Collaboration Between Social Workers and Educational Forces in Schools: Advantages, Objectives, Content, and Form

Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 170 ISSN 1989 – 9572 DOI: 10.47750/jett.2022.13.05.016 Collaboration Between Social Workers and Educational Forces in Schools: Advantages, Objectives, Content, and Form Bich Thi Ngoc Nguyen1 Tuong-Vy Vo-Thi1* Nguyen-Ha Nguyen-Vu1 Vinh-Long Tran-Chi1 Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 13 (5) https://jett.labosfor.com/ Date of reception: 07 Aug 2022 Date of revision: 11 Oct 2022 Date of acceptance: 15 Oct 2022 Bich Thi Ngoc Nguyen, Tuong-Vy Vo-Thi, Nguyen-Ha Nguyen-Vu, Vinh-Long Tran-Chi (2022). Collaboration Between Social Workers and Educational Forces in Schools: Advantages, Objectives, Content, and Form Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers,Vol. 13(5). 170-180. 1Faculty of Psychology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 13 (5) ISSN 1989 – 9572 https://jett.labosfor.com/ Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 171 Collaboration Between Social Workers and Educational Forces in Schools: Advantages, Objectives, Content, and Form Bich Thi Ngoc Nguyen1, Tuong-Vy Vo-Thi1,*, Nguyen-Ha Nguyen-Vu1, Vinh-Long Tran-Chi1 1Faculty of Psychology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam *Corresponding author Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Cooperation between social workers and educational forces in high schools is viewed as a two-way cooperative effort to assist learners needing intervention. Intervention, emergency support for teachers or students needing intervention or assistance; Organize events to promote student development, community integration, and assistance for teachers and parents in need. The evaluation criteria for the cooperation between social workers and educational forces are based on four coordination components. Includes four scales evaluating the advantages, objectives, contents, and form of cooperation between high school social work personnel and educational agencies. A review of the cooperation between social work personnel and educational forces in high schools is gaining interest, although no research has been conducted on this topic. According to research findings, coordination between social work personnel and educational forces in high schools has been formed, albeit to a low and inconsistent degree across activities. The institution must perfect the organizational structure of its operations, management, and social work divisions. Furthermore, when coordinating with educational forces, social work personnel must emphasize the benefits of cooperation with educational forces. In addition, social workers must be adaptable between forms and activities according to the conditions and nature of their work. Keywords : collaboration, social workers, educational forces, objectives, content 1. INTRODUCTION Collaboration between social workers and teachers Efforts to locate facilitators so that instructors can address their issues indicate the need to consult with teachers in order to provide them with assistance for class-wide interventions. Additionally, the consultative style develops a sense of control among educators. Teachers become a vital element of interventions for children's mental health, raising awareness of their usefulness in managing emotional or behavioral issues. Environmental elements in the school, as well as teacher support, teacher stress levels, and organizational procedures appear to have a substantial impact on kids' academic and psychological outcomes. There is evidence that, in some instances, teacher influences may be more influential than home environment factors (Bowen & Bowen, 1998). According to Bronstein and Abramson (2003), social workers and teachers share parallels that aid in building bridges and differences that enrich the collaboration process. Social workers should have access to multidisciplinary training in the universal classroom, educational and social work programs, and the ability to discuss teachers' issues, scores regarding the school, the classroom, the children, and how social workers may assist, as perceived by teachers. Social workers can alleviate the student workload by collaborating with teachers in the classroom. Social workers support teachers through activities outside the classroom in students' homes, the community, and other areas of the school, or by providing information on the impact of multiculturalism and teachers' attention, sharing cross-culturally sensitive techniques to help teachers reach more students and improve the achievement of learning objectives. In addition, social workers might provide policy and program measures that, in the opinion of teachers, strengthen their function. Lynn et al. (2003) propose that social workers and teachers must work together to develop mental health services in schools. The author offered collaboration-fostering strategies: Regular meetings build a pleasant environment for the mutual benefit of working together to satisfy children's mental health and learning requirements. Regular touch with instructors