Education, Training, Case, and Cause: A Descriptive Study of School Social Work

Abstract

School social workers (SSWs) play a vital role in district-level education, but ambiguity within our collective understanding of school social work is a pervasive problem. Clarity of the SSW role is important for communities of place (schools), practice (SSWs), and circumstance (consumers of school social work). This research recruited and surveyed 52 SSWs in a focal state to contextualize their practice domains and professional capacity. Findings broadly pertain to the actual and idealized education and training of SSWs, as well as their case-level and cause/system-level job functions. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for policy, practice, and future research.

For over a century, research and practice have struggled to define school social work (social work services provided by, and within, schools) due to variance in state- and district-level policies, as well as individual school social worker (SSW) responsibilities and roles (Alvarez, Bye, Bryant & Mumm, 2013). Ambiguity within collective understanding of school social work is a pervasive problem. One national study revealed that SSWs experience a high level of role confusion with colleagues and their school community (Peckover, Vasquez, Van Housen, Saunders, & Allen, 2013), perhaps due to being professional outsiders in an educational system. Yet clarity of the SSW role is important for communities of place (schools), practice (SSWs), and circumstance (consumers of school social work services). This research attempts to contextualize their unique practice domains (case and cause), while offering informed perspective on ways to build their professional capacity (education and training).

The perception that SSWs are distinct from the regular operations and educational functioning of the school community may contribute to professional marginalization (Sherman, 2016). Another problematic issue for SSWs is embedded within the education system itself—a system that values individual intervention and accountability (Franklin, Kim, & Tripodi, 2009), which is not entirely in sync with social work’s broader person-in-environment perspective (Peckover et al., 2013). Similar to the larger social work profession, SSWs grapple with professional identity and legitimacy (Forenza & Eckert, 2017; Sugrue, 2017).

The School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA) (2008) identified role ambiguity and conflict of interest that may be inherent in the profession: An SSW is accountable for providing services to students, but is constrained by requirements of the school district, parents, and education professionals. Questions of confidentiality, defining the “client,” and interdisciplinary conflict are common issues experienced by school social work professionals. This descriptive study aims to discern the scope of professional experiences among a sample (N = 52) of SSWs in a northeastern state.

Literature Review

A Brief History of School Social Work

School-based social work developed in the early 1900s, as a response to the changing landscape of American society. The advent of compulsory education laws, the rise of urbanization, and the socialization of immigrant children necessitated school-based intervention (Sugrue, 2017). “Visiting teachers” in the early 1900s focused primarily on student attendance and behavior; they informed families about academic requirements and community resources (Sherman, 2016). Because they practiced in a host setting (an environment that is not operated and organized by other social workers), their practice was often saddled with boundary issues and role confusion (Sugrue, 2017).

By the 1930s, school social work job functions were oriented toward casework, representing a shift from earlier, community orientations (Peckover et al., 2013; Sherman, 2016). Throughout the 20th century, the SSW role morphed into that of a mental health practitioner. Reflecting the broader cause versus cause dichotomy of the profession, SSWs were less and less a connecting link between schools, families, and the community (Sherman, 2016). However, 1975 marked a fundamental role change in the field. The advent of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act necessitated that schools create curricula addressing the unique needs of students with mental or physical disorders (Peckover et al., 2013). Based on their prior association with mental health services, social workers were called on to be special education service providers, solidifying the current association between SSW job functions and populations served (Sherman, 2016).

Because youth mental health problems arise in classrooms, contemporary schools are frequently the first place for mental health treatment (O’Brien et al., 2011). Administrators and SSWs both agree that “frontline mental health services” are one of the top benefits of employing SSWs (Bye, Shepard, Partridge, & Alvarez, 2009). To this end, a 2015 national study revealed that most students receiving school-based services had experienced trauma (Kelly et al., 2015). A 2010 national survey explained that SSWs enact mental health services with a traditional model of clinical casework using individual and group counseling (Peckover et al., 2013). Furthermore, administrators and SSWs agree that additional benefits of school social work include increasing student attendance, decreasing behavioral problems, improving school climate, and decreasing the incidence of school violence (Bye et al., 2009). School social work services that address these issues are helpful to teachers and students: They allow teachers to focus on academics, not on emotional and behavioral issues among their students (Bronstein, Anderson, Terwilliger, & Sager, 2012).

