Peer-Facilitated Adult Education

This chapter describes the development of a drug and alcohol preventionprogram that is facilitated on a parent-to-parent basis in an elementaryschool setting.

Peer-Facilitated Adult Education

Susan Anderson

The idea of creating a peer model of adult education developed out of a socialworker’s need to provide a program of substance abuse prevention within aschool district. Having treated the catastrophic end of family dysfunction forover ten years in an acute psychiatric service, I wanted to intervene at the ear-lier stages of family development. The questions that remained were these:How can I provide a substance abuse program to elementary schoolchildrenthat will have long-term effects? How can I integrate a family systems modelwithin a public education setting? How can I provide a dynamic program thatcan promote psychosocial change within the family? How can I send the mes-sage of substance abuse prevention and family wellness to the community atlarge? And finally, how can I provide these services with limited professionalresources? I was but one family systems specialist for an entire school district.

The Community Parent Center Emerges

After a year of trial and error, the program that emerged in answer to these needscame to be called the Community Parent Center. In its early stages the programroughly resembled a peer-facilitation model, but there were many stumblingblocks to overcome before it actually functioned on a parent-to-parent basis. Itwas overcoming these stumbling blocks that led to creative program develop-ment. The result is a unique model of adult education that is self-sustaining, facil-itated by parents, runs on personal growth and development, and even earnsmoney—both for the parents and for the community.

Many of the novel features of this model grew out of the need to synthe-size two seemingly disparate disciplines—psychotherapy and education. TheCommunity Parent Center evolved as a viable hybrid, a self-generating new

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION, no. 81, Spring 1999 © Jossey-Bass Publishers 15

16 ENHANCING CREATIVITY IN ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

species that soon spread beyond its own boundaries and adapted to new envi-ronments, bringing its message of substance abuse prevention and family well-ness to neighboring communities.

It was possible to bridge the gap between the two models because thegoals of the social work profession and those of the educational system arecompatible. Both disciplines are interested in promoting competent, sound,healthy individuals and ultimately in enhancing psychosocial evolution,although they differ in how they meet those goals. An elementary school’s pri-mary function is to educate, to increase knowledge base, skills, and awarenesswithin the scope of its curriculum. A social worker’s primary function withinthe school is to facilitate change—change at the level of attitude, feelings, andbehavior, change that promotes emotional health.

To clarify how educational and psychosocial approaches function differ-ently, let’s take smoking prevention as an example. An academic approach tosmoking prevention would be to offer information about the facts and statis-tics related to the dangers of smoking, techniques for quitting, and a databaseof available resources. In contrast, the social work profession has made a rig-orous study of resistance to change—the phenomenon that accounts for the factthat in spite of increased awareness about the risks of smoking, many well-informed people continue to smoke. A social worker’s program on smokingprevention would make this very resistance the focus of its intervention strat-egy; its program would be targeted to activities that enable participants tochange their behavior. Providing information that “smoking isn’t good for you”is one approach; providing a vehicle designed to help people to stop smokinginvolves a very different focus and methodology.

Targeting Parents. In keeping with the family systems approach, the pri-mary beneficiaries of the program I had in mind were to be the children—butthe immediate impact would be on the parents. The program would bedesigned to help parents change their highly routinized, automatic behaviorpatterns that interfered in the positive development of their children. An exam-ple is parents’ tendency to become frustrated and yell at their children. Byteaching parents techniques for building children’s self-esteem and competency,parents can transfer these skills to their families. Thus, the benefits of the pro-gram were to trickle down to the children.

This top-down approach is in keeping with a family systems model thatseeks to intervene at the higher-organizing level of the system—in this case,the parents—on behalf of its constituent parts—in this case, the children(Donigian and Lalnati, 1996). The point was to help parents help their chil-dren grow into healthy adults.

