School psychology and school-based child and family interventions in Singapore

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the range of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions based on the Singapore Education Ministry-developed whole-school framework for pupil management and support. At the preventive level, a range of school-wide programmes are implemented to provide learning, emotional, and behavioural support for students. Where school-level programmes are inadequate to address specific student concerns, there are school counsellors or teacher-counsellors to work with those at-risk or experiencing difficulties. Students with specific learning disabilities receive in-class or pull-out support from allied educators, often in consultation with educational psychologists from the Ministry. Although parent support and collaboration are often sought, school-based family interventions are not within the purview of schools. This article further discusses issues that may be of concern to schools as they work to support students more effectively.

Keywords

Educational psychologists Singapore school counselling socio-emotional competencies whole-school framework

Background and the education system in Singapore

Singapore is a Southeast Asian island city-state situated at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. Approximately 638 square km in size, it has a population of just over 5 million people. The ethnic make-up of the population is diverse and represents three major ethnic groups: ethnic Chinese who comprises about 77%; Malays 14%; Indians 7.6%; and other ethnic groups 1.4%. About 18% of the population are below the age of 14 years. A highly urbanized country, its major economic activities include international banking and finance, and capital-intensive, high-wage, and high-technology activities. They are diversified to enable the country to provide manufacturing, financial, and communications facilities for multinational firms. Except for its people, Singapore has very limited natural resources. The economy is, therefore, highly sensitive and dependent on the external world’s economic environment. Education is seen as a critical pathway through which to maximize the nation’s advantage in the global economy.

There is an average of ten years of formal general education which comprises six years of compulsory primary education and four or five years at the secondary level. Primary education commences in January of the year in which a child reaches the age of seven. On completion of secondary school education, students can opt to enrol in a two-year junior college programme to prepare them for university admission or vocational training via polytechnic or technical institutes. Qualifications for these various routes are heavily dependent on their performance at the national examinations in the final year of the students’ primary and secondary school education. Children with special educational needs who are unable to attend mainstream schools because of physical and other disabilities attend special schools. The education of children with disabilities remains very much with special education (SPED) schools which are run by the Voluntary Welfare Organizations (VWOs) but receive substantial funding from the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). These SPED schools run different programmes catering to distinct children disability from various groups.

As a small nation with a colonial past, practitioners in Singapore have continued to look to the West for tested successful models and ideas, from which to adapt many of our educational initiatives and child psychological services. Singapore’s education system provides a strong academic-focused curriculum but, as is the case with many developed nations in the West and East, practitioners recognize that an education based on a traditional rationalist, subject-based curriculum with expected academic standards to be achieved is no longer adequate to give the children the advantage in today’s technological age (Ecclestone & Hayes, 2009). Children today require more sophisticated and complex skills to succeed in society (Ministry of Education, 2008, 2009). A quality, competitive, and broad-based education is necessary to nurture, develop, and prepare schoolchildren for the future. The Education Ministry has outlined desired outcomes of education that strongly emphasize not just long-term educational attainments and occupational success, but also the development of an innovative and enterprising spirit. They also address essential core life skills for attitudes such as ruggedness in character, a spirit of inquiry, and social-emotional adaptability in students (http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/desired-outcomes). This entails the development of a broad-based and holistic education that embraces academic, intellectual, moral, physical, social, and aesthetical aspects of the students’ development. It also caters for students’ varied needs and talents. As such, the system affords much flexibility and offers a diversified programme for students to develop different interests and ways of learning.

This perspective of education has defined the roles of various educational personnel such as school psychologists and teachers in enabling student learning and ensuring school success, and the place of school-based interventions designed to achieve the intended outcomes of education (Ministry of Education, 2008, 2009; Yeo & Choi, 2011). Despite a diversified programme that caters to differing student needs, there remains some children and adolescents who continue to experience difficulties in school. In this regard, school psychology practice has been essential in providing a service to identify and assess pupils for appropriate placement and intervention and in the provision of consultation to schools and parents as they continue to work with these children. This article will describe the role of the school psychological services and provide an overview of school-based child and family intervention programmes that are in place to support children in schools. It will further identify related issues and implications for practice.