SSWs value interdisciplinary collaboration, which makes school-based careers advantageous when addressing multiple issues that may affect a student (Bronstein et al., 2012). Social workers recognize that students cannot succeed academically if they are hungry, sick, or happen to have a disability or problems at home (Bronstein et al., 2012). As a result, multilevel systems of intervention should be a desired practice for SSWs (Peckover et al., 2013). However, the host-setting concept poses a contradiction: SSWs and school systems often have different perceptions of who their clients are, and school environments are often not adequately equipped to undertake nonacademic and noneducational issues a student may face (Bronstein, Ball, Mellin, Wade-Mdivanian, & Anderson-Butcher, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2011).

SSW Training

SSWs are commanded to improve and protect the school climate (Cuellar, Elswick, & Theriot, 2017). Because these professionals are employed by the school district and not a community-based agency, SSWs hold a unique perspective on the school environment and operations (Tan, Battle, Mumm, Eschmann, & Alvarez, 2015). Although the SSW is a critical component in a school community, the profession is considered a “specialty” rather than a “distinct academic field” (Phillippo & Blosser, 2013; Tan et al., 2015). School social work lacks a theoretical knowledge base and professional training, which ultimately limits the development of the profession (Phillippo & Blosser, 2013). To understand the gap between social work education and school social work practice, Berzin and O’Connor (2010) conducted an analysis of school social work curricula within 191 accredited MSW programs. Their research shows that specialized social work curricula varied significantly among universities: 27 universities did not offer one single class in school social work, whereas 11 universities offered multiple classes (Berzin & O’Connor, 2010). Furthermore, school social work course content was substantially clinically focused and did not address the multidisciplinary educational context that an SSW is theoretically employed in (Berzin & O’Connor, 2010). This shortfall creates a substantial disservice: To be successful, SSWs must adapt to district-level expectations, even if those expectations conflict with their broader professional training (Phillippo & Blosser, 2013).

In an effort to counteract the criticism regarding national standards for SSWs, SSWAA has developed a universal framework for school social work practice, guiding principles, and standards. This organization classified SSW duties into five categories: (1) services to school personnel, (2) services to students, (3) services to parents and families, (4) services to districts and school–community liaison (SSWAA, 2012). SSWAA (2012) further argued that SSWs are a critical component of a school environment: Because environmental and social forces can negatively affect a child’s role as student, their capacity to learn is prevented until the physical and emotional needs are satisfied.

In addition, in 1998 the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) implemented a School Social Worker Specialty Area Test and awarded a professional credential to social workers who passed the examination (Sabatino, Alvarez, & Anderson-Ketchmark, 2011). The primary goal of this additional credential was to create a national requirement to promote accountability within a multidisciplinary educational context (Sabatino et al., 2011). The certification was never adopted nationally due to the vast discrepancies in education policy between the states (Sabatino et al., 2011). In fact, a 2018 study attempting to identify state-specific department of education standards for SSWs discovered that 72 percent of states use explicit standards for the profession, with conflicting ideas regarding service provision, delivery, and duties (Elswick et al., 2018). Due to this problem, school social work may not be recognized on state and federal levels as a valid, capable, and distinct profession (Altshuler & Webb, 2009). Consequently, interventions, practices, and services administered vary between locality and region in modern school social work practice ( Jonson-Reid, Kontak, Citerman, Essma, & Fezzi, 2004).

Professional Orientation

SSWs are trained to operate within the context of ecological systems, and systems-based interventions, to address social and environmental forces that affect student academic functioning (Tan et al., 2015). As such, desirable interventions should be directed at entire grade levels and entire school districts to create change in larger systems or overall school climates (O’Brien et al., 2011; Tan et al., 2015). Desirably, SSWs will also use the person-in-environment approach to address individual student needs (Cuellar et al., 2017). Generally, school social work practice is conceptualized on a continuum with individual intervention for students who happen to have emotional–behavioral difficulties on one end of the spectrum and school–community-based interventions on the other end (O’Brien et al., 2011). Professional social work training theoretically compels SSWs to intervene across this continuum, though outputs are rarely measured (Bye et al., 2009).

