Effecting Change: Motivational Interviewing in Schools

Abstract

Children are arguing outside their classroom; these same youngsters are on a soccer team that lost a game the day prior. Blame is being assigned; strong opinions and emotions are being expressed. Youngsters who are not part of the team are watching with interest. The principal comes by and wants to restore order promptly. Is order restored by threatening consequences to all or does the principal take those arguing aside and ask them if it would help if they considered how they might resolve differences without adult intervention? This latter approach, which is the essence of motivational interviewing (MI), places the onus on the youngsters to decide whether they change and how this might look. Change in the school environment is complicated and is often a slow and sometimes protracted process (Sarason, 1971); this may occur because the school environment emphasizes groups over individuals. This slow change process is of concern because societal expectations for education and schooling are ever evolving. Some individual situations demand rapid and expedient change. Because some problems youngsters have in school cannot wait due to the urgency of their needs, change at the individual level is a more appropriate option. While cognitive and behavioral methods are the most often applied in schools (see Flanagan, Allen, & Levine, 2015), there are youngsters for whom such direct approaches, which may be interpreted as confrontational, may not be effective. MI, which borrows in part from person-centered therapy (Raskin & Rogers, 1995), may be one such alternative that can be used by educators at the individual level. In Motivational Interviewing in Schools: Conversations to Improve Behavior and Learning, Rollnick, Kaplan, and Rutschman effectively make the case that such techniques and methodology can be applied to everyday problems encountered in schools.