An analogous paradigm was being integrated within the elementaryschool district. Instruction was moving away from the mechanistic approach.Using the skill of language as an example, instruction was moving away fromthe traditional method in which children were taught to build from letters towords, words to sentences, and sentences upward to meaning. The new para-digm in which teachers were being trained guided students first to the overall

17PEER-FACILITATED ADULT EDUCATION

context and meaning of a targeted subject and then to the composite word-symbols and operational skills. Thus, in view of the theoretical congruencebetween family systems and holistic educational models, the school climateprovided fertile ground for the development of a holistic family systemsapproach to substance abuse prevention.

My first attempt was to set up family therapy services within the school,but this attempt was doomed to failure. Parents were not comfortable confid-ing about the intimate details of their personal lives in the all-too-familiar envi-ronment of a public school, whose halls still held the echoes of their ownchildhood memories. I would have to find another way to intervene in thefamily system.

Developing a program of parenting education workshops seemed to be amore congruent approach, but it was not without its own drawbacks. Parentingeducation offered an information-based program rather than one promoting psy-chosocial change. Yet parenting education was more in sync with the overallactivity structure of the school and less threatening to parents. In addition, it fitinto the school’s stated mission to promote parents-as-partners-in-education.

The task then was to design a parenting education program that couldincorporate psychosocial dynamics. Peer group dynamics is a well-knowntechnology for promoting peer pressure capable of motivating behavioralchange (Dryden, 1995; Christner, 1994). Building peer process into the pro-gram design would create a vehicle for helping parents change entrenched pat-terns of behavior. The program would make use of information-based contentbut its success would not be measured in terms of how much the participantslearned cognitively; instead, success would be measured in terms of observ-able behavior change.

Process Versus Content. Peer interaction creates a learning laboratoryin which parents can learn a particular skill—validating feelings, for example—by learning how to validate each other’s feelings during the course of the work-shop. As they learn its benefits experientially as well as cognitively, the positivepeer pressure of the group dynamics motivates them to transfer this enhancedskill to their parent-child relationships.

Thus, the program was to operate on two levels: an educational levelinvolving exposure to content information and a process level involving peerinteraction. The content consisted of the principles of parenting—how to buildyour child’s self-esteem, set realistic expectations, improve behavior, promoteachievement, and enhance the parent-child bond. Because these principlesinvolved the acquisition of effective communication skills and other prosocialbehaviors, it was clear that the information was ideally suited to a peer groupformat. Parent-child communication skills mirror adult-adult communicationskills. Through parent-to-parent interaction, these principles could be easilymodeled, practiced, reinforced, and internalized within the dynamics of peerprocess.

The Facilitator’s Role. The facilitator’s role is gradually to transfer con-trol of the group to the participants. As responsibility for group process


emerges from within, the highest level of adult functioning in each person isreinforced.

Group Structure. To create the optimal environment in which peer inter-action can build, chairs are arranged in a circle, each equidistant from the cen-ter, making a structural statement for each member’s equal value. The circleprovides a contrast to the traditional classroom arrangement in which a teacherstands before rows of students as the expert bestowing information to the lesswell informed. Members of a circle are able to focus on the group experiencerather than on an identified leader. In the traditional model, the leader isexpected to serve as the primary source of the information. Once a peerprocess is established, the interaction, rather than the leader, becomes the pri-mary source of new ideas and skills. The circle allows for a lateral style of com-munication in which participation is even. The leader becomes a participantobserver, sitting within the circle side by side with the other members, con-veying program information in a conversational rather than a formal manner.

Obstacles to Creating Parent-to-Parent Process

In initiating the first series of parent workshops, there were obstacles to creat-ing the peer dynamics I planned for. The parents’ expectations tended to be atodds with the function of a peer group; they expected to receive informationthe same way their children received it—from a teacher or expert. This expec-tation for a parallel process caused parents to look up to the facilitator as thesource of information, thus creating a hierarchical relationship in which theypositioned themselves as students—as subordinates—to an expert.