facilitates dialogue and interaction. In addition, social workers must take the time to learn more about the teacher's area of expertise, so that role boundaries are clear. Social work professionals will be able to analyze system problems precisely and unambiguously if they get an awareness of the school and community environment as perceived by teachers, parents, and children. Successful collaboration between social workers and educators lies at the heart of the transformation. A relationship between teachers and social workers can Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 172 enhance and expand the school-based prevention, identification, and treatment of behavioral and emotional issues in children. Berzin et al. (2011) sought to identify collaboration patterns among school social workers within the context of collaborative practice, the individual and contextual factors associated with these categories, and the overall level of collaboration. The result was the identification of four types of school social workers: (1) collaborators, (2) system-level specialists, (3) consultants, and (4) balance collaborators. Although school social workers engage in various collaborative activities, there is a potential to strengthen their position in education and assist teachers in serving as facilitators, according to the study's findings. Diaz (2013) demonstrates that interdisciplinary collaboration has various benefits, including minimizing fragmentation and scaling up educational services, fostering respect among professionals, releasing the potential of roles, and creating novel solutions. According to the author, social work personnel will submit a conflict resolution program, which teachers will utilize to teach conflict resolution skills outside the classroom. Teachers and social workers must administer and test interventions in the classroom and engage in the implementation and troubleshooting of the method, necessitating a collaborative effort. Collaboration across disciplines is an efficient method for schools to use internal staff in addressing student needs and mutual readiness to support one another. Another study by Isaksson and Larsson (2017) described the correlation between school social workers and teachers' collaboration and student happiness in Swedish schools. The results indicate that school social workers and instructors generally concur on the necessity of school social work. Pushkina (2017) says that the relationship between teachers and school social workers is crucial to the well-being of children and can significantly contribute to their success. The author has analyzed this interaction, focusing on how teachers view school social workers and how they perceive and evaluate their position. According to the survey, teachers rarely interact with school social workers and are generally indifferent to school social work services. A certain indifference in school social work can be justified by obstacles such as a lack of time and social work knowledge, as well as misunderstandings amongst experts. This is primarily due to the fact that school social work in Russia is still in its developmental stage. To acquire complete acceptability and acknowledgment, school social work must bolster its position by establishing a unified, transparent framework and providing legal papers (i.e., common standards). Consequently, school social work services will become more popular and valuable. Collaboration between social workers and educational forces Adelman and Taylor (1991) give assessments of social workers and teachers in connection to one another in a variety of school areas, including the practice of classroom strategy development, the field of children's mental health, and tailored teacher assistance for learning. It is crucial to combine vital point perspectives with school context perspectives to comprehend teachers' significant role when health service delivery resources are untapped or underutilized in psychiatry (Rapp, 1998). It also suggests a paradigm for constructing mental health services in schools based on the participation of teachers in all elements of caring for students' mental health in schools (Atkins et al., 1998). Atkins et al. (1998) showed that 70 and 80 percent of children with severe mental health problems do not receive these interventions or psychiatric services (Costello et al., 1993; Ruffolo, 1998). In urban, low-income regions where child support and mental health care resources are severely restricted, service usage rates are frequently the lowest (Atkins et al., 1998). Schools are routinely asked to address children's unmet mental health needs (Zahner & Daskalakis, 1997). In fact, teachers are viewed as crucial participants in the treatment of children's emotional and behavioral disorders in the school setting. It has been proven that teacher support is a protective factor for youth outcomes (Bowen et al., 1998; Bowen & Bowen, 1998). The views of teacher support by middle and high school students considerably impact student learning results and student engagement in education (Bowen & Bowen, 1998). It was discovered that