Integrating the National School Social Work Practice Model: The Chicken, not the Egg

The role of school social work (SSW) practitioners is more important than ever as schools grapple with increasing student needs and fluctuating roles and responsibilities. A lack of clear articulation of the school social worker role often hinders the ability to effectively advocate for positions; expand responsibilities; manage workloads; and maximize the impact on students, families, and school communities. This column aims to provide a comprehensive strategy for integrating the School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA) National School Social Work Practice Model 2.0 (hereafter National Model; Tan & SSWAA, in press) across the profession, encompassing policy, research, education, and practice.

Given our ethical responsibility in conjunction with the historical and longitudinal prevalence of educational inequities that disproportionately affect racially minoritized youth (Crutchfield & Eugene, 2022), the model should guide practitioner efforts to target and ameliorate these inequities. The fragmentation of the profession, varied SSW practice guidance, geographical differences, divergent school and youth needs, state certification standards, and training may facilitate role ambiguity, fraught working conditions, and deep inequalities in the professional viability of SSW (Lucio, Souhrada, et al., 2024). Depending on the state of practice (e.g., certification standards; Mitchell et al., 2021), geographic location of schools (e.g., urban, rural, suburban; Rodriguez et al., 2020), and administrative leadership (e.g., perceptions of SSW; Stalnecker et al., 2022), SSW practitioners may face substantial role variation, ambiguity in practice, and competing professional guidance.

Social work education may sometimes be oriented around macro awareness, systems perspectives, and ecological frameworks; the role in schools often supplants advocacy, policy, and macro service with micro-level or individualized service delivery (Phillippo et al., 2017). These trends of micro-level practice have been consistent over time (Kelly et al., 2010; Kelly et al., 2015), with scholars noting how the level of education may confound practices, state certification standards, and length of employment (Thompson et al., 2019). The limited attention to macro practice cannot be directly attributed to a lack of individual desire. School social workers often report a desire to engage in macro, policy, and advocacy-based roles, yet practice obligations may deter these domains of practice (Ball & Skrzypek, 2020; Lucio, Shayman, et al., 2024).

Training and professional development of SSW practitioners is disproportionately reliant upon a generalist model of SSW (Mitchell et al., 2021; Phillippo et al., 2017). Yet, it is unclear whether state factors such as education and certification inequities may have limited the professional impact of the SSW model. Since more than a dozen states still do not have legislative regulations for SSW and most educational preparation programs persist without education directly applicable to school-based practice, integrating the model with state education agencies and universities should be a priority (Mitchell et al., 2021).

Why Integration Matters: A Multifaceted Imperative

Integrating the National Model is a strategic imperative with implications for SSW practitioners and the students, families, schools, and communities they serve. A unified framework provides the following: (a) clarity and cohesion through a shared understanding of the SSW role, grounded in the National Model, to strengthen the profession’s identity and advocacy efforts by providing clear expectations for social workers and ensuring consistent practice across different schools, districts, and states; (b) advocacy and empowerment to empower practitioners to advocate for their positions, secure resources, and expand their roles it also guides decision makers in effectively hiring and utilizing highly qualified SSW practitioners; (c) enhanced collaboration with a shared understanding of the SSW role, grounded in the National Model, that facilitates collaboration among teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists, and community partners to support student academic, social, and emotional development; and (c) data-driven accountability with a framework for evaluating the impact of SSW interventions, demonstrating their