Subordinated in a recipient role, parents had no difficulty attending to theprogram’s content on a cognitive level but were less prone to engage in peerinteraction. By focusing on the leader, they were less likely to discover the wis-dom of the group or tap into their own capacities for self-education, mastery,and change. In other words, in the presence of an identified expert, the groupdynamics that I was hoping to facilitate did not materialize.

The techniques for overcoming resistance to group process are wellknown. For any social work facilitator, the struggle to localize power withinthe membership is expected to involve a persistent effort (Rosenthal, 1994).But because the parenting education program was set within a school culture,the parents clearly expected the professional advice of an expert. Balancingthese expectations with the need to promote peer process became most appar-ent each week as I presented the didactic portion of the program.

Each workshop began with an open peer discussion about family issuesthat arose during the week. But this process was disrupted the moment I com-menced to present the day’s topic. Doing so placed me in the teacher role,causing many parents to lapse into hierarchical positioning once again andbegin deferring to me as the expert, asking me questions that would be betteranswered by the group: “Is it all right to speak?” “How does this techniqueapply to my situation?”


To overcome this, I began presenting the didactic portion of the programthrough self-help materials, which included commercially prepackaged audio-tapes, videotapes, and workbooks. Asking parents to take turns pushing theStart button, I was able to step into the background as these parent-levelresources were able to supplant the need for expert or teacher. With informa-tion being presented in the form of impartial resources, parents were less proneto subordinate themselves to the learning experience. Instead, they were ableto engage the information laterally, through mutual discussion. The parentswere invited to critique the self-help materials and determine for themselveswhether the information had any useful application to their own family situa-tions. Having truly become consumers of the information rather than mererecipients, parents were in a position to exercise the power of choice; theycould assert their individuality and autonomy within the peer process.Through the use of parent-level resources, the parents’ highest level of egofunctioning was reinforced and honored, and the tendency toward subordi-nation to the expert was minimized.

In spite of the use of the circle and the self-help resources, a constantinflux of new members into the program—a desirable occurrence—posed anadditional challenge to the process. New parents, expecting to receive straight-forward professional advice, tended to overlook the tenuous peer process thatwas developing and tried to draw me in as teacher, directing expert questionsto me and taking the focus off the group process. Because I am a mental healthprofessional, it was natural for them to identify me as teacher or expert in par-enting education. The truth was that parenting education was a brand-newtechnology for me; my area of expertise was helping people access their owninnate wisdom, their capacity for self-discovery and change. Because I waslearning about many of the precepts of parenting techniques through the sameprepackaged materials, I began engaging in a parallel process of learning withthe parents. By sharing my own struggles in learning to implement these tech-niques within my own family, I was able to show them that an “expert” canalso be a peer.

Benefits of a Peer Group

Although I was able to facilitate information by becoming part of the peerprocess, the program still had a ways to go before it could serve as a dynamicvehicle for change. As long as an identified professional was present, new par-ents tended to reinfect the group with expectations for a hierarchical learningprocess and dilute the peer dynamics. The result was that the practicing behav-iors of autonomy and self-directedness between the other group members tem-porarily declined in response.

My determination did not diminish, however. The peer group process Iwas aiming for offered many benefits. When members learn that they cannotrely on a leader or expert to make the group meaningful, each begins to takeresponsibility for the quality of the discussion, for adhering to the format, for


following its guidelines, and for maintaining balance, fairness, and purpose.As members take on these responsibilities, their adult functioning levelsincrease in the context of the group. They gain comfort in the group and beginto risk higher levels of participation, becoming more competent and confidentin their abilities. The group builds self-esteem as members experience theirpositive impact on one another. These behavioral changes represent real gainsin personal growth and development, empowering parents to manage betterthe difficult challenges of raising children.

An additional benefit to group process is that as members feel integral tothe group’s success, a sense of belonging and group cohesion sets in. Positivepeer pressure motivates members to come back each week; parents look for-ward to having their efforts validated by their peers. And as participants attendover an extended period of time, the parenting principles and substance abuseprevention messages that are the basis of the program’s content are reinforcedthrough repetition.