Many social science researchers agree that there is insufficient literature regarding SSW practice and interventions (Bye et al., 2009; Cuellar et al., 2017; O’Brien et al., 2011). There is also a scarcity of empirical evidence concerning outcomes and service provision (Bye et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis of school social work studies, Franklin et al. (2009) echoed this concern and emphasized the importance of outcomes in the context of scholastic accountability and individual-level change. Furthermore, Allen-Meares, Montgomery, and Kim (2013) indicated that outcomes of school social work are often context bound. One explanation for lack of empirical data is the high variance in job function and broad types of practice for SSWs (Tan et al., 2015). Services provided by SSWs, and outcomes affected, must be better documented and understood within every school community (Cuellar et al., 2017). In a 2014 study among Louisiana SSWs, researchers identified four main areas of practice: “micro, macro, evaluation, and supervision” (Gherardi & Whittlesey-Jerome, 2018). Similarly, the SSWAA practice model delineates three main functions for an SSW: (1) provide education, behavior, and mental health services; (2) promote a positive school environment; and (3) maximize access to resources (Frey et al., 2013).

In spite of attempts, including Gherardi and Whittlesey-Jerome’s (2018) work to define school social work practice, the gap in formal knowledge and lack of research surrounding SSWs has severe implications. The gap prevents specific training programs and prohibits specialized certifications for SSWs ( Jonson-Reid et al., 2004). In addition, the absence of a formalized certification requirement delegitimizes the profession on a federal and state level and contributes to the inconsistencies in SSW programs (Altshuler & Webb, 2009). In New Jersey alone, a bachelor’s degree in social work is the minimum requirement for a school social work occupation, but there is no statewide certification or exam for the position (Altshuler & Webb, 2009). Eighteen states nationwide have no certification or exam standards for SSWs, yet all 50 states require school psychologists to pass a standardized exam (Altshuler & Webb, 2009).

Generally, education professionals agree that an SSW’s role is to promote emotional, behavioral, and social well-being among students (Kirchofer, Telljohann, Price, Dake, & Ritchie, 2007). Whether or not an SSW interacts with the general student population, prioritizes districtwide problems, and addresses systemic concerns varies among schools and regions ( Jonson-Reid et al., 2004). To this end, research, policy, and practice will benefit from a descriptive study of public high school social workers—and the services and outcomes they facilitate—in a focal, northeastern state.

Method

Research Setting and Sample

Using a northeastern state’s Department of Education Web site, a graduate-level research assistant conducted an electronic search to identify all 313 traditional public high schools in the focal state, in an effort to further identify public high school social workers. For reasons of mission fidelity, only traditional public high school social workers in the focal state were invited into the study. Densely populated school districts often comprised more than one public high school. Less populated localities used regional public high schools to combine students from more than one town. All traditional public high school compositions in the focal state were included in this sampling frame; however, the sample does not include charter high schools, vocational/technical schools, adult/alternative high schools, or “specialty” high schools (for example, high schools for performing arts, culinary arts).

From the focal Department of Education Web site, the graduate assistant maintained her own Excel spreadsheet of traditional public schools, by county. Next, the graduate assistant consulted each public high school’s Web site to discern the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of that high school’s social worker. The graduate assistant accomplished this in one of three ways: first, she searched the “Counseling” or “Guidance” sections of the publicly accessible Web site (often, this portion of a Web site was concerned with college applications or course scheduling; however, in some instances, this section identified an SSW). Next, the graduate assistant viewed the “Special Services,” “Academics,” or “Special Education” section of the high school Web site to determine if an SSW was listed under the child study team (CST) or on the administrative team. Finally, if no information regarding an SSW was available on a high school’s Web site, the graduate assistant navigated to the larger district’s Web site and repeated the process of identifying the focal social workers.

In some circumstances, neither the high school Web site nor the school district Web site identified a high school (or districtwide) social worker. In these cases, the graduate assistant searched for “social worker,” “child study team,” or “CST” via the search feature of each respective Web site. This alternative method sometimes yielded a social worker name and contact information. In some instances, more than one social worker was identified for the high school, district, or both. In total, the graduate assistant was successful at identifying 317 social workers serving 313 traditional public high schools in the focal state.