The whole-school framework for learning, emotional, and behavioural support

School-based interventions, to be effective and successful, should emphasize not just the provision of remedial and reactive support but also proactive programmes aimed at early detection and early intervention (Small & Memmo, 2004). The literature has documented an emphasis in early school-based models on prevention to reduce or eliminate risk factors, and increase or promote protective factors (Caplan, 1964; Pianta, 1999; Richard, Schneider, & Mallett, 2011). Contemporary models, on the other hand, take on a developmental lens and aim to build student capacity and foster positive attributes to help them achieve their potential (Elias, Patrikakou, & Weissberg, 2007; Small & Memmo, 2004). In the latter model, the focus is on providing critical experiences, opportunities and support which students need to develop successfully into adulthood. Such preventive programmes promote positive attributes in anticipation of future problems and therefore work towards preventing possible occurrences (Elias et al., 2007; Low, Kok, & Lee, 2013; Silliman, 2004). The Singapore model of school-based interventions for students is not specifically designed on any particular theoretical perspective.

In Singapore schools, a systematic overarching whole-school framework has been adopted in the identification, assessment, and provision of varied facilities to enhance the learning experiences of students outside the academic domain. In essence, this framework is similar to that of the Response to Intervention (RtI) in that the degree to which intervention is introduced is determined by the extent to which support is needed for successful student engagement (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010). Often this comprises a three-tiered model that involves support at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels (Caplan, 1964; Lane & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Pianta & Walsh, 1996). This model offers a comprehensive framework for organizing evidence-based interventions in the prevention of delays in learning and behaviour (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010). At the primary mental health prevention and promotion level, the school-level programmes are aimed at all students. In an informal survey of about 70 head teachers who attended in-service training between the years 2008–2010, the authors identified a wide range of school-based student intervention programmes that are currently in place in primary and secondary schools. These teachers were newly appointed heads of departments in pupil welfare and pupil leadership development, and were therefore in a good position to inform the authors about the state of programmes in schools.

In general, many identified civic and moral education, sex education, life skills training, service learning, career guidance, and co-curricular activities to be essential components in the general curriculum, many of which are or could be offered by the school psychologist. These largely affective and pastoral programmes are carried out with the aim of fostering pupils with the appropriate skills and knowledge to deal with common daily challenges such as negative peer pressure, self-management across academic and social demands, and dealing with temptations and distractions of different sorts. They seek to involve students in ‘experiential learning activities of self with other selves in human relations from familial, through the wider … relations of school, community and eventually nation’ (Wei & Chin, 2004, p. 640). Some interventions such as the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) require compulsory involvement of students in community social service while school co-curricular activities, like uniformed groups, clubs or athletic activities, allow students to accumulate points to meet requirements for entry into junior colleges.

Affective programmes are expected to be conceptualized, formulated and designed with the Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Framework as the ‘organizing structure’ (SEL Resource Pack for Singapore Schools, 2008). Well-documented in research (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), SEL was initiated by the Ministry of Education in 2005 with the aim of helping students ‘recognize and manage their emotions, develop empathy and concern for others, establish positive relationships’ (Ee, 2009, p. xi), and make responsible decisions and be better able to handle challenges. Specifically, school affective and pastoral programmes build student instruction and learning around the development of five critical competencies exemplified in the SEL approach—self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship management, and responsible decision-making.

The whole-school approach also means that all teachers are at the front line in identifying and assisting students with problems, and facilitating students’ personal and social development (Lam & Hui, 2010). The head of the department in pupil welfare, leadership, or other affective education portfolios is mainly responsible for planning and implementing the primary-level programmes across different school levels. Resource school personnel such as the discipline master/mistress, allied educator (counselling) [that is, school counsellor], CARE officer (Caring Action in Response to Emergency), and others, are involved. At the classroom and instructional level, teachers are encouraged to see themselves as facilitators in promoting social-emotional learning through fostering a safe and supportive social and learning environment to nurture students, and in providing a stimulating and challenging curriculum programme. Specifically, teachers work to integrate and/or incorporate the SEL principles in lessons, introduce them into instructional processes such as interdisciplinary project work and use these principles to guide school discipline and behaviour management practices. They are also expected routinely to help students apply these principles in real life situations through various experiential learning opportunities (such as co-curriculum activities) and seizing teachable moments.

