Children & Schools, A Journal of the National Association of Social Workers [36]

Citation preview

July 2014 Volume 36, Number 3 Pages 129-192

A JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

School Social Workers Sanctioned The “Learning Disabilities to Juvenile Detention” Pipeline Restorative Discipline

PRIOR 10

MIX Paper from responsible sources

FSC www.fsc.org

FSC® C012947

Marygrove College Library 8425 West McNichols Road Detroit, Ml 48221 NASW PRESS

PARALLELS BETWEEN WRITING BIOGRAPHIES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE’ IMPACT. INFLUENCE. VALUE. ESTHER URDANG

P

arallels between and Clinical Practice: Impact. Influence. Value offers clinician: an in-depth understanding of the commonalitie

between the psychological and intellectual processes

often take place beneath the surface, both biographers

positions and selection and evaluation of evidence.

..

In this book, lengthy life course portraits of six

M

individuals are presented, vividly illustrating many

■

key clinical concepts, such as the impact of the past, the development of attachments, the trauma of loss, and resilience. Examples include Rudyard Kipling's experience in a foster home, and the impact of blindness and separation on the writer Ved Mehta. This book addresses a need expressed by many practitioners and educators to reintegrate key clinical concepts into practice, such as understanding experiential worlds, applying psychodynamic knowledge, and developing self-aware empathic relationships with clients. Parallels between Writing Biographies and Clinical Practice is a resource intended for students, teachers, and practitioners in social work, and those in the human services and medical professions. It is also intended for a general audience, to heighten critical understanding and enjoyment in the reading of biographies.

NASW PRESS

ISBN: 978-0-87101-450-4. 2014. Item #4504. 304 pages. $36.99. 1-800-227-3590 • www.naswpress.org

*tN ASW Notional Association of Social Workers

CODE APWB14

#N AS W

July 2014 Volume 36, Number 3

National Association of Social Workers

Pages 129-192

CW & A JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS http:/ / wwui.nasivpress.org

Table of Contents EDITORIAL 131

Shifting from Zero Tolerance to Restorative Justice in Schools Martell E Teas/ey

ARTICLES 135

School Social Workers Sanctioned by State Departments of Education and State Licensing Boards Kim Boland-Prom and Michelle E. Alvare^

147

The "Learning Disabilities to Juvenile Detention" Pipeline: A Case Study Christopher A. Mallett

157

Restorative Discipline: From Getting Even to Getting Well Judy Hostetler Mullet

165

Examining Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to School Social Work Practice with Homeless Children James P. Canfield

175

Mental Health Services in Special Education: An Analysis of Quality of Care Catherine DeCarlo Santiago, Sheryl H. Kataoka, Steven R. Forness, and Jeanne Miranda

PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS 185

Absenteeism and Truancy Issues: Are Mentoring Programs Funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention the Answer? EaTra Tracy Rogers

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Martell L.Teasley, PhD, University of Texas at San Antonio

NASW PRESS

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Michelle E. Alvarez, PhD, Minnesota State University, Mankato