With these goals in mind, I persisted in my efforts to minimize the role ofexpert and maximize the horizontal process of peer interaction. Yet there wasstill a tendency for many parents to give me credit for gains that were clearlycoming from within themselves. In other words, my identified role as a pro-fessional was still interfering with the program’s ability to allow parents to gaina real sense of their own abilities.

The implication of this was radical: I would have to remove myself fromthe process altogether before a pure parent-to-parent model could reach opti-mal levels. And indeed, it was in absenting myself from the workshops that acreative new model emerged.

Creation of a Leaderless Group: A Pure Peer Model

The break came toward the end of the year. Eight to ten regular attendees hadbecome a cohesive core, showing up for each group regardless of topic or loca-tion. Why not teach these core participants to become peer facilitators? Whynot provide them with the tools to facilitate their own parenting workshopsfor other groups of parents? Then I would be able to step back and supportthe parent education program from a distance and assess whether the pro-gram’s goal to promote change at the level of the family system was beingachieved.

When I first proposed this idea to the core group, they were understand-ably reluctant. They did not believe they could acquire enough skill to run theworkshops. I pointed out that I had been modeling a peer facilitator role allalong, that I had been letting the prepackaged materials play the expert role. Iexplained how the peer model allows greater levels of self-esteem and personalempowerment to develop within the group, rather than allowing all of thecredit and esteem to be given to the leader. As parents, they could create a truepeer model of facilitation and bring the messages of parent education to otherparents on a parent-to-parent basis. My professional status was actually an


impediment to that end. As peer parents, they could provide a more effectivegroup process, unencumbered by all that a professional title represents in aschool system.

My new focus in program development was to find ways to reassure myprospective trainees of their own capabilities. I reassured them that modelsfor peer-facilitated group programs had been established by Maxwell Jones(1994) with the concept of the therapeutic community as well as by thewomen’s consciousness-raising groups that developed in the late 1960s andearly 1970s, in which a peer-facilitated format was used successfully, honey-combing the country with leaderless women’s groups and creating a revolu-tion of change (Shreve, 1989).

I also emphasized that it was not necessary for them to become expertparents to become parent facilitators. They needed only to learn to follow asimple format and to facilitate the prepackaged parenting materials, the tapesand workbook exercises they were already familiar with.

As we continued to address their many apprehensions and concerns, wefound ourselves engaged in an intensive peer dynamics of our own, one thatled to a creative process of program development and helped build significantinnovations into the program. For instance, in order to feel confident, the peerfacilitators needed to see a “how-to”—an easy-to-follow script that would makeit possible for them to run successful workshops for other groups of parents.So we developed what we called a recipe for success, a written document printedon a three-by-five card that came to be referred to as the parent-facilitator for-mat. It served as a basic blueprint, a script that prescribed a sequence of activ-ities designed to make each workshop session proceed smoothly, comfortably,and meaningfully. The next idea was that parents would run the workshops inpairs. Each would have a peer facilitator sitting across from him or her in thecircle, helping to follow the script and offering on-site support. The idea ofcofacilitation was built into program policy. All parent-facilitated programswere to be run by twos.

The prospective facilitators expressed concern about whether other par-ents would be interested in attending programs run by nonexperts. Out of thisconcern came a plan for marketing the parent-to-parent program that involvedoutreach strategies designed to assess community needs and provide respon-sive programming on location.

Before launching the first series of parent-facilitated workshops, we triedto anticipate the problems that might come up in the course of running agroup. The biggest concerns were these: What if members are silent? What ifsomeone attempts to dominate the group? What if members look to the par-ent facilitators as experts? What if members begin attacking one another?What if they disagree with the materials being presented? In addressing theseconcerns, written guidelines for troubleshooting were developed. Also devel-oped were posters that could be openly displayed in the various workshoplocations, reinforcing important program policies and disclaimers. For exam-ple, one poster read: Materials being presented do not represent the philosophy of


the Community Parent Center but are provided to stimulate discussion. Critique iswelcome!

