said (non-verbal communication: gestures, tone, etc.).”
- Communication determines whether the relationship between communicators is symmetrical or complementary: Symmetrical relationships are based on equality, and participants exchange the same type of behavior. This type of relationship is common among coworkers, siblings, friends, etc. Complementary relationships are based on differences where participants exchange different types of behaviors, complementing each other, with two distinct positions: one superior and one inferior. This type of relationship is common among parents-children, teachers-students, etc. In our work as counselors, we frequently encounter situations in which communication between parents-children or teachers-students is symmetrical.
ERICKSONIAN HYPNOSIS
Otra fuente de impacto en el modelo de TBRP
es la hipnosis de Milton Erickson. Weakland y Haley dieron luz a cómo se relacionan ambas y su influencia sobre el proceso de cambio y cómo provocarlo sobre todo en cómo se utiliza el lenguaje para influenciar el proceso de la terapia y promover que el cliente quiera realizar los cambios sugeridos que son de no sentido común.
Milton H Erickson desde su faceta de médico-psiquiatra era un experto conocedor de lo que hoy en día llamamos, la Neurociencia, siendo capaz de utilizar con gran maestría las potencialidades de nuestros dos hemisferios cerebrales. Utilizaba formas lingüísticas no habituales propias del hemisferio derecho (aforismos, metáforas, etc.) y técnicas para el bloqueo del hemisferio izquierdo (confusión, prescripciones de síntomas, ilusión de alternativas, reestructuraciones) que son singularmente apropiadas para la comunicación terapéutica.
Erickson se enfocaba en la observación y en la experiencia del entrevistado buscando focalizar en la otra persona qué lentes usa para ver el mundo con el fin de utilizar esta información para generar un cambio.
La influencia de Erickson en el modelo de TBRP está presente en la práctica del lenguaje utilizado para hacer intervenciones. En el trabajo con familias, siempre se parte del “marco de referencia”, de lo que es importante para ellos y del uso que hacemos de nuestro lenguaje. Ello nos lleva a plantearnos “el efecto que tiene nuestra comunicación” sobre los otros, es decir, por qué se siguen o no nuestras orientaciones.
PREMISSES OF THE TBRP MODEL
With this theoretical foundation (Constructivism, General System Theory, Human Communication Theory, Ericksonian Hypnosis) and with the goal of investigation, a mode of action arises that leads to the TBRP Model. Fisch, Weakland, and Segal say in their book “The Tactics of Change”: “…our theory is nothing more than the conceptual map of our approach to understanding and treating the kind of problems that therapists face in their daily practice. Like any map, it is basically a tool that helps someone get from one place to another, in this case from when the therapist encounters the client’s problem until it is successfully resolved. As a tool, a map should never be confused with reality, it is always something provisional and should primarily be judged by the result it produces.”
For Fisch, Weakland, and Segal, the premises of the model, taken together, form a coherent and unified vision of the nature of problems and their solution.
PREMISSES
- NON-NORMATIVE AND NON-PATHOLOGICAL:
A fundamental premise in the TBRP model is that the etiology of the problem does not matter, but rather the behaviors that are maintained by the person themselves and others in their environment, who, with the best of intentions, attempt actions that do not resolve the complaint. It is important to know what the person is doing unintentionally that maintains their suffering. If this behavior is appropriately changed or eliminated, the problem will be solved or disappear, regardless of its nature, origin, or duration. It is a focus primarily on the here/now and the future.
By not assigning pathology, concepts like normality/abnormality are not applied. Instead, we think in terms of complaints.
Thinking in terms other than pathology means not categorizing clients into “boxes.” According to Karin Schlanger, “…by labeling or naming we put children into boxes (ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, depressive, etc.), and from an anthropological point of view (Bateson), one ends up not looking at what’s inside the box.” Just like children, teachers, and families, everyone is different. Therefore, labeling makes us lose sight of the particularities of each person, the details, and what differentiates one from another. From the model’s perspective, EACH CASE IS ITS BEST EXPLANATION (there are no generalized interventions). It is a highly individualized intervention, “tailored” for each client. The TBRP is a relatively simple model, but it is difficult to implement until one has experience because it teaches us to think differently.
Long-standing problems or symptoms are not seen as a “chronicity” in the usual sense of some basic defect in the individual or family, but rather as the persistence of a difficulty managed in a deficient and repetitive way, again, with the best of intentions.
Thus, when dealing with a child who is constantly moving, we do not ask what is wrong with the child that makes them unable to stay still. As Ignacia Pérez points out: “We don’t know.” It may be the way they are responding to the interactions in their system, what comes from their genetics, and more importantly, influenced by their context. This model does not focus so much on labels or on finding a “why,” as that would be more or less explaining what is happening, but rather on what we do know: how it is happening and why it is happening. What is the child doing, how does the teacher or the mother or father stop them? More than asking “why,” we seek the “how.” Instead of explanations, we look for descriptions. A view of the problems as difficulties of the situation between the people—problems of interaction, as the primary result of difficulties in everyday life that are poorly handled, and unresolved problems tend to grow and involve other life activities and relationships into impasses or crises.
Disruptive, deviant, or difficult behavior is considered as the reflection of some dysfunction in the system, and it is better treated by making an appropriate modification to the system. A circular and not linear view of problems is adopted because, if one looks at the interaction between the problem and its attempted solution as a system, it is almost like watching a tennis volley with two players.