CHILDREN & SCHOOLS EDITORS

PRESIDENT

2007-2011

Melissa Jonson Reid

Darrell P. Wheeler, PhD, MPH, ACSW

2003-2006

Wilma Peebles-Wilkins

1998—2002

Cynthia G. Franklin

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

1994—1997

Edith M. Freeman

Angelo McClain, PhD, LICSW

1989-1993

Paula Allen-Meares

1985-1989

Robert T. Constable

1981—1985

Lela B. Costin*

Rowena Fong, University of Texas at Austin

1978-1981

Richard J. Anderson

Von E. Nebbitt Sr., University of Illinois at Chicago

* Deceased

EDITORIAL BOARD

Cudore L. Snell, Howard University, Washington, DC EDITOR, RESOURCES FOR PRACTICE Tory L. Cox, University of Southern California, Los Angeles EDITOR, PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS Patricia A. Pricher, Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation, Evansville, IN CONSULTING EDITORS Heidi Adams Rueda, University of Texas at San Antonio; Sandra Altshuler, Eastern Washington University, Cheney; Dawn Anderson-Butcher, Ohio State University, Columbus; Ron A. Astor, University of Southern California, Hos Angeles; Annahita Ball, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; Stephanie Cosner Berzin, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA; Gary L. Bowen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Natasha K. Bowen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Laura Bronstein, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY; Tracy Carpenter-Aeby, East Carolina University, Greenville; William E. Carr, NJ Association of Criminal Justice Educators, Montclair; Amy Chanmugam, University of Texas at San Antonio; Mary Ann Channing, Lincoln Public Schools, Lincoln, RI; Nadia C. Coleman, Cherry Creek Schools, Denver; Jandel Mary Crutchfield, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; Ellen W. deLara, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, and Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; David Dupper, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Theresa]. Early, Ohio State University, Columbus; Maryah S. Fram, University of South Carolina, Columbia; Cynthia G. Franklin, University of Texas at Austin; Kendra J. Garrett, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN; Kenneth J. Gaughan, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Tampa, FL; Joseph R. Gianesin, Springfield College, Springfield, MA; Joy Paston Greenberg, Lehman College/City University of New York, Bronx; Jendia F. Grissett, Faulkner University, Montgomery, AL; Janet M. Haynes, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Shu-Lan Hung, Eastern Michigan University, Ann Arbor; Jacob Hutchens, Aldea Children & Family Services, Napa, CA; Aidyn Iachini, Ohio State University, Columbus; Catheleen Jordan, University of Texas at Arlington; Michael S. Kelly, Loyola University, Chicago; Johnny S. Kim, University of Denver; Kathryn S. Krase, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah; Craig Winston LeCroy, Arizona State University, Tucson; Mo Yee Lee, Ohio State University, Columbus; Brenda Coble Lindsey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Michael A. Lindsey, University of Maryland, Baltimore; Christopher A. Mallett, Cleveland State University; Mark A. Mattaini, University of Illinois at Chicago; Mary Ann Canning McComiskey, Lincoln Public Schools, Lincoln, RI; Cassandra McKay, University of Illinois at Chicago; Christina R: Miller, University of Oklahoma, Norman; Amber Moodie-Dyer, Ohio State University, Columbus; Nicole Nicotera, University of Denver; Angela M. Nonaka, University of Texas, Austin; Jack Nowicki, Texas Network of Youth Services, Austin; Linda Openshaw, Texas A&M University-Commerce; Kate Phillippo, Loyola State University Chicago; Patricia A. Pricher, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville; Octavio Ramirez, Oakwood University, Huntsville, AL; Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Christine Anlauf Sabatino, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC; Cudore L. Snell, Howard University, Washington, DC; Renee Spencer, Boston University, Calvin L. Streeter, University of Texas at Austin; Kevin Tan, University of Chicago; Aaron M. Thompson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Kimberly Zammitt, Minnesota State University, Mankato NASW PRESS STAFF Cheryl Y. Bradley, Publisher; Julie Gutin, Managing Editor; Sarah Lowman, Senior Editor; Sharon Fletcher, Marketing Manager; Kiera White, Marketing Coordinator; Bill Cathey, Production and Media Specialist; Tracey Hawkins, Circulation Coordinator; Helen C. Williams, Circulation Coordinator; Lisa Brown, Administrative Assistant