Data Collection and Analysis

As the graduate assistant procured contact information for public high school social workers, the principal investigator (PI) created a 13-item questionnaire to be administered via Qualtrics (the sponsoring university’s preferred software for collecting and analyzing data). The 13-item questionnaire included five closed-ended questions (for example, “What is your highest level of education?” “Was this level of education required for your current position?”) and eight open-ended questions (for example, “In what ways do you help students with individual-level problems?” “In what ways do you help facilitate schoolwide programming?”) to help contextualize the breadth of experience of SSWs. After institutional review board approval was obtained, the graduate assistant sent each of the 317 identified public high school social workers an individual invitation to complete the online questionnaire (the assistant contacted them via their publicly listed, professional e-mail address). Subsequently, the graduate assistant received notification that 73 e-mail addresses were defunct, which reduced the sampling frame to 244 possible participants.

In the first four weeks of survey availability, 33 traditional public high school social workers (13.5 percent of the sample) completed the online questionnaire. The graduate assistant eventually contacted each of them again, via private e-mail, requesting those who did not complete the survey to do so. This yielded 19 additional responses (N = 52), for a cumulative response rate of 21 percent.

Responses were recorded and stored in Qualtrics. After downloading responses, the PI and graduate assistant conducted an initial round of a priori coding, wherein they independently identified broad families of themes (for example, education and training; case and cause) identified by participants. We engaged with the data further and over time, conducting subsequent independent rounds of content analysis, which helped to identify more specific, emergent themes. The PI and graduate assistant met regularly to discuss and refine their findings, while simultaneously keeping their biases in check. After continuous discussion, agreement was achieved.

Findings

Education and Training

The vast majority of participants (n = 47) self-identified as SSWs; five participants did not identify as SSWs, even though they were recruited into this sample because their school or district’s publicly accessible Web site identified them as such. Noteworthy is that 100 percent of participants had graduate degrees, even though several participants (n = 3) indicated that their current position did not necessitate a graduate degree.  Most participants (88.5 percent) had graduate degrees in social work; the same percentage of participants (88.5 percent) noted that they had to possess an MSW to assume their current position. These trends are summarized in Table 1.

Participants in this study recalled some experiences that enabled them to do their jobs well. One participant referred to having previously been a classroom teacher; another recalled having received expert clinical supervision in a prior position. A third participant recalled a formative field experience as an MSW student, which helped them build capacity for their current school social work practice. “I think I can call upon my knowledge from all of my MSW courses at different points,” the same participant noted.

A majority of participants referred to their MSW education and training as being most beneficial to their school social work practice. While some mentioned specific concepts or theories (for example, systems theory, empowerment theory) and skills (for example, crisis intervention, assessment and diagnosis) that affected their practice, most participants focused broadly on the ways in which their MSW training enabled them to see their clients (students) holistically:

My training provided me with a clinical perspective to understand the effects of trauma and abuse on a person’s life years later. Aside from the paperwork and IEP [individualized education program] meetings, most often I am trying to explain to a student, administrator, or teacher the connection between a student’s behavior and reactions tied to previous trauma. I do not believe this excuses a student from taking responsibility for their actions, but it does give a framework for them to understand their triggers and, hopefully, better respond in the future.

***

My background in child and family development has been the most useful. Most individuals in the district do not have that general view. Also, [my education facilitated my] being able to work with children and families as a whole. Not just looking at them through a microscope of what their scores are on testing, [but] taking into account their family life and other issues [as they related to academic] performance in school. [That] is so important.

As the speakers implied, having the ability to view students holistically enables them to address school-based performance in the context of potential trauma and family systems. Because no child develops in a vacuum, viewing students holistically enables participants to address presenting problems with a broader frame of reference.

Participants identified several ways in which their education and training helped them excel in practice; there were also two dominant, independently agreed-on areas, wherein participants felt less able to serve their clients. More than half of all participants in this study had a desire for training in special education law and services. As one participant noted, “There are many students who are in ungraded programs until they are 21 years old, and they have a whole other set of criteria for services.”

The second dominant, independently agreed-on area for growth pertained to targeted SSW education:

I would have loved to have taken a class or two on school social work. . . . If I could have gone into this field even more prepared—knowing how to write an IEP, knowing what was needed and expected from a school perspective in regards to learning disabilities [and] writing social evaluations—I feel that it would have been very beneficial.

Implicit in the speaker’s words is a concession that many social work students have school social work aspirations. Participants expressed their desire for more school-based curricula, like state-specific special education code and law or macro-focused practice within a school district in MSW programs, and articulated the benefit that specialization could have for school social work aspirants, so that they were maximally employable upon graduation from MSW programs. In addition, more school social work curricula ultimately benefits clients served, whose social, emotional, and academic needs are better met by their SSWs earlier in the helping relationship.