teacher support has a more substantial impact on these outcomes than household risk factors (Bowen & Bowen, 1998). Catron and Weiss (1994) give evidence that outreach attempts to engage parents in school-based mental health services must be increased. School social workers have played a role in bridging the gap between families and schools and are well-equipped to fill this void in school mental health services (Allen-Meares, 2010). School social workers are able to give treatments that target vulnerable groups of students, such as those experiencing a school transition. Adelman and Taylor (1991) discovered that when students moving to middle school received more support services, their depression levels reduced, and their academic performance increased progress (Greene & Ollendick, 1993), improved self-efficacy, a positive perspective on school expectations, and teacher support (Felner et al., 1982). Together with teachers, school social workers have the potential to minimize children's vulnerability and strengthen their resilience (Richman et al., 2004). The data of Sheldon et al. (2010) indicates that in schools trying to develop partnerships between school, family, and community, student attendance increases by an average of 0.5 percent. Epstein et al. (2018) note that regardless of student background and prior accomplishment, high school family and community engagement methods have favorably benefited student achievement and behavior (Epstein et al., 2018). Xu's (2018) research findings indicate that Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 173 family participation is vital for the education of children of all ages, but notably for the success of children with special needs. To use in schools, Openshaw (2008) discusses developmental social work services that can be delivered to children, parents, teachers, and the community by utilizing knowledge, skills, and other social work methodologies. According to National Committee for School Social Work Education and Practice (2015), school social work makes a unique contribution since school social workers bring family, school, and community views to the multidisciplinary team process, hence facilitating an understanding of the social background of the learners. According to Anderson-Butcher and Ashton (2004), cooperation between social workers and other multidisciplinary team members, such as psychologists, speech therapists, and nurses, is frequently a necessary bridge. Interdisciplinary collaboration entails cooperation between two or more autonomous groups or departments that make formal agreements to achieve a common objective. However, research conducted by Vergottini (2019) demonstrates that in crucial areas such as child protection, violence prevention, substance addiction, trauma therapy, and mental health care, there is a demand for social welfare services that exceed the scope of current social services. Social workers in Vietnam In recent years, social security in general and social work, in particular, have received substantial support in Vietnam. Ton-Nu (2011) argues that schools and instructors must collaborate with agencies, departments, and professional forces such as social workers in order to address the issue of children falling out of school. In order to establish a plan to assist the kid, social workers must collaborate with families, teachers, and schools to undertake a full assessment of the child's needs and difficulties. In addition, it is vital to work with teachers to provide extraand co-curricular activities for underprivileged children so that they are no longer bored by their studies. According to a 2016 Ministry of Education and Training and UNICEF Vietnam study on 1,000 students in Dong Thap province, Ho Chi Minh City, and Hanoi capital, the most effective method for resolving students' relationship problems lies within themselves. Moreover, the highest learning word is to suffer in silence (Bui, 2017), with the lack of social work assistance being one of the contributing factors. Hoang's (2017) research emphasizes the necessity for coordination between school, family, and society but does not specify how or what the coordination mechanism entails. Furthermore, Nguyen-Thi (2019) demonstrates that there are currently few human resources for social work in the field of education. On the other hand, Dinh (2020) demonstrates that social work in schools is very new in Vietnam since only a few schools (mostly schools in major cities) have social work departments or social work-related activities. In schools, social work is performed. Social work in schools in hilly regions continues to confront numerous obstacles; hence, the school does not have a social workspace or social work activities currently. According to our knowledge, no prior research has examined collaboration between social workers and educational forces in Vietnamese schools. The goals can be reevaluated considering the benefits and goals of the coordination between social work staff and educational forces in the school, as well as the precise nature and type of cooperation. 