Children & Schools (ISSN 1532-8759), the successor to Social Work in Education, established in 1978, publishes articles that provide knowledge for school social workers and other social work practitioners who work with children and families in the schools and communities. The journal addresses practice issues faced by social workers in educational organiza¬ tions and community agencies whose practice focuses on helping children and improving the well-being of children and the conditions in schools. The editorial board welcomes arti¬ cles on innovation in practice, research, and policy analysis. The board invites practitioners to share their practical experience in scholarly articles. Statements of feet and opinion in the articles in Children & Schools are those of the authors and contributors, not of NASW Press or Oxford University Press, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of NASW or Oxford University Press. Neither NASW Press nor Oxford University Press makes any representation, express or implied, regarding the accuracy of the material in this journal and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. The reader should make her or his own evaluation as to the appropriateness or otherwise of any experimental technique described. In the interest of accurate and unbiased communication, NASW subscribes to a belief in the importance of avoiding language that might imply sexual, racial, ethnic, or other kinds of discrimination, stereotyping, or bias. NASW is committed to the fair and equal treatment of individuals and groups, and material submitted should not promote stereotypes or discriminatory attitudes and assumptions about people. Advertising rates are available on request. Publication of an advertisement does not constitute an endorsement or approval of any products or services advertised, any point of view, standard, or opinion presented therein. NASW is not responsible for any claims made in an advertisement appearing in its publications. To advertise, please contact Linda Hann: [email protected]. Tel: +44 (0)1367 710022 (please call during UK working hours only). Published quarterly in January, April, July, and October by the National Association of Social Workers, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002-4241. Print subscription rates.■ NASW members, $63 for 1 year; NASW student members, $42 for 1 year; nonmembers: individuals, $107 for 1 year; libraries/instituuons, $168 for 1 year. For a subscription, please contact Oxford Journals at [email protected] or 1 (800) 852-7323. Children & Schools is indexed/abstracted in caredata, CINAHL®, ERIC/Cass, PsycINFO, Quality Review Bulletin, Social Work Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts (SAVSocial Plannim Policy, and Development Abstracts (SOPODA). National Headquarters and Publishing Office. National Association of Social Workers, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002-4241. Telephone: 202-408-8600 800-638-8799, TTD 202-336-8396. http://www.naswpress.org Periodical class mail postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Children & Schools, Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, 2001 Evans Rd, Cary, NC 27513-2009. Copyright © 2014 by the National Association of Social Workers, Inc. Produced for NASW Press by Oxford Journals, a division of Oxford University Press. Printed in the United States of America.

EDITORIAL

Shifting from Zero Tolerance to Restorative Justice in Schools Martell L. Teasley

I

n the movement to maximize and enhance the

replacing. A 10-year study of zero tolerance policies

quality of the learning environment, zero tol¬

by the American Psychological Association con¬

erance policies as a form of getting tough on

cluded that the use of exclusionary policies “did

school discipline became the mantra of school sys¬

not improve school safety” (Gonzalez, 2012). In a

tems countrywide. Gaining widespread implemen¬

statewide investigation of the Texas public school

tations throughout the United States in the 1990s

system, tracking seventh- through twelfth-graders,

and accelerating with the implementation of No

it was found that nearly 6 out of 10 students had

Child Left Behind policies, zero tolerance policies

been suspended or expelled from middle or high

mandated harsh penalties in the form of school

school (Fabelo et ah, 2011). Typical of findings

suspension, expulsions, alternative schooling, and

from research studies in this area (Fabelo et ah,

juvenile justice referrals for a wide variety of prob¬

2011; Howarth, 2008; Skiba et ah, 2003), the rate

lematic student behaviors (Fabelo et ah, 2011;

was 75 percent for African American students and

Gonzalez, 2012; Skiba et ah, 2003). “Even kinder-

83 percent for black male students, as compared

gartners have been suspended for minor offenses,

with 74 percent for Hispanic and 59 percent for

such as bringing paper clips, toy guns, and cough

white male students, with a similar pattern for

drops to school” (Sumner, Silverman, & Frampton,

female students within the three groups (Fabelo

n.d., p. 9).

et ah, 2011). Also consistent with the research liter¬

THE PROBLEM WITH ZERO TOLERANCE

Morgan, Salomon, Plotkin, & Cohen, 2014; Skiba

ature in this area (Edmonds-Cady & Hock, 2008; Many schools continue to have mandatory guide¬

et ah, 2003), the research team from the Public Pol¬

lines for dealing with a host of school behavioral

icy Research Institute at Texas A&M University

problems that affect school climate and academ¬

found that three'out of four students with registered

ic performance (Gonzalez, 2012). Even with the

disabilities were suspended or expelled at least

movement toward evidence-based methods and

once during the study period. Given that over

schoolwide intervention plans by related school

half of the nearly 1 million students (N= 928,940)

services personnel, the disproportional suspension,

in the study had four or more suspension violations

expulsion, and referral to juvenile justice continues.