A preventive approach at the primary level of school-based interventions may offer a sound approach to building a broad set of competencies related to students’ overall well-being and development, and to promoting their school adjustment and engagement (Greenberg et al., 2003). Such structured and systematic interventions introduce students to ‘productive social networks’ (Gilman, Meyers, & Perez, 2004, p. 33) that reflect school and societal values and can provide the protective mechanisms for those at risk (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Indeed, research evidence has shown that broad-based student-focused programmes, such as the SEL, are able to alter the dynamics of students’ social networks to bring about positive outcomes. These outcomes include: improved student attitudes (e.g., sense of self-efficacy, improved coping with school stressors, higher academic motivation and educational aspirations); behaviour (pro-social behaviour, increased attendance, fewer absences and suspensions, reductions in fights and disruptions, more involvement in positive activities); and improved academic performance and critical thinking skills (Greenberg et al., 2003).

To date, the literature strongly indicates that direct intervention in the psychological and emotional determinants of learning may be an effective way to develop potential dimensions of learning (Durlak et al., 2011; Elias et al., 2007; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1997). Most of the empirical evidence was drawn from American schools (Durlak et al., 2011; Spoth, Guyll, Lillehoj, & Redmond, 2007), and the effectiveness of such programmes has yet to be evaluated in Singaporean schools. A major challenge in evaluating the impact of such universal school-based programmes is that the goal of intervention is to prevent something from happening (Clonan, Chafouleas, McDougal, & Riley-Tillman, 2004). It is therefore difficult to show the extent to which their implementation has been successful in reducing the incidence of anticipated problems and in improving academic outcomes, without the benefit of comparative data. In addition, although SEL provides the organizing framework, surveys of teaching resource materials and observations by the authors, and anecdotal accounts from local teachers and students suggest that many of the affective programmes overlap and emphasize similar value- and belief-based constructs (Lee & Chong, 2010). There is also overlap in the skills that the different programmes are aiming to teach. For example, empathy and conflict resolution parallels anger management skills, and refusal skills are really assertiveness skills. While these provide reinforcement of learning, there appears to be redundancy in the non-academic curriculum, suggesting the need for educators to revisit it with the view of streamlining instructional processes. Finally, it is noted that many of practices and programmes call for emotional and affective dimensions in educational goals and practices. They emphasize the emotional dimensions of students’ lives and their learning experiences, and provide opportunities to promote emotional literacy, competence, well-being, and mental health of the students (Ecclestone & Hayes, 2009; Lee & Chong, 2010). By also embedding these dimensions in the academic curriculum, they change the roles and pedagogical practices of teachers, and require them to have the skills and dispositions to know how and when to foster affective learning. Many teachers are not specifically trained in these skills to facilitate such learning.

Secondary and tertiary interventions

Student problems and student behaviours are constrained by multiple factors within the school, home and community systems. It would be difficult to expect that successful efforts in a programme will generalize across settings and contexts or even with different teachers (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Preventive efforts are, of course, insufficient to support this primary intervention structure, particularly for those students with emerging problems or established patterns of maladaptive behaviour. The whole-school framework, in offering learning, emotional, and behavioural support to the student population, also provides a range of secondary and tertiary interventions specifically for those in need of specialized care and help. The Ministry of Education has provided guiding principles to schools on maximizing resources for interventions at these levels (Ee, 2009). At the first level of secondary intervention, when a student concern is raised, the teacher has the key responsibility for providing the appropriate intervention. This might include further differentiation of class, remediation, basic counselling, or involvement of parents. They may seek consultation with various school personnel such as the school counsellor, discipline master/mistress, vice-principal, or principal. When the problem persists and cannot be resolved with sustained teacher intervention, more direct involvement of specialized school personnel is sought. At the final level, a formal referral will be made to external agencies. In these circumstances, school counsellor will take over the responsibility in liaising with the external professionals and teachers.

