Chapter 10: Development of multi-disciplinary model for OVC
6.4 THE CONNECTION OF SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK AND EDUCATION
6.4.2 Models for school social work practice
assistance to educators when learners who are in need of social work services are screened, identified and assessed (Kemp, 2014; Vergottini, 2019). This will help to uphold the notion of full-service schools as advocated by White Paper 6 to change from theory to practice (Motitswe, 2014).
Model Traditional Clinical
School Change
Community School
Social Interaction Focus Individual learners
with social and emotional problems in the microsystem which the learner is linked
The school environment:
dysfunctional school practices and incompetent policies are dealt with
Multi risks communities characterized by widespread
poverty, community
violence and prevalent alcohol and substance Abuse
Reciprocal
influences of the acts of individuals andgroups; barriers
to good
communication between individuals and groups
Goals Effective
functioning of learners/ groups to encourage optimal use of the school experience
Alteration of dysfunctional school practices
Development of community
understanding and support of the school;
development of programmes to assist the disadvantaged learner and alleviation of conditions that perpetuate deprivation
Identification and removal of barriers to reciprocal interaction and development of mutual aid systems
Target system Learners and their families
Learners, parents/
caregivers; teachers, support staff and
The community surrounding the school, the school
The interaction field
SGB’s population and the school as an institution
Views of sources of difficulty
Learner psychosocial issues
emotional difficulties;
dysfunctional
families and difficult parent- child relationships
Dysfunctional school practices
Poverty;
disadvantage., deprivation and school personnel
who lack
understanding of the effects thereof
Dysfunctional relationships
among the school, community and learners
Adapted from Kasiram, 1993
6.4.2.1 The traditional clinical model
The traditional clinical model focuses its interventions on the learner and their family, without producing any major disruption to formal school activities (Frey, Alvarez, Sabatino, & Lindsey, 2012; Kasiram, 1993). The practice interventions emanating from this model intend to support learners who have social and emotional difficulties (Frey et al., 2012).
In the view of the researcher; the model can be effective, as long as the source of the problems lies within the child and interventions are aimed at improving the functioning of the individual and not the institution, which may be the family or the school. Social practice emanating from this model may choose to work with learners in groups of learners with similar problems (Constable, 2016; Openshaw, 2014). For example, in the case of OVC, the school practitioner may classify them in their categories, for example, multi grade repeaters can be grouped together and a social intervention developed for this category.
This may result in identifying problem clusters, which may point to the need for a fresh
approach with a broader focus (Allen-Meares, 2015; Kasiram, 1993).
However, this model has been criticised as putting too much emphasis on the learners’
deficiencies, which this study intended to move away from. A survey conducted by Kelly, Frey, Thompson, and Klemp (2015) concludes that focusing on the deficits of individuals misdirects change efforts and may not respond to the real challenges. Allen-Meares (2015) support the sentiment and cite that it puts too much focus on the individual as if deficits occur mainly within the individual. Branson (2019) states that the model does not consider the impact other systems have on the life of learners. Based on these sentiments, the researcher arrived at the conclusion that the model presents a challenge if used in isolation, as it disregards structural factors such as poverty and other problems in the family or society, which contribute to learners’ vulnerability. Other factors that are at play in the family, the school and the communities are not taken into consideration, and may need the model to be integrated with other models.
6.4.2.2 School change model
The model’s focus is the school as an institution needs to change the environment and conditions of the school (Kasiram, 1993; Allen-Meares, 2015; Kelly et al., 2015). There tend to be several dysfunctional school practices that can include a shortage of teachers and social support personnel, incompetent policies, or the inability to implement some policies (Tancred, Paparini, & Melendez-Torres, 2018). Social practices emanating from this model are carried out at the meso level, where the intention is to change the school environment and how it functions. This is an approach to school-wide reform that aims to improve the school’s performance as well as all the learners’ achievement and outcome by creating a coherent and focused school-wide effort (Tancred et al., 2018).
Alderson (1972) in Kasiram (1993) identified four key elements that educators and school social workers can collaborately use to bring about positive change in teaching and learning at a school.
Setting and sharing goals;
Having indicators that measure success;
Seeking assistance by capable others;
Leadership that supports.
In view of the model, schools as community social centres strive to address the needs of a community beyond the traditional role of schools (Branson, 2019; Samberg & Sheeran, 2000; Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2013). Its proponents argue that schools should be the centre of a community, providing beneficial social services and serving as a place for intra-community dialogue (Branson, 2019; Nicely, 2016). Kasiram (1993), Allen-Meares (2015) and Valli et al. (2013), in support of the argument, assert that it holds the promise for disadvantaged and deprived children to be better taken care of, and ensures that their ignored needs are respected. Regarding the use of this model, the researcher posited that the model provides many opportunities to address the learners’ needs, and especially of those who are vulnerable, stigmatised in schools and academically excluded.
In the context of the growing number of OVC in schools and the challenges that confront them, the proponents of the model emphasise that it provides benefits that can enhance the social work practice in schools (Welsh, 2000). Kumar (2017) states; schools are becoming the main public institutions for social development. This calls for schools to change from being traditional centres that focus solely on the educational performance of their learners, while they disregard other factors that either directly or indirectly affect the learners’ performance. This requires a whole new approach to schooling in South Africa, which has been already advocated by Education White Paper 6. However, the model has been criticised for having a too narrow focus on the school as a source of dysfunction, while it disregards other factors occurring on the macro level (Allen-Meares, 2015; Welsh, 2000). Schools have to cope with issues such as insufficient funding and insufficient manpower, which is not within the school’s power or ability to change; especially the poor schools that cannot generate funds to hire extra staff.
6.4.2.3 Community school model
The community school model concept is grounded in the principle that all learners, families and communities benefit from strong connections between the educational and local resources, support structures and people (Kasiram, 1993; Valli et al., 2013). The community school model focuses on the relationship the school has with its community, and especially the deprived and disadvantaged communities (Samberg & Sheeran, 2000).
The community school model represents a place-based strategy, in which schools partner with community agencies and allocate resources to provide an integrated focus on academics, healthcare and social services, youth and community development, and community engagement (Valli et al., 2013; Samberg, Sheeran, & Nicely, 2016). This model demonstrated its potential to be a dynamic tool to address the issues and problems facing the individual communities (Samberg & Sheeran, 2000).
Though the model provides many benefits to schools, especially those that are in multi- risks communities, it is heavily criticised for being too non-directive to offer any real guidance to the practitioner (Nicely, 2016; Valli et al., 2013). Van Breda and Sekudu (2018) add that its emphasis on intervening at the level of all relationships may be too vague and unhelpful (Van Breda & Sekudu, 2018). In summary, the researcher was of the view that following only one model may not respond to the total needs of learners, but that a combination of all the models might be necessary to respond to the learners’ needs.