over the eight years of tracking, the research team

“The frequent reliance on suspension does not

questioned the effectiveness of the state’s mandatory

yield the benefits proponents often claim it does,

suspension guidelines, having found nothing to

neither for deterrence nor academic achievement”

support improvements in students’ behavior after

(Skiba et al., 2003, p. 1). In fact, zero tolerance pol¬

entry into mandatory school discipline programs

icies have been the catalyst for the school-to-prison

for school conduct code violations (Fabelo et ah,

pipeline, still occurring in many major metropoli¬

2011).

tan school districts throughout the United States

Studies suggest that zero tolerance policies have

(Fabelo et ah, 2011; Gonzalez, 2012; Skiba et ah,

had multiple negative effects on student behaviors

2003).

and are said to increase the likelihood that students

Researchers continue to question the need for

will engage in future disciplinary problems, includ¬

zero tolerance policies and now charge that the

ing school disengagement, noncompliance, tardi¬

“cure all” for school disciplinary problems needs

ness, absence, truancy, and disrespect for authority

doi: 10.1093/cs/cdu016

© 2014 National Association of Social Workers

131

figures in school (Gonzalez, 2012; Skiba et al.,

exclusion” (Sumner et al., n.d., p. 4). Youths not

2003). Punitive school discipline problems not only

only are held responsible for their infractions, but

deprive youths of education opportunities, but also,

also are part of the decision to restore and repair dam¬

according to the evidence, increase the likelihood

ages rendered. Restorative justice is viewed as a

of future disciplinary problems and, ultimately,

method of building on existing relationships with

youth contact with the criminal justice system

youths through peer mediation or youth courts

(Gonzalez, 2012). Minority youths, particularly

(Gonzalez, 2012).

African American and Hispanic youths, have borne

Given that the emphasis is on teaching youths

the brunt of disproportionate school disciplinary

greater responsibility and accountability for the

measures since the implementation of zero toler¬

consequences of their behaviors, a different concep¬

ance policies (Howarth, 2008; Skiba et al., 2003).

tual mind-set is required in the development of

This pattern continues today. For example, in a

alternatives to punitive arrangements and exclusion

recent report, The School Discipline Consensus Report

from the school environment (Gonzalez, 2012;

by the Council of State Governments Justice Cen¬

Sumner et al., n.d.). For sure, systematic change

ter (Morgan et al., 2014), it was found that “a dis¬

will be needed to implement restorative justice

proportionately large percentage of disciplined

measures. Implementation techniques require that

students are youth of color, students with disabili¬

school-based personnel, including educators, staff,

ties, and youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bi¬

and related service professionals, undergo training

sexual, or transgender (LBGT)” (p. 10). Advocacy

sessions and skills development for the purpose of

organizations across the nation are calling for

understanding restorative justice practices (Sumner

change after witnessing the harmful effects of zero

et al., n.d). Community-based relationship building

tolerance policies on the educational outcomes of

and inclusion are key to the implementation and

children and youths (Sumner et al., n.d.). The

success of restorative justice methods. Therefore,

movement is toward less punitive measures and

an understanding of community culture, norms,

less of an algorithmic approach to school discipline.

and values is important in developing programmatic

WHAT IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE?

based meetings with parents and other interested

content. This means that town forums and schoolMoving away from the derived problems that

community stakeholders should take place. Research

research on zero tolerance policies has identified,

by the Institute for Restorative Justice and P^estora-

there is a growing movement toward the use of

tive Dialogue conducted in San Antonio, Texas,

less-punitive methods based on restorative justice

determined that there has to be a goodness-of-fit

approaches. “Restorative justice is an alternative to

between a given community and the implementa¬

retributive zero-tolerance policies that mandate sus¬

tion of measure as part of a restorative justice practice

pension or expulsion of students from school for a

(Armour, 2013).

wide variety of misbehaviors including possession of alcohol or cigarettes, fighting, dress code viola¬