A range of school-based interventions has also been developed and are now available to help students who are academically at-risk. For example, learning support programmes in English language and literacy skills, and in mathematics are early intervention efforts aimed at providing support for pupils entering primary education without the foundational skills and knowledge to access the primary school curriculum. These pupils are first screened and then receive daily intervention with specially trained teachers called Learning Support Coordinators in pull-out sessions during curriculum time in small-group sessions. As schools continue to embrace inclusive practices in their admission of students with special educational needs, allied educators (learning and behavioural support) and teachers trained in special needs have been deployed to provide in-class support, and specific interventions in academic (e.g., reading) or non-academic domains (e.g., social skills, study and organizational skills) to facilitate their learning. Allied educators are also available to offer teaching and learning, and remediation help within and outside the classroom to those who are academically weak, and to assist in the running of co-curricular activities. For those with psychosocial difficulties, school counsellors attend to these needs and are responsible for initiating and designing programmes that promote interpersonal functioning. Programmes about school bullying, peer mediation, conflict management, and stress management represent a common range of activities aimed at the identified needs and problems of the students (e.g., Yeo & Choi, 2011). These networks of teaching support are a recent school phenomenon, established first in mid-2000s, as the Ministry acknowledges and works to address the diverse needs of today’s children and young people.

Role of educational psychologists

Students whose learning and/or behavioural and emotional difficulties persist despite the support provided by Learning Support Coordinators and school counsellors are referred to Ministry of Education school psychologists, known as educational psychologists (EP) in the Singapore context. Unlike countries such as the US and Canada where the ratio of school psychologists to students is about 1:2000, presently, the ratio of EPs to students in Singapore is about 1:14,000 (Yeo & Choi, 2011). Due to the acute shortage of EPs in the Singapore school system, the role of the EP is largely focused on providing psychological evaluation for referred students so as to ascertain the nature of their needs with a view to providing appropriate interventions. Referrals that call for frontline EP involvement usually include: specific learning difficulties (e.g., dyslexia), developmental disabilities (e.g., global developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder), and psychological disorders (e.g., anxiety and depression). Allied educators and school counsellors, in close consultation with the EPs, draw up and implement follow-up interventions (such as the preparation of Individual Education Plans and strategies for intervention). The EPs also assist in connecting students with community resources (e.g., child development clinics in the local hospitals) for students who require specific specialist intervention (e.g., psychiatric management or medication) beyond what the schools are able to provide.

Thus, in many ways, the role of the EPs in delivering psychological services is similar to that of school psychologists in the West. Additionally, EPs seek to help schools build capacity to meet the diverse needs of their students by providing school-based training for Learning Support Coordinators, allied educators, and teachers in various areas of special needs support. Given that an EP may service an average of 14 schools, the effort to give psychology away to teachers and allied educators is a significant challenge. In fact, this need to strengthen schools’ capacity to develop preventative programmes has become even more pressing in the last few years following the implementation of compulsory education in 2003 and with it, an increasing number of children in classrooms with mild learning issues. It would appear that EPs would do well to continue their efforts in strengthening preventive work that involves consultation and collaboration, staff development and parent training (Forlin, 2010; Theron & Donald, 2012; Toland & Carrigan, 2011).

Role of teachers

To translate these programmes into practice, teachers need to have the necessary skills and disposition to carry out the tasks. In particular, teachers need a paradigm shift from seeing their role as instructor and educator to one that involves facilitation and enablement. This calls for professional teacher training development in soft skills that enable them to be more effective in identifying, assessing and implementing programmes. The training needs to enhance teachers’ understanding of development and the life circumstances of children, the processes that produce problems, and knowledge about what contextual factors trigger, perpetuate and alter the problem. Teachers also need knowledge and skills to facilitate communication with children and to enhance teacher-child contacts. These training components are largely grounded in psychological and developmental principles, which suggest that educational psychologists and counselling professionals are particularly well suited to assist with the process of teacher skill acquisition (Annan & Priestley, 2012).