2. METHODS 2.1. Research design Participants are asked to thoroughly read the terms and provide the most accurate and truthful responses possible. The identification scales are used to capture the subjects' personal information, including gender, age, seniority, number of cooperative schools, activities, and training positions. 2.2. Participants The total number of disseminated questionnaires was 280; after deleting the unsatisfactory responses based on assessing inaccurate sample information (i.e., selecting the same level), 268 valid responses remained (95.71%), which were satisfactory with a 30% response rate Dillman (2000). Among these were 61 (22.8%) social workers, 173 (64.5%) teachers, and 34 (12.7%) other educational forces in the school. 2.3. Data collection tools Based on Berzin et al. (2011) questionnaire, we selected to develop two scores of the Advantages scale (6 items) and Content scale (10 items) of collaborative activities. Based on Pushkina's (2017) questionnaire, we selected and developed a scale regarding the Objectives scale (10 items) of the collaborative activities. Based on Stone and Charles's (2018) scale of coordination form, we adopt this scale as a scale of Form (5 items) of collaborative activities. 2.4 Data Analysis According to Malhotra et al. (2017), certain sets of observable variables are measured on a 5-point Likert scale arranged from low to high, with the higher the number, the greater the degree of agreement (1 – Strongly Disagree; 2 – Agree; 3 – Neutral; 4 – Agree; 5 – Strongly Agree). Distance value = (Maximum–Minimum)/n = (5–1)/5 = 0.8. Thus, the exact meanings of each level are as follows 1.00 – 1.80: Strongly disagree; 1.81 – 2.60: Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 174 Disagree; 2.61 – 3.40: Neutral; 3.41 – 4.20: Agreement; 4.21 – 5.00: Strongly agree. In this study, version 20 of SPSS was used to calculate Cronbach's Alpha and descriptive statistics. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Reliability Analysis The Cronbach’s Alpha test was used to explore the reliability of four scales, were as follow: Advantages of collaborative activities scale  = .824. Table 1 shows the reliability of four scales and items. Table 1. Cronbach's Alpha Item Correlated ItemTotal Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Advantages of Collaborative Activities Scale  = .824 Support teachers to work with students. .618 .961 Teachers will have more time to teach. .626 .961 No matter what situations arise, I have processes in place to deal with them. .529 .961 Helps to interact with students and find effective solutions to their problems. .676 .960 Make recommendations for teaching and communicating with students .622 .961 Help learn more about the student's family. .637 .961 Objectives of Collaborative Activities Scale  = .936 Make students feel comfortable. .594 .961 Provide students with social security. .618 .961 Improve school atmosphere. .570 .961 Improve student achievement. .533 .961 Partner with teachers to improve their interaction skills. .511 .961 Helps to reduce the dropout rate of students. .516 .961 Help reduce school violence. .537 .961 Study the personality of each student. .495 .961 Help students and teachers deal with personal and social problems. .578 .961 Report progress to the school's Board of Directors. .674 .960 Content of Collaborative Activities Scale  = .954 Support teachers to coordinate with families/relevant agencies. .290 .962 Provide resources for teachers to help their students. .432 .961 Improve the school environment (monitoring, strengthening discipline, preventing bullying). .546 .961 Analyze data to inform principals about student problemrelated decision-making. .555 .961 Equip classroom management techniques for teachers. .406 .962 Collaborate with teachers to implement a student behavior management plan. .606 .961 Provide professional development for teachers. .475 .961 Advise and give appropriate guidance to teachers. .527 .961 Collaborate through school-wide improvements and systemlevel work. .601 .961 Develop school-wide intervention or prevention procedures. .562 .961 Form of Collaborative Activities Scale  = .926 Initiator/coordinator (communicating on behalf of the student, connecting students, families, and teachers with resources, and not necessarily providing direct support to the student). .514 .961 Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 175 Evaluator (coordinates through the collection of information about the student, from parent and teacher information to formal assessments and planning of supports). .574 .961 Interventionist (coordinating through providing interventions directly to students or identifying interventions that will be provided directly to teachers). .584 .961 Whistleblower (focuses on alerting teachers to specific situations, informing students' needs, advising teachers on teaching methods, and providing teachers with professional support) ). .583 .961 Collaborators (with teachers sharing and assessing students' needs, finding ways to address those needs, co-creating interventions, and tracking students over time). .533 .961 Objectives of collaborative activities scale  = .936, Content of collaborative activities scale  = .954, and Form of collaborative activities scale  = .926. All Cronbach's Alpha values > 0.80 indicate extremely reliable measurement scales Hoang and Chu-Nguyen (2008). 