THE CALL FOR RESEARCH

tions, and cursing” (Sumner et al., n.d.,p. 2). Restor¬

As part of a growing international movement,

ative justice is based on the development of a value set

restorative justice programs have grown exponen¬

that includes building and strengthening relation¬

tially in the past five years within the United States,

ships, showing respect, and taking responsibility.

with approximately 12 states implementing restor¬

School-based personnel will have to buy into re¬

ative practices (Armour, 2013; Gonzalez, 2012).

storative justice methods, which means a redrawing

However, there is limited research on school-based

of status-quo approaches for children and youths

restorative justice programs. Armour’s (2013) evalu¬

who display problem behaviors in the school setting

ation of preliminary research findings suggests that

(Gonzalez, 2012). All parties involved need to be

“restorative justice can have a significant impact

part of the decision to repair the damage and hold

on redirecting the school-to-prison pipeline” (p. 14).

students accountable. “A major appeal for using a

The assessment of research findings in various states

restorative approach to discipline as an alternative

found that expulsions, misconduct, and violent

to zero-tolerance policies is the emphasis on respect,

acts decreased; school engagement and academic

accountability, repair of harm, and restoration of

achievement increased; and teacher turnover was

the community rather than on punishment and

reduced (Armour, 2013). Findings from the Institute

132

Children & Schools

Volume 36, Number 3

July 2014

for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue revealed an 84 percent drop “in the use of off campus suspension and a 30 percent drop in the use of in school suspension lasting 1—3 days for student mis¬ conduct” (Armour, 2013, p. 6). In addition, there was a reduction in “all suspension rates including overnight suspensions and placement in the Alterna¬ tive Program” (Armour, 2013, p. 6).

CONCLUSION The need for less-punitive methods in the reduction of problem behaviors in schools and mandated inter¬ vention is catching momentum, with a growing number of advocacy organizations and member¬ ship associations calling for “more effective and fair approaches to school discipline” (Fabelo et al., 2011, p. 15). School social workers and other related ser¬ vices personnel need to be informed and advocate for change in school districts where zero tolerance is still enforced. Many related services personnel are already participating in restorative justice programs through the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Related services personnel should work in collaboration to document findings from the use of restorative justice methods to include development of single-subject designs and the use of case studies. The findings must be generated and distributed to school administrations, other decision makers, and policymakers. School-based related services personnel should review the find¬ ings of recent studies on restorative justice cited in this editorial, and their compelling case for the use of restorative justice measures as a counter to zero tolerance policies in schools. Nationally, change is needed at the policy-making level. Child welfare experts, corrections officials, juvenile justice systems and the courts, educators, and other professionals and paraprofessionals who work with children and youths should all be part of the network-building process in developing community- and school-based restorative justice

REFERENCES Armour, M. (2013). Ed White Middle School restorative disci¬ pline evaluation: Implementation and impact, 2012/2013, sixth grade. Retrieved from the University of Texas at Austin, Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/research/ cswr/ij i/pdf/Ed-White-Evaluation-2012-2013.pdf Edmonds-Cady, C., & Hock, R. (2008). Children in crisis: Special education status and other stressors in the lives of children removed from school by expulsion. School Social WorkJournal, 32(2). Retrieved from http://www. publications.villanova.edu/Concept/2004/Effective_ Discipline.pdf Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile involvement. Retrieved from the Justice Center, Council of State Governments Web site: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/08/Breaking_Schools_Rules_Report_ Final.pdf Gonsoulin, S., Zablocki, M„ & Leone, P. E. (2012). Safe schools, staff development, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 309-319. Gonzalez, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281-235. Howarth, R. (2008, March). Examining minority enrollment and out of school suspension rates of Massachusetts public school districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Education Research Association, New York. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/ data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/ 3d/8c/ff.pdf Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The school discipline consensus report: Strategies for the field to keep students engaged in school and out of the juvenile justice system. Retrieved from the Justice Center, Council of State Governments Web site: http://csgjusticecenter .org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The_School_ Discipline_Consensus_Report.pdf Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Staudinger, L., Rausch, M., Dow, G., & Feggins, L. R. (2003, May 16—17). Consistent removal: Contributions of school discipline to the school-prison pipeline. Paper presented at the School-to-Prison Pipehne Conference, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://www.vag.asn.au/Resources/Documents/ Consistent%20Remo val. p df Sumner, M. D., Silverman, C. J., & Frampton, M. L. (n.d.). School-based restorative justice as an alternative to zerotolerance policies: Lessons from West Oakland. Retrieved from the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Web site: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/ 1 l-2010_School-based_Restorative_Justice_As_an_ Altemative_to_Zero-Tolerance_Policies.pdf