- BRIEF: Though the doors we don’t open
Karin Schlanger uses the metaphor of doors to explain what we intervene in and how the TBRP model is brief as a consequence rather than by design, or in other words: “through which door the clients invite us to pass.” For example, if a mother tells us that her child has trouble going to bed, that’s the door I’ll enter through, not the issue of relationship problems. I’ll focus on the issue of the child not wanting to go to bed. We focus on the complaint that exists in the present, which is the one that hurts the most and led to the request for help. Probably, if the child goes to bed when the parents ask, they will argue less about it, be more relaxed, and improve their communication as a couple.
The model’s approach is to resolve the complaint the clients bring. If later they want to solve other issues, they will be addressed as a new problem. It is necessary, through various questions, to get a clear and explicit statement of the current complaint. This is where the art of this therapy is expressed, which, like almost everything in life, is learned with patience and work.
- DESCRIPTIONS AND NOT EXPLANATIONS
Since the model focuses on what people do, the most useful information to obtain is that which is behaviorally tangible and therefore describable by the clients. For K. Schlanger and R. Fisch, this means that the therapist/counselor must clearly understand what the client (teacher, family, student) is bringing to the consultation, and this requires listening to what the other is saying word for word with the goal of understanding the world of the person consulting us. This is very different from listening to hear what the client really means or what they are generally talking about.
The TBRP model does not focus on the “why,” but rather on the “how” it happens. So, for example, in the case of a selective eater child, we are interested in knowing with which foods, the people involved, and what those people do in that situation.
Similarly, when establishing the “therapeutic” or work objective, it is important that it be set in a descriptive way.
- IN THE HERE AND NOW
It is important to understand, through various questions: what is the person doing now regarding their problem? What do they want to stop doing, or do differently? The person in front of us is always the sum of their past experiences, of course, but what hurts them, hurts them now. If we assume that the counselor has the tools to reduce suffering, isn’t it almost an ethical imperative to do so in the most effective way possible?
- WORKING WITH PART OF THE SYSTEM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IN THE WHOLE
This concept implies the use of the term “CLIENT” instead of “patient.” It is often the parents or teachers who are worked with, as they are the ones complaining, not the person presenting the problem. The child is influenced through the mother, teacher, etc.
- HUMILITY AND CURIOSITY
The therapist/counselor adopts a “one down” position. From this model, change occurs through the clients. We create the space and promote change through strategic interventions, but it is the clients who will do everything. The professional wants to learn from the family/teacher, recognizing that they are the experts. Therefore, the first thing we must do is understand what the family or teachers bring to us. This requires putting a lot of effort into “listening” rather than talking.
- PRAGMATIC
TBRP is a pragmatic approach in the sense that it focuses on what is happening in the human system in the present, how it continues to function (what behaviors may be perpetuating it), and how it can be most effectively altered.
It operates from a technical framework:
- DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: What is the problem that brought them here today?
- WHO IS THE CLIENT: Who are we going to start working with? Work begins with the person most motivated to solve the problem.
- LIMITING THE PROBLEM TO WORK ON AND WHAT WOULD BE A SMALL AND CONCRETE CHANGE that would make them see that things are heading in the right direction. If this change is not defined, the client will not recognize it once they have achieved it. From this model, TREATMENT GOAL DESIGN acts as a positive suggestion that leads to thinking that change is possible within the given time and provides a therapeutic achievement criterion for both the therapist and the client. Goals should be clearly defined in terms of observable and concrete behaviors to minimize any possibility of uncertainty or later denial.
For example, if a child frequently gets up in class, the goal set by the teacher could be for the child to stay seated at their desk for at least half an hour. We need to make it concrete: What does it mean for the child to sit for half an hour? Should they be doing a task or just sitting still? For Ignacia Pérez, this works like a form of contract, as the teacher understands that this is what we want to achieve, and it is not simply about the child behaving better, as that is too general and difficult to measure.
- What have they been trying to do to solve the problem that has not worked: ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS.
The treatment goal is for the person to do something differently so that they stop doing what they did to solve the problem (Fisch and Schlanger, 2002).
- CLIENT POSITION: This is something we get to know transversally. It is important to understand from what position the clients are speaking, their view of the world and life. This is something we will use to approach them using hypnotic language. If parents speak to us from a sacrificial perspective, we will speak to them from that place.
- Implementation of INTERVENTIONS using various techniques.
Finally, it should be noted that the need for a role shift in the figure of the counselor would involve abandoning the expert stereotype (evaluator, giver of advice) and replacing it with that of a promoter of change, using an intervention model that fits perfectly with our functions in the school institution along with the person requesting the intervention rather than doing it independently. The weight of the work is shared, making it lighter and more positive.
BIBLIOGRAPHY USED AND SUGGESTED:
Fisch, R. and Schlanger, K. Cambiando lo incambiable. Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 2002.
Fisch, R.; Weakland, L.; and Segal, L. La táctica del cambio. Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 1984.
Selvini Palazzoli, M. et al. El mago sin magia. Barcelona: Editorial Paidos, 1987.
Watzlawick, P. El lenguaje del cambio. Barcelona: 1980.
Watzlawick, P.; Weakland, J.H.; and Fisch, R. Cambio. Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 1976.
