Environmental Counseling: The Grant Writing Factor

In our Spring 2003 newsletter we brought up the idea that education counseling has more of an environmental focus than other kinds of counseling. To be clear, at this point in the historic development of education counseling (k-12) it is important to diverge from tradition to now draw lines of distinction between the clinical approach and what has always been referred to as school counseling. There are actually different strategies we can undertake to define how education counselors work within the school environment. One of them is grant writing.

In California we have what is known as SPARC (Support Personnel Accountability Report Card), a process that was developed out of an informal collaboration that happened statewide via communication links between California Department of Education, Los Angeles County Office of Education and professional school counseling associations, CSCA being among them. There were many education counselors and administrators from districts across the state who participated in the development of ideas to create a viable process to formally measure the effectiveness of comprehensive school counseling programs from site to site. There was a sense that we could, over time, develop a set of universally accepted professional standards. At this point it has become abundantly clear that this is an attainable goal. However, there is a building awareness that a more purposeful system of developing standards can occur through grant writing. SPARC rewards with trophies, an Academy Awards in school counseling. Grant writing is as subjective, but offers the possibility of funding as well as the potential to develop education counseling models through a system of stringent scientific data collection.

Grant writing maybe the next step up in the movement towards developing clearer standards concerning education counseling and its connectedness to the school environment. California School Counselors Association is now undertaking the effort to address individuals and agencies statewide concerning this insight.

The following are some ideas offered as a means to stimulate communication among CSCA members interested in collaborating on our statewide grant writing program, a process fully intended to strengthen educational counseling programs, set standards while seeking to bring in more funding to our respective school districts, possibly create communication lines that were never before imaginable, and increasing our association’s status among professional educators.

First of all, we need to be clear that this is about improving services to our students primarily in the public education system. Though CSCA has members in the private school sector, we do need to be clear that public schools (k-12) presently receive the lion’s share of government funding for support services. The existence of support services is actually a feature that distinguishes public schools from the private school setting. Typically, private schools have to contact support services in public schools to request specialized services for their highest at-risk students. If we continue to define educational counseling to the extent that there is a greater universal understanding of the field among educators, the day may come when educational counseling will be a requested service in much the same way as school psychology.

We must be careful not to interpret this mentioning of private schools vs. public schools in a negative vain. The line of distinction is drawn here as a means to position all participants in this dialogue to be “on the same page” as we continue to communicate; there should be no hidden agendas. Why will most of our private school teachers and counselors agree with us that the lion’s share of government funding should continue to go to public schools? Because private schools, for the most part, do not offer pay scales that are comparable to public schools. Public schools actually set the standards of pay that best represent professional status. This has primarily been a function of teachers’ labor unions. The private sector also has unions but, historically, most of them have not made the advances in the area of pay scale consideration to the same degree as teachers’ unions in public schools.

Presently our federal and state governments have proponents of the idea that opening up competition for funding to include private institution participation would be a progressive development that could lead to greater gains in educating children. Yes, in some sectors (e.g. business) open competition typically does lead to the development of better ideas and practices. However, in education we must be careful that competition is implemented with a correct understanding of history. Perhaps, in the attempt to set a level playing field, government would do a great service to the improvement of education if they allow private schools to compete for public funding with one criteria being: consideration of salaries to credentialed staff be no less than what is the highest level of pay for public schools within the geographical area of the awarded institution. Therefore, when a private institution writes a proposal for grant funding the basis for professional salaries should be no less than public schools within the same geographical area. Such a caveat has the potential to create a more cohesive professional environment in public and private schools. If experienced public school educators could see easier transitioning to private institutions (no loss of pay while moving to a “cleaner/safer” institution) such a reality may force public school administration to exhibit more effort to maintain a quality work environment. As a result of tertiary contacts with a few CSCA members working in private schools, we have yet to find anyone from that sector who would be against the idea of potentially increasing their pay scale via the acquisition of grant funding. So until that level playing field is set, allowing fair competition from private schools, it behooves thinking professionals to keep the public/private distinction clear. Regardless of institutional setting all educators need to engage in mutual support across lines that have rarely before been breached.

In March of 2003 this writer presented the idea that counselors in Los Angeles Unified School District should form teams to write for grants as a means to develop our program structure. Gwen Jones, our coordinator of elementary school counselors readily became interested and called a small group meeting. So elementary school counselors in Los Angeles Unified School District are now in the beginning stages of forming collaborative teams in order to undertake developing a grant writing process.

At the same time this writer had written the narrative for a grant through National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) with the intent of creating an after school language arts program for students interested in African American Literature. Primarily though, the proposal was written to address the needs of high at-risk students experiencing social and academic failure. Also, a second component was written about training the teachers of these students as a result of the insight gained by the education counselor in the after school program. NEA advised that the focus of the grant was not within the parameters of what they would fund being that education counseling wasn’t an area of consideration for their grants. As well, they did not offer funding for after school programs. However, I had sent the narrative to Dr. John Riley at Loyola Marymount University in order to get it critiqued for writing structure. So now Dr. Riley and I are moving forward in a collaborative effort on grant writing to develop a structured approach for education counseling programs.

Funding is not the primary focus. The true power of the grant process is in the structuring of ideas that represent what your educational counseling program is about. How does a comprehensive education counseling program look? What are some major problems/issues that proliferate within our school environment? And specifically, how do we envision the structuring of some ideas that could lead to academic and social improvements? Who would we join in the effort to create a focused program? How do we balance our ideas to meet the requirements of the grant while keeping focus of day-to-day developments within the realm of reality--- the separate realities of each collaborator?

The introspection that is so essential to grant writing produces a heightened awareness of program structure. In school counseling that can sometimes be ever changing because we’re constantly placed in an accommodating position, having to deal with professional personalities that range from “whimsical dreamer” to “highly efficient pragmatist”. Sometimes this forces education counselors to phase out components of their program without even so much as a discussion. When the plate gets too full something has to get scrapped. At times, this reality can be hurtful to the development of our students as well as their family. Having a program that is partially funded by a grant could help to alleviate---or at least--- reduce such a problem.

California School Counseling Association’s board of 2002-03 will now actively engage Los Angeles County Office of Education as well as California Education Department in order to continue sharing these, our current progressive ideas. Our intent is to help in the design and initiation phases of a statewide process that serves to better define and uplift the education counseling profession.

Any professional interested in becoming a part of this collaboration please send us an email expressing your interest.