Case and Cause

A majority of participants (n = 39) indicated that mental health and emotional regulation were the most common practice problems they encountered in schools (see Table 2). To this end, a majority of participants (n = 31) also indicated that individual-level counseling was the most common way they were able to help students served (see Table 3). A plurality of participants (n = 17) noted that they served their schoolwide communities vis-à-vis the facilitation of student clubs (see Table 4).

Per the tables, participants in this sample noted that their practice is micro-focused. Consequently, most of their practice (for example, counseling, parent support, IEP-related work) was rooted in individual intervention, as opposed to systems-level intervention. One participant boldly summarized their entire practice as “working with children at the individual level.” It was not surprising that the rewards of being an SSW mostly centered on individual-level victories. As a second participant noted, “The rewards [of my practice] are in witnessing growth for the student, teacher, and family.” Two additional participants reflected on the case-specific rewards of being an SSW:

The rewards are seeing a student make progress to internalize the connection between their emotions and . . . their ability to manage their emotions during a tough time or stressful social incident. Also, related to this, [I feel rewarded by seeing] a student’s acceptance and management of their emotional struggles and triggers . . . in a more positive way than [inflicting] self-harm.

***

The rewards are . . . when I hear a story from a teacher or a student about how they have applied a coping strategy in the classroom, in the moment. These are very rewarding moments, because many students know all of the right answers to tell you what they “should do” in a hypothetical situation, but it is much more difficult for them to actually do that in the moment. I’m very proud of them in those moments.

The aforementioned speakers (and other participants) identified the case-level, practice-related reward of watching students use coping strategies to manage their emotions within classroom environments. To this end: while social work is a systems-based profession, SSWs in this sample contextualized practices that were overwhelming micro-focused (for example, case-specific). On the contrary, participants perceived their practice challenges to be largely systemic. Corroborating prior research (Berzin & O’Connor, 2010; Cuellar et al., 2017; Gherardi & Whittlesey-Jerome, 2018), some challenges were linked to the belief that “SSWs occupy a multiplicity of roles.” As one participant (implicitly emphasizing the micro aspects of their job) noted, ambiguity continues to surround school social work and special education:

The greatest challenge I have is being a case manager in addition to being the social worker. I am on the CST and have to case manage and write IEPs in addition to conducting counseling sessions and social skills groups. I do not have a degree in special education and do not think a clinician should be responsible for IEP writing. I also think being a case manager can sometimes get in the way of the therapeutic relationship.

SSWs in this sample were quick to separate themselves from special education and CST professionals, even if participants often assumed CST duties. As another participant noted, “The CST assesses students based on developmental standards and testing, comparing that student to a larger number of like peers. [SSWs are] viewing [students] from different perspectives.” A third participant indicated that “There is minimal respect for social workers in [my] district . . . we are overshadowed by psychologists.”

Without emphasizing school psychologists or other CST members, several more participants perceived lack of respect from administrators for their work. For example: “The top administration does not understand what we do”; “The district only cares about bottom line”; “The NASW Code of Ethics does not line up with administrative demands.” It is interesting that many challenges of being an SSW were attributed to these administrative (macro) forces, while triumphs were often attributed to individual client victories. In three instances, however, participants noted that supportive districts facilitated intrapersonal validation, and potentially better outcomes for students. For example:

Over the past couple of years, [our] school district has significantly supported mental health services. [Our] school district promotes the concept that a child needs to be mentally healthy to participate in academic endeavors; therefore, [our district] realizes the severe need for [school social work] services.

Another participant noted that “The district recognizes [how] students’ emotional health can dictate how they function on any given day.” As illustrated by this speaker, even if participants relish the micro aspects of their jobs, they and the students they serve are ultimately empowered (or disempowered) by larger, macro systems.

Discussion

Summary and Limitations

This original research sought to execute a descriptive study of public high school social workers, and the services they provide, in a focal northeastern state. We sought to do this for the betterment of research, policy, and practice. In contextualizing the experiences of 52 SSWs, the following themes emerged: SSW education and training gave participants the ability to view students holistically, an unmet desire for training in special education, and a desire for more school-based curricula in MSW programs. With respect to a professional social worker’s orientation toward case and cause in the schools, participants in this sample overwhelmingly noted that their school social work practice is micro-focused and rooted in individual, case-level services. With respect to systems-level awareness and advocacy, participants noted that SSWs occupy a multiplicity of roles in their professional settings, which may inhibit their practice. A majority of participants further discussed a perceived lack of respect from administrators, yet several participants (n = 3) discussed the ways in which their district administration empowered participant practice. Dominant findings are summarized in Table 5.