Another innovation was the development of the weekly peer-facilitatorsupervision group, which provided ongoing support to parents who were cofa-cilitating workshops, allowing them to pool experiences, address problems,and help shape overall program direction. As always, I modeled the partici-pant observer role, preparing written materials in advance rather than takingon a teacher role during the supervision group process.

Program Launch

The facilitators were ready to begin outreach to their churches, temples, recre-ation centers, libraries, children’s schools, clubs, and other organizations. Theysucceeded in drawing parents to attend their first round of workshops. Theirprograms were successful. Parent facilitators enjoyed their roles, and their newgroup members responded enthusiastically to the parent-to-parent format.

How then could we continue reaching more parents and allow the pro-gram to be ongoing?

A New York State Youth at Risk Community Partnership Grant wasobtained to promote the success of the program. It covered the cost of mate-rials, space, secretarial support, technical assistance, and advertising, such aspress releases, radio announcements, fliers, guest presenters, and the like.

The money also provided a salary to the peer facilitators in order to com-pensate them for their time and justify their absence from their families on themany evenings and weekends when they were running workshops. The smallstipend averaged about $15 per session, a remuneration that served as a formof external validation.

The grant money inspired a new line of thinking for the parent facilita-tors. They decided that they would charge a fee for their workshops, with“scholarships” offered for parents who couldn’t afford to pay on a confidential-request basis. The facilitators wanted to demonstrate that they were able toearn back their own expenses, and they took pride in the business venture sideof the program. Money added a kind of token economy, another element thatmade the program attractive to the community. Charging for the workshopsmade a statement attesting to the value of these services.

As more parents from the community began attending parent-facilitatedworkshops, they wanted to know how they too could become peer facilitators.It was decided that anyone who accrued thirty hours of parenting educationworkshops would be eligible to be trained as a parent facilitator. The “thirty-hour certificate” provided a powerful incentive for parents to continue attend-ing workshops on an ongoing basis. So intense was attendance that a secondtier of trainees was eligible by the end of that first year. Each year there was anew tier of facilitator trainees who were trained not by the original trainer butby the previous tier of trained parent facilitators. By now a whole technology


of written guidelines and training methods had evolved to support what hadbecome a turnkey training program.

Thus, an achievement ladder was created; facilitator salaries increasedaccording to their tier in the program. Incentives offered for accruing multiplethirty-hour certificates included continuing education units (CEUs), invita-tions to advanced workshops, assignments to paid positions, and other spe-cialized roles and perks within the program.

An Expanding Model Today

Today, some parent facilitators have been running programs for over ten years.The senior parent facilitators visit other school districts to help set up peermodels that adapt to the unique needs of diverse settings. Thus, the peermodel of adult education is spreading throughout the neighboring communi-ties, carrying its message of substance abuse prevention and family wellnessand increasing parents’ confidence and competence along the way.

References

Christner, A. M. Addiction and Family Systems. Providence, R.I.: Manisses CommunicationsGroup, 1994.

Donigian, J., and Lalnati, J. Systemic Group Therapy. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1996.Dryden. Facilitating Client Change in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. London: Singular

Publishing Group, 1995.Jones, M. The Therapeutic Community. New York: Basic Books, 1953.Rosenthal, L. Resolving Resistance in Group Psychotherapy. Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1994.Shreve, A. Women Together, Women Alone: The Legacy of the Consciousness Raising Movement.

New York: Viking Penguin, 1989.

SUSAN ANDERSON is a family systems specialist who provides a substance abuse pre-vention program in Bellmore School District and has a private practice in Hunting-ton, New York.

Peer-Facilitated Adult Education

Documents

Transcript of Peer-Facilitated Adult Education