different, and frequently focused on how children were diagnosed versus how they were categorized, how services were educationally relevant versus clinically relevant, and how credentials held by each professional were regulated differently. Ultimately, these discussions led to the realization that a common language was essential in order for the group to develop a common understanding and perspective on the issues, for without a common perspective, the group would have difficulty arriving at a common vision for developing viable solutions.
Critical Issues Identified
As a result of stakeholder input in the early phases of the project, the committee identified three critical issues that were preventing them from understanding the complex issues surrounding school mental health. After considerable discussion, it became clear that the group was “admiring the problem” and that these issues were creating barriers in their ability to move forward. Thus, the group recognized that if they were to achieve their goal of working cooperatively to develop a mental health model and guidance document for schools, they first had to understand the issues from one another’s perspectives. These three critical issues were:
1 The fragmented and complex mental health system that regulated eligibility for services was creating significant confusion for everyone. How those services were funded only added to the confusion.
2 Throughout the state, availability and access to mental health services were extremely limited, and many of the group’s members weren’t even aware that some of these services existed. This exacerbated the school mental health problem and may have contributed to why so much of the blame was being placed on schools.
3 The regulatory requirements that governed the professionals providing mental health services differed for professionals in the private or public sector compared to those in the educational sector.
Outcomes
The process for arriving at a common understanding and shared perspective on the problem of school mental health required the group to investigate all issues and conduct an in‐depth review of relevant data, including any procedures, policies, or regulations that might have created limitations, constraints, or unintended consequences for any of the sectors (i.e., private, public, or educational). After this thorough review process, all members of the group had an improved understanding of the issues underlying school mental health, as well as those factors driving the increased need for services. The three‐step process that guided the group toward a common vision also enabled them to work toward the goal of developing a school model for mental health support. Ultimately, the group agreed that a proactive approach not only was more effective at preventing social, emotional, and behavioral problems, but also would help reduce some of the stigma surrounding mental illness. So, the group agreed that the model should focus on promoting wellness, as opposed to focusing primarily on mental illness. The project culminated in the development of the Texas School‐Based Social/Emotional Wellness Model, which was based on a multitiered approach to prevention and intervention. A detailed description of the model can be found in Rapid Reference 1.5.
Rapid Reference 1.5 Texas School‐Based Social/Emotional Wellness Model
A description of the social‐emotional wellness model developed by the Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools (TxCEDS) was printed by the Region 4 Education Service Center in Houston, Texas, and was disseminated to the 20 education service centers throughout Texas in October 2010 (Texas Education Agency and Region 4 Education Service Center, 2010 ). The document describing the model was entitled “Social‐Emotional Wellness in Texas Schools: A Guide for Schools, Agencies, Organizations, Parents, and Communities.” A summary of the model is provided as follows.
The Texas School‐Based Social/Emotional Wellness Model was designed as a comprehensive service delivery model to promote collaborative and coordinated approaches for addressing whole student needs through a multitiered process. Improvements in student, system, and school outcomes, as well as improvements in the model itself, are informed by an ongoing and systematic review of data collected from five critical components of the model. Each of these components works in tandem with one another to ensure effectiveness and improve outcomes. The five components are:
1 Fundamental concepts
2 School‐based service delivery model
3 Student outcomes
4 System outcomes
5 Continuous improvement process
The foundation of the model is based on two fundamental concepts, psychological and educational principles. Knowledge and understanding of these principles are considered necessary for facilitating the delivery of scientific, evidence‐based practices in service delivery. To ensure understanding of these concepts, the model promotes the development and maintenance of high professional standards through ongoing professional development, increased awareness of mental health issues, and recognition of the diverse backgrounds and needs of students.
The school‐based service delivery process is the central focus of the Texas model. It is promoted as a whole‐child approach designed to address barriers to student learning and performance by connecting services within and between schools and communities. Interventions for struggling students are identified through the school’s systematic, problem‐solving process, and, if outside support services are available, they are coordinated through collaborative partnerships with agencies and organizations within the surrounding community. Through increased access to resources and supports, schools are better able to eliminate some of the barriers to student learning and performance for struggling students. Collaborative partnerships with which a school might coordinate additional supports and services may include early childhood intervention programs, private practitioners, faith‐based community supports, behavioral health agencies, public health agencies, juvenile justice, children and families, children’s protective services, and recreational programs, among others.
Contrary to the traditional model of service delivery, where interventions are targeted for separate and distinct problems (e.g., failing grades, poor attendance, substance abuse, bullying, delinquency, violence, etc.), this model offers a comprehensive, whole‐child approach to the problem‐solving process. Using interconnected systems, collaborative partnerships, and systematic review processes, barriers can be identified, and interventions can be developed to address the breadth and depth of any student’s needs.
Implementation of the comprehensive school‐based service delivery process ultimately leads to improved student outcomes, as well as improved system outcomes, which are two critical components of the Texas model. When student performance improves, so does system performance. Furthermore, when systems at all levels (i.e., educational systems, social services systems, community systems, family systems, etc.) share responsibility for students’ social and emotional wellness, improved outcomes for students might be seen in the following areas:
Academic achievement
Discipline and behavior
Social relationships
School attendance
Community involvement and civic responsibility
Graduation and postsecondary enrollment
When
