Providing psychoeducation to teachers, families, and other school staff is pivotal to best support students within the school setting. Psychoeducation is generally known as the information and resources provided to school staff, families, and students by mental health professionals to better educate them about the student’s emotions, behaviors, and achievement. Within the school setting, the school (or educational) psychologist often takes on this role when working with students and their families. School/educational psychologists are typically the most knowledgeable about psychological practices, theories, and foundations, and also have expertise in special education services, learning barriers, behavioral and mental health interventions, academic learning, and family–school collaboration, along with consultation and assessment practices. Consequently, these professionals are in a good position to effectively provide psychoeducation to a wide range of individuals. There are various methods of psychoeducation that can be used, such as disseminating resources and reading materials to teachers and families, meeting individually with families or teachers to provide detailed information about what the student is experiencing, and conducting psychoeducational groups with children and/or their caregivers on a variety of topics related to the child’s academic, behavior, or social-emotional well-being. When examining these methods, it is also important to understand how psychoeducation can be used for a wide range of educational practices that promote student well-being. These include using psychoeducation to increase academic achievement, for the prevention of problem behavior, to increase social-emotional well-being, promote educational practices, and provide professional development for school staff, and to inform educational policies. These psychoeducation practices have been widely used globally to better assist student functioning. Although psychoeducation is a widespread practice, there are still different views on how it should be delivered and questions that have arisen from the research.
Jacqueline A. Brown, Samantha Russell, Emily Hattouni, and Ashlyn Kincaid
Ngonidzashe Mpofu, Elias M. Machina, Helen Dunbar-Krige, Elias Mpofu, and Timothy Tansey
School-to-community living transition programs aim to support students with neurodiversity to achieve productive community living and participation, including employment, leisure and recreation, learning and knowledge acquisition, interpersonal relationships, and self-care. Neurodiversity refers to variations in ability on the spectrum of human neurocognitive functioning explained by typicality in brain activity and related behavioral predispositions. Students with neurodiversity are three to five times more likely to experience community living and participation disparities as well as lack of social inequity compared to their typically developing peers. School-to-community transition programs for students with neurodiversity are implemented collaboratively by schools, families of students, state and federal agencies, and the students’ allies in the community. Each student with neurodiversity is unique in his or her school-to-community transition support needs. For that reason, school-to-community transition programs for students with neurodiversity should address the student’s unique community living and participation support needs. These programs address modifiable personal factors of the student with neurodiversity important for successful community living, such as communication skills, self-agency, and self-advocacy. They also address environmental barriers to community living and participation premised on disability related differences, including lack of equity in community supports with neurodiversity. The more successful school-to-community living transition programs for students with neurodiversity are those that adopt a social justice approach to full community inclusion.
Subjective well-being (SWB) emphasizes individuals’ emotional evaluation and cognitive appraisal of life quality, taking life satisfaction (LS) (both general and specific), positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA) into consideration. Traditionally, SWB research has been conducted on adults; that on adolescents and young students has been limited. Moreover, SWB has generally been explored as an outcome variable related to people’s learning, work, relationships, and health. However, SWB should be considered a dynamic and agentic system that may promote an individual’s self-development as well as social development. Among student populations, SWB has been proven to affect academic achievement, health, and developmental variables such as personality, life quality, school engagement, and career development. Schools and higher educational environments are not only places in which young people acquire academic knowledge and capacities; they are also places in which students connect with others, develop their personalities, experience all facets of society, and construct their life meaning, sense of self-esteem, and career identity. Furthermore, from a developmental and constructive perspective, some empirical evidence supported the idea that SWB may be a pivotal variable affecting student development. Nevertheless, whether SWB can benefit development among young students is controversial, as is whether SWB is a predictor of individual development or a developmental outcome. Therefore, in examining the research beyond the relationship between SWB and health or academic achievement, studies on the contribution of SWB to student development must be reviewed.