3.2. Descriptive Analysis Table 2 showed the descriptive statistic of Advantages of Collaborative Activities Scale. All six items, listed from the highest mean score to the lowest mean score, were as follow: Support teachers to work with students (M = 4.30, SD = .76); Teachers will have more time to teach (M = 4.19, SD = .76); No matter what situations arise, always have processes in place to deal with them (M = 4.06, SD = .89); Helps to interact with students and find effective solutions to their problems (M = 3.98, SD = .90); Make recommendations for teaching and communicating with students (M = 3.96, SD = .87); Help learn more about the student's family (M = 3.77, SD = 1.06). Table 2. Advantages of Collaborative Activities Scale M SD R Support teachers to work with students. 4.30 .76 1 Helps to interact with students and find effective solutions to their problems. 3.98 .90 4 Help learn more about the student's family. 3.77 1.06 6 No matter what situations arise, always have processes in place to deal with them. 4.06 .89 3 Make recommendations for teaching and communicating with students. 3.96 .87 5 Teachers will have more time to teach. 4.19 .76 2 M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; R: Ranking Table 3 showed the descriptive statistic of Objectives of Collaborative Activities Scale. Top five in all ten items, listed from the highest mean score to the lowest mean score, were as follow: Report progress to the school's Board of Directors (M = 4.29, SD = .80); Provide students with social security (M = 4.27, SD = .86); Make students feel comfortable (M = 4.21, SD = .88); Helps to reduce the dropout rate of students (M = 4.10, SD = 1.00); Help students and teachers deal with personal and social problems (M = 4.05, SD = .82). Table 3. Objectives of Collaborative Activities Scale M SD R Help reduce school violence. 3.79 .92 10 Improve student achievement. 3.93 .96 9 Study the personality of each student. 3.95 .90 8 Improve school atmosphere. 3.97 .94 7 Partner with teachers to improve their interaction skills. 4.01 .96 6 Help students and teachers deal with personal and social problems. 4.05 .82 5 Helps to reduce the dropout rate of students. 4.10 1.00 4 Make students feel comfortable. 4.21 .88 3 Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 176 Provide students with social security. 4.27 .86 2 Report progress to the school's Board of Directors. 4.29 .80 1 M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; R: Ranking Table 4 showed the descriptive statistic of Content of Collaborative Activities Scale. Top five in all ten items, listed from the highest mean score to the lowest mean score, were as follow: Support teachers to coordinate with families/relevant agencies (M = 4.29, SD = .80); Provide resources for teachers to help their students (M = 4.27, SD = .86); Develop school-wide intervention or prevention procedures (M = 4.21, SD = .88); Collaborate through schoolwide improvements and system-level work (M = 4.10, SD = 1.00); Provide professional development for teachers (M = 4.05, SD = .82). Table 4. Content of Collaborative Activities Scale M SD R Support teachers to coordinate with families/relevant agencies. 4.29 .80 1 Develop school-wide intervention or prevention procedures. 4.21 .88 3 Provide resources for teachers to help their students. 4.27 .86 2 Improve the school environment (monitoring, strengthening discipline, preventing bullying). 3.97 .94 7 Collaborate with teachers to implement a student behavior management plan. 3.93 .96 9 Analyze data to inform principals about student problem-related decision-making. 4.01 .96 6 Collaborate through school-wide improvements and system-level work. 4.10 1.00 4 Advise and give appropriate guidance to teachers. 3.79 .92 10 Equip classroom management techniques for teachers. 3.95 .90 8 Provide professional development for teachers. 4.05 .82 5 M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; R: Ranking Table 5 showed the descriptive statistic of Form of Collaborative Activities Scale. All five items, listed from the highest mean score to the lowest mean score, were as follow: Whistleblower (M = 4.09, SD = .81); Interventionist (M = 3.96, SD = .75); Evaluator (M = 3.94, SD = .75); Initiator/coordinator (M = 3.82, SD = .81); Collaborators (M = 3.76, SD = .86). Table 5. Form of Collaborative Activities Scale M SD R Collaborators 3.76 .86 5 Evaluator 3.94 .75 3 Interventionist 3.96 .75 2 Initiator/coordinator 3.82 .81 4 Whistleblower 4.09 .81 1 M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; R: Ranking 4. DISCUSSION The results of Table 2 indicate that the average mean score runs from 3.77 to 4.30, which falls within the range of combined advantages that are highly valued, satisfied, and accepted by the subjects. With a mean score of 4.30, the benefit of Support teachers to work with students is rated exceptionally well. This indicates that there is a very high demand for social