These affective and interpersonal skills will prepare teachers as well as the Ministry and schools to recognize the importance of relational factors in student success and the potential of teacher-student relationships as resources for all students. Schools are therefore creating avenues to encourage more meaningful interactions and exchanges between teachers and individual students during curriculum hours. Research has shown that trusting and respectful teacher-student relationships are a valuable resource in supporting the construction of meaningful contexts to facilitate student coping and adjustment, particularly where home-support is poor (Chen, 2008; Chong, Huan, Quek, Yeo, & Ang, 2010; Pianta, 1999). This is in harmony with the resilience perspective which highlights the importance of social support as a protective factor to help children better handle challenges and adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Pianta & Walsh, 1998; Theron & Donald, 2012; Toland & Carrigan, 2011).

School-based family interventions

The whole-school framework focuses on enhancing the learning experiences of students outside the academic domain. School engagement of students’ families is primarily undertaken at the primary level of intervention. The approach precludes a model of school-based family intervention even when it becomes clear that family engagement is necessary to resolve particular student problems. This has implications for the roles of educational personnel (Gerrard, 2008; Lee & Chong, 2010; Luk-Fong, 2013; Van Schalkwyk, 2010). Schools do recognize the importance of parent engagement to support children’s school success (Chen, 2008). Much of the schools’ engagement of parents is in encouraging their participation and involvement so as to strengthen and promote the home-school-community partnership and collaboration (Luk-Fong, 2013). Schools encourage parent involvement through Parent Support Groups (PSG). Support offered by parents, ranges from being a teacher’s aide to organizing school events. The PSG also provides an important channel for parents to raise issues and concerns, seek clarification of decisions and resolve problems, enabling schools to identify and respond to issues of interest to parents. Such efforts again aim to promote strengths and build capacity in the individuals and their families at a systemic level (Van Schalkwyk, 2010, 2011). This approach is based on the belief that child and family outcomes will be enhanced if members participate in identifying needs, establishing social supports and partnerships, and in the process acquire skills and competencies, rather than simply receiving services from professionals (Sheridan, Warnes, Cowan, Schemm, & Clarke, 2004).

At secondary and tertiary levels of intervention, it is recognized that parent engagement and involvement are crucial to help children at risk with learning issues, or who are already struggling. In many cases, the problem is systemic and successful problem resolution requires extensive and intensive work with the family (Van Schalkwyk & Sit, 2013). Anecdotal accounts from school personnel confirm that this is particularly so for younger children at the primary school level and those with specific learning needs as they are still limited in their capacity for independent thinking and functioning (Chong et al., 2010; Ee, 2009; Lee & Chong, 2010). Parents are informed and consulted first by the class teacher, and attempts are made to solicit their cooperation and collaboration in intervention work. If the concerns are beyond the role of the teacher to resolve, the family and student may be referred to the school counsellor. However, when prolonged engagement is envisaged because of the complexity of the issues, families are usually referred to external family service centres. Since school-based family interventions are not within the purview of schools, any family-based intervention work by the school counsellor remains short-term. This approach to therapeutic family work is also constrained because of a lack of skills of school counsellors in working with families. With educational psychologists, parent involvement is usually solicited when an assessment and/or evaluation of the student’s learning needs suggest the importance of continuing home support and monitoring. Educational interventions are mainly consultative, episodic and brief in nature, and subsequent follow-up work is usually undertaken by the source of referral. The state of practice suggests that although research has shown how certain parenting practices are related to particular developmental outcomes, we do not know as much about how to leverage on what is known to change the behaviour of parents who do not typically use these practices to help their children succeed in school (Elias et al., 2007; Small & Memmo, 2004).

Conclusion

Considering its small physical size and limited resources, education is a critical pathway through which Singapore can maximize its access and advantage in the global economy. To this end, the Education Ministry has outlined desired outcomes of education that emphasize a broad-based and holistic education that enables Singapore children to develop their potential. This is achieved through a diversified educational programme aimed at exploiting different student interests and talents, and thus emphasizes beyond academic development and achievement. A systematic preventive framework involving the identification, assessment, and implementation of school-wide and student-focused interventions has been set in place to support such diverse student learning needs. These programmes aim at early intervention to foster and promote student capability. Remedial support, through secondary and tertiary issue-specific interventions, is further provided to those pupils who continue to experience difficulties and fail to benefit from these initiatives. In this regard, school psychological services play an essential role in seeking to help schools build capacity to meet the diverse needs of their students. It does so by providing school-based consultation and training for teaching personnel in various areas of special needs support. Although parent support and collaboration are often sought, school-based family interventions are not within the purview of schools. However, the provision of an education that also embraces moral, physical, social, emotional, and aesthetical aspects of students’ development may provide an important avenue to support families in the socialization and nurturance of their children.