In spite of the findings, this descriptive study is context bound. Findings can only be generalized to these 52 participants. In addition, the aforementioned convenience sample relied on traditional, public high school social workers, with valid e-mail addresses, to respond to an online questionnaire. This approach may have alienated some from participating at all, due to the impersonal nature of e-mail and the many competing demands that SSWs are regularly faced with. Similarly, completion of an electronic questionnaire likely precludes the nuanced responses that often accompany focus groups and in-depth interviews, which tend to characterize descriptive research. No remuneration was offered, which further affects sampling bias: Those who self-selected to participate were likely motivated purely by a desire to contribute to their profession’s knowledge base. Finally, the participant experiences reflected here are unique to public high school social workers in a northeastern state; the experiences do not reflect the breadth and depth of experience of elementary, middle, and private school social workers (to name just a few similar realms of practice) in the focal state or elsewhere.

Implications

Findings support and extend prior research (Bye et al., 2009) that has documented the ways in which SSWs fulfill essential and unique roles in school communities. Conversely, this study also supports and extends previous findings (Peckover et al., 2013; SSWAA, 2008) that demonstrate a pervasive lack of respect and legitimacy for the profession. Clarity of the SSW role is important for schools, SSWs, and consumers of school social work services. Governing bodies like NASW and state- and municipal-level policymakers will benefit from understanding the complexities and challenges of a social worker whose practice occupies a host setting. Specifically, social worker advocacy organizations like NASW must understand a school district’s “bottom line” and demonstrate the advantages of an SSW for both individual students and the district at large. A mandatory national or state-level credential, similar to the School Social Worker Specialty Area Test used by NASW, may help legitimize the profession from a school district perspective. One way to start is by promoting the SSWAA practice model, which emphasizes (a) the provision of education, behavior, and mental health services; (b) the promotion of a positive school environment; and (c) the facilitation of access to resources (see Frey et al., 2013).

Alternatively, MSW program directors and higher education institutions must prepare social work students for navigating employment in an educational host setting. MSW graduates who receive specific classroom-based training may collaborate more effectively with other school-based mental health professionals (school psychologists, CST members, and so on) and logistically integrate into the school districts they serve. Future research should investigate experiences of SSWs who received specialized training in their graduate curriculum, and the ways in which they are (or are not) best prepared to deal with client- and district-level needs (for example, special education issues). Furthermore, this research echoes prior scholarship (Bye et al., 2009) in its calls for school social work outcome inquiry.

This research was based on a 13-item, closed- and open-ended questionnaire conducted in a single northeastern state. To counteract the role ambiguity experienced by survey participants, we advocate that practitioners strive to adhere to the “Recommendations to Guide Practice” from the SSWAA’s literature on working in a host setting (SSWAA, 2008). Although the recommendations appear idealistic and simplistic, they can help practitioners to work on interdisciplinary teams, handle conflicts of interest, and identify the client. We further suggest creation of a national framework (or adoption of SSWAA’s national framework) for school social work, clarifying the SSW’s role in both case- and cause-specific realms of practice. Also, school social work practitioners will benefit from a streamlined job description with distinct expectations provided by state departments of education.

Finally, this study identifies several challenges of micro-level practice being constrained by macro-level policies. Future research must expand the theoretical knowledge base of SSWs, specifically examining the obstacles experienced by practitioners (for example, host settings, role ambiguity, special education). Within the focal northeastern state and elsewhere, future research should focus on measuring practitioner outcomes to demonstrate the profession’s efficacy to respective districts. We hope that findings from this formative, descriptive study will enable MSW programs and states alike to stream competencies and functions for school social work practitioners and aspirants.

Brad Forenza, PhD, MSW,  is assistant professor and Betsy Eckhardt, BA, is an MSW candidate, Department of Social Work and Child Advocacy, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ. Address correspondence to Brad Forenza, Department of Social Work and Child Advocacy, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Avenue, 372 Dickson Hall, Montclair, NJ 07043; e-mail: [email protected].

References