workers in vocational schools to assist teachers in working with students. The second benefit is that teachers will have more time to teach, with a mean value of 4.19, which is quite near to the level. The third-place finisher, with a mean score of 4.06, is cooperation, which gives the parties optimism that school problems will be resolved no matter what. Although the benefits are still substantial, the fact that social workers help school personnel learn more about a student's family ranks lowest. It demonstrates that the benefit Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 177 of cooperation is that it allows professors to spend more time teaching because they have more time to assist students with their challenges. Social workers will connect with students and identify viable solutions to their concerns. This also indicates that teachers find it time-consuming to solve students' difficulties, which affects their time investment in teaching. The benefit of cooperation resides in the fact that social workers with instructors boost interaction with students, more effectively resolve student problems, and contribute to the emancipation of teachers, so enhancing their teaching efficacy and providing them with hope for cooperation. Table 3 demonstrates that the mean scores of the observed variables fall into one of two categories: very high/very significant or high/significant. Specifically, there are three aims of coordination that have an average rating of 4.20 or higher: Report progress to the school's Board of Directors; Provide students with social security; Make students feel comfortable. Thus, the high school's priority coordination objective targets two sets of subjects: administrators (progress reporting) and students (social security and psychological comfort for students). Studying the personality of each student; Improving student achievement; Help reduce school violence are a few of the primary objectives, however, they are included at the bottom of the chart. Clearly, the objective is to examine the vast majority of children and concentrate on the Prevention function rather than the Intervention function with a small number of students. According to Table 4, the average score for collaborative activities involving social workers and teachers with an average mean score from 3.79 to 4.29 indicates that survey respondents also strongly value collaborative material. In particular, three items are deemed crucial and necessary: Support teachers to coordinate with families/relevant agencies; Provide resources for teachers to help their students; Develop school-wide intervention or prevention procedures with GPAs above 4.20. Table 4's results also illustrate macro content and school-wide prevention. Again, we observe that the purpose and substance of coordination are still geared at the majority of students within the prevention function. Third-party coordination content that connects resources or coordinates with family/relevant agencies is still regarded as vital. This outcome reflects the involvement of social workers in schools where they are present. The majority of the average mean score in Table 5 fluctuated over 3.7, notably between 3.76 and 4.09, indicating that all kinds of collaboration were ranked agree/high/important. This outcome demonstrates that the school's instructional forces require the "push" of social workers for synchronization. The most concentrated role is that of support, encouragement, and referee. Also necessary are intervention and evaluation of students' social work records. The findings of a study conducted in the United States by Stone and Charles (2018) share many similarities with those presented above. This means that each location's working environment and culture will influence the prevalence of collaboration. 5. CONCLUSION The results of evaluations of coordination, both in general and specifically regarding the characteristics of coordination between social work employees and educational forces, ranged from agreeing to highly agreeing with the premise that coordination is beneficial. The high level of agreement shown by the target group is illustrative of the group's understanding of the relevance of the coordination. In addition to this, it proves that the contents, aims, and coordination formats are feasible and useful in their current forms. Each scale illustrates the level of interest that educators and teachers have in a certain subject. This concern, however, is restricted to the area of prevention and does not extend to the area of intervention. In addition, this study is confined to descriptive statistics, which are based on a small sample size; nevertheless, future research can think about utilizing more extended samples, selecting important factors, and applying inferential statistics in order to present a more objective perspective. Source of Funding This research is funded by Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Foundation for Science and Technology under grant number CS.2021.19.42 Declaration of Conflicting Interest The authors have disclosed no potential financial or other conflicts of interest. In addition, the funding organization played no role in the study's conception, data collection, analysis, interpretation, report writing, or decision to submit the paper for publication. Authors’ Contribution All the authors conceived and designed the study, conducted research, and contributed to the research materials. All authors wrote the article's initial and final drafts and provided logistical support. All authors have reviewed and approved the final draft, and they are responsible for the manuscript's content and similarity index. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 13 (5); ISSN: 1989-9572 178 REFERENCES 1. Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1991). Early School Adjustment Problems: Some Perspectives and a Project Report. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61 (3), 468–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079276 2. Allen-Meares, P. (2010). Social Work Services in Schools (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. 3. Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative Models of Collaboration to Serve Children, Youths, Families, and Communities. Children & Schools, 26 (1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/26.1.39 4. Atkins, M. S., McKay, M. M., Arvanitis, P., London, L., Madison, S., Costigan, C., Haney, M., Hess, L., Zevenbergen, A., & Bennett, D. (1998). An Ecological Model for School-Based Mental Health Services for Urban Low-Income Aggressive Children. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 25 (1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287501 5. Berzin, S. C., O'Brien, K. H. M., Frey, A., Kelly, M. S., Alvarez, M. E., & Shaffer, G. L. (2011). Meeting the Social and Behavioral Health Needs of Students: Rethinking the Relationship Between Teachers and School Social Workers. Journal of School Health, 81 (8), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00619.x 6. Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., Brewster, A., & Bowen, N. (1998). Sense of School Coherence, Perceptions of Danger at School, and Teacher Support Among Youth at Risk of School Failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15 (4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025159811181 7. Bowen, N. K., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). The Effects of Home Microsystem Risk Factors and School Microsystem Protective Factors on Student Academic Performance and Affective Investment in Schooling. Children & Schools, 20 (4), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/20.4.219 8. Bronstein, L. R., & Abramson, J. S. (2003). Understanding Socialization of Teachers and Social Workers: Groundwork for Collaboration in the Schools. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 84 (3), 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.110 9. Bui, D. T. (2017). Phát tri ể n CTXH tr ườ ng h ọ c - khó khăn, thách th ứ c và gi ả i pháp [School Social Work Development - Difficulties, Challenges and Solutions] Công tác xã hội trường học - Giải pháp phát triển công tác xã hội trong trường học ở Việt Nam [School Social Work - Solutions for School Social Work Development in Vietnam], Hanoi. 10. Catron, T., & Weiss, B. (1994). The Vanderbilt School-Based Counseling Program: An Interagency, Primary-Care Model Of Mental Health Services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2 (4), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669400200407 11. Costello, E. J., Burns, B. J., Angold, A., & Leaf, P. J. (1993). How Can Epidemiology Improve Mental Health Services for Children and Adolescents? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32 (6), 1106–1117. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199311000-00002 12. Diaz, M. (2013). Tales and Trails from Consultation: Improving Interdisciplinary Teams and Collaborative Practices for School Social Workers and Teachers. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 19 (4), 41–50. https://reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/article/view/159 4 13. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method . John Wiley & Sons Inc. 14. Dinh, H. V. (2020). CTXH trong phòng ch ố ng xâm h ạ i tình d ụ c tr ẻ em t ạ i tr ườ ng Ti ể u h ọ c và Trung h ọ c c ơ s ở Đ ứ c Xuân [Social work in the prevention of child sexual abuse at Duc Xuan Primary and Secondary School] [Bachelor Thesis, Trường Đại học Lâm nghiệp [Vietnam National University of Forestry]]. Hanoi, Vietnam. 15. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., Voorhis, F. L. V., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfeld, M. D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action . Corwin Press. 16. Felner, R. D., Ginter, M., & Primavera, J. (1982). Primary Prevention During School Transitions: Social Support and Environmental Structure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10 (3), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00896495 17. Greene, R. W., & Ollendick, T. H. (1993). Evaluation of a Multidimensional Program for SixthGraders in Transition From Elementary to Middle School. Journal of Community Psychology,