Footnotes

Author biographies

Wan Har Chong, PhD, is Associate Professor with the Psychological Studies Academic Group, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests include positive adolescent development, issues in school counseling, and self processes in learning, motivation and development. Address: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616. Email: wanhar.chong@nie.edu.sg

Boon Ooi Lee, PhD, is Lecturer with the Psychological Studies Academic Group. His areas of interest are cultural healing systems, transcultural psychiatry, multicultural therapy, and psychology of religion. Address: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616. Email: boonooi.lee@nie.edu.sg

Soo Yin Tan, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer with the Psychological Studies Academic Group. Her research interests include substance-abuse counselling and counselling supervision. Address: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616. Email: sooyin.tan@nie.edu.sg

Shyh Shin Wong, PhD, is Lecturer in Psychological Studies, and his clinical and research interests include life-span developmental integrative multidimensional meta-theoretical models, transformational therapy, experiential cognitive behavioral therapy, process-centered therapy, dialectical mind therapy, unconditional happiness theory, and transpersonal pathways in education. Address: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616. Email: shyhshin.wong@nie.edu.sg

Lay See Yeo, PhD, is an Associate Professor with the Psychological Studies Academic Group. Her research interests include cognitive-behavioral therapy, child and adolescent development, school readiness and transition, preschool literacy, and inclusive education. Address: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616. Email: laysee.yeo@nie.edu.sg

References

Annan

Priestley

(2012) A contemporary story of school psychology. School Psychology International, 33: 325–344. doi: 10.1177/0143034311412845.

Brown-Chidsey

Steege

M. W.

(2013) Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice, 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Caplan

(1964) Principles of preventative psychology, New York, NY: Basic Books.

Chen

J. J.-L.

(2008) Grade-level differences: Relations of parental, teacher and peer support to academic engagement and achievement among Hong Kong students. School Psychology International, 29: 183–198. doi: 10.1177/0143034308090059.

Chong

W. H.

Huan

V Quek

C. L.

Yeo

L. S.

Ang

R. P.

(2013) Teacher-student relationship: The influence of teacher interpersonal behaviours and perceived beliefs about teachers on the school adjustment of low achieving students in Asian middle schools. School Psychology International, 31: 312–328. doi: 10.1177/0143034310366207.

Clonan

S. M.

Chafouleas

S. M.

McDougal

J. L.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

(2004) Positive psychology goes to school: Are we there yet? Psychology in the Schools, 41: 101–110. doi: 10.1002/pits.10142.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011) The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82: 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.

Ecclestone

Hayes

(2009) The dangerous rise of therapeutic education, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

(2009) Empowering metacognition through social-emotional learning: Lessons for the classroom, Singapore: Cengage Learning.

10.

Elias

M. J.

Patrikakou

E. N.

Weissberg

R. P.

(2007) A competence-based framework for parent-school-community partnerships in secondary schools. School Psychology International, 28: 540–554. doi: 10.1177/0143034307085657.

11.

Forlin

(2013) The role of the school psychologist in inclusive education for ensuring quality learning outcomes for all learners. School Psychology International, 31: 617–630. doi: 10.1177/0143034310386535.

12.

Gerrard, B. (2008). School-based family counseling: Overview, trends and recommendations for future research. International Journal for School-Based Family Counseling, 1, 1–30. Retrieved from http://www.schoolbasedfamilycounseling.com/journal.html.

13.

Gilman

Meyers

Perez

(2004) Structured extracurricular activities among adolescents: Findings and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 41: 31–41. doi: 10.1002/pits.10136.

14.

Greenberg

M. T.

Weissberg

R. P.

O’Bien

M. U.

Zins

J. E.

Fredericks

Resnik

Elias

M. J.

(2003) Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58: 466–474. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.

15.