programs (Fabelo et al., 2011; Gonsoulin, Zablocki,

Martell L. Teasley, PhD, is professor and chair, Department

& Leone, 2012). Important in this endeavor is that

of Social Work, College of Public Policy, University of Texas at

educators, parents, students, and other community-

San Antonio, 501 West Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard, San

based entities address factors contributing to the dis-

Antonio, TX 78207; e-mail: [email protected].

proportionality of school suspension and expulsion for minority public school youths. Creating strong

Advance Access Publication June 30, 2014

school and community relations is important in establishing a plan of action for dealing with problem behaviors and subsequent intervention (Gonsoulin et al, 2012). E

Teasley

/ Shifting from Zero Tolerance to Restorative Justice in Schools

133

HALAEVALU F. OFAHENGAUE VAKALAHI and MERIPA TAIAI GODINET

T

ransnational Pacific Islander Americans and Social Work: Dancing to the Beat of a Different Drum serves as a voice for Pacific Islander American commu¬

nities that have long been subdued in the hope that it will assist in dispelling misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of Pacific Islander Americans.

A first of its kind, this book attempts to bring Pacific Islander Americans to the forefront of transnational conversations, particularly in the profession of social work. It contains accounts of real-life experiences of transnational Pacific Islander Americans and issues such as colonization, immigration, and dual/multiple identities.

To highlight both the unique and shared experiences, editors Vakalahi and Godinet invited native authors from several Pacific Island groups to tell their stories. Included are authors from groups with the highest density in the United States, such as Native Hawaiians, Samoans, and Chamorros and native authors about whom little information is available, such as Chuukese and Yapese.

Transnational Pacific Islander Americans and Social Work specifically covers immigrant groups in the Pacific Islands that are invisible and yet growing exponentially in the United States. More and more Pacific Islander Americans, due to adjustment difficulties, are faced with challenges that bring them to the attention of social and health services. This book fills gaps in the literature byproviding practitioners with information on the historical background, cultural knowledge, and practices of various Pacific Islander groups that will help improve services for these populations.

ISBN: 978-0-87101-449-8. 2014. Item #4498. 184 pages. $34.99. NASW PRESS

1-800-227-3590 • www.naswpress.org

kwi;

C0DE:SWD13

The School Social Work Toolkit Hands-On Counseling Activities and Workshops

The School Social Work Toolkit is a Mhow-to” resource for social workers, counselors, and mental health professionals in education. This book encompasses the direct practice part of the school social worker s job as well as the administrative and policy-driven aspects, such as child abuse reporting, disciplinary interventions, training, and dealing with teachers and parents.

The workbook is divided into seven main sections: • Defining Your Role as a Social Worker • Individual Counseling Activities • Group Implementation and Counseling Activities • Workshops and School Programs • Communicating with Teachers and Professional Development • Communicating with Parents • Crisis Intervention—Protocols and Assessments The toolkit provides hands-on activities and workshops about various social work topics. In addition, the book contains a multitude of invaluable, modifiable sample forms and policy drafts for the school social worker— especially one who acts in an administrator role. The first of its kind, The School Social Work Toolkl t contains real-life examples of how to talk to teachers and parents about students facing a variety of common struggles that are, nevertheless, frequently difficult to discuss and how to conduct student and teacher trainings.

ISBN: 978-0-87101-438-2. 2012. Item #4382. 178 pages. $29.99

NASW PRESS

1-800-227-3590 www.naswpress.org

#N AS W Notional Association ol Social Workers

CODE:ASWT12