Lam

S. K. Y.

Hui

E. K. P.

(2013) Factors affecting the involvement of teachers in guidance and counselling as a whole-school approach. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38: 219–234. doi: 10.1080/03069881003674962.

16.

Lane

K. L.

Beebe-Frankenberger

(2004) School-based Interventions: The Tools You Need To Succeed, Boston, MA: Pearson.

17.

Lee, B. O., & Chong, W. H. (2010). Psychology, therapeutic beliefs, and psychiatric diagnosis in Singapore schools. Unpublished Manuscript, Singapore: Nanyang Technological University. (Available directly from the author: wanhar.chong@nie.edu.sg).

18.

Low

S. K.

Kok

J. K.

Lee

M. N.

(2013) A holistic approach to school-based counseling and guidance services in Malaysia. School Psychology International. 34(2), 190--201. doi: 10.1177/0143034312453398.

19.

Luk-Fong

Y. Y.

(2013) ‘External conditions affecting a harmonious family’: Lessons learned from a school-based parent education programme in Hong Kong. School Psychology International. 34(2), 166--176. doi: 10.1177/0143034312453396.

20.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

Becker

(2000) The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71: 543–562. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00164.

21.

Ministry of Education (2008). The SEL resource pack for Singapore schools. Singapore: Guidance Branch.

22.

Ministry of Education (2009). Desired outcomes of education. Singapore.

23.

Pianta

R. C.

(1999) Enhancing relationships between children and teachers, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

24.

Pianta

R. C.

Walsh

D. J.

(1996) High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships, New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Pianta

R. C.

Walsh

D. J.

(1998) Applying the construct of resilience in schools: Cautions from a developmental systems perspective. School Psychology Review, 27: 407–417.

26.

Richard

J. F.

Schneider

B. H.

Mallett

(2012) Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33(3): 263–284.

27.

Sheridan

S. M.

Warnes

E. D.

Cowan

R. J.

Schemm

A. V.

Clarke

B. L.

(2004) Family-centered positive psychology: Focusing on strengths to build student success. Psychology in the Schools, 41: 7–17. doi: 10.1002/pits.10134.

28.

Silliman

(2004) Key issues in the practice of youth development. Family Relations, 53: 12–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2004.00003.x.

29.

Small

Memmo

(2004) Contemporary models of youth development and problem prevention: Toward an integration of terms, concepts, and models. Family Relations, 53: 3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2004.00002.x.

30.

Spoth

Guyll

Lillehoj

Redmond

(2007) Prosper study of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community-university partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology, 35: 981–999. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20207.

31.

Theron

Donald

(2012) Educational psychology and resilience in developing contexts: A rejoinder to Toland and Carrigan (2011). School Psychology International. 34(1), 51--66. doi: 10.1177/0143034311425579.

32.

Toland

Carrigan

(2011) Educational psychology and resilience: New concept, new opportunities. School Psychology International, 32: 95–106. doi: 10.1177/0143034310397284.

33.

Van Schalkwyk, G.J. (2010). Mapping Chinese family systems and parental involvement in educational settings in Macao. International Journal of School-based Family Counseling, 2, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.schoolbasedfamilycounseling.com/journal.html.

34.

Van Schalkwyk, G.J. (2011). Saving face: hierarchical positioning in family-school relationships in Macao. International Journal of School-based Family Counseling, 3, 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.schoolbasedfamilycounseling.com/journal.html.

35.

Van Schalkwyk

G. J.

Sit

H. H. Y.

(2013) Evaluating school-based psychological and counselling services in Macao using a qualitative approach. School Psychology International. 34(2), 154--165. doi: 10.1177/0143034312453395.

36.

Wang

M. C.

Haertel

G. D.

Walberg

H. J.

(1997) Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63: 249–294.

37.

Wei

T. T.

Chin

C. L.

(2004) Moral and citizenship education as statecraft in Singapore: A curriculum critique. Journal of Moral Education, 33: 597–606. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000315644.

38.

Yeo

L. S.

Choi

P. M.

(2011) Cognitive-behavioral therapy for children with behavioural difficulties in the Singapore mainstream school setting. School Psychology International, 32: 616–631. doi: 10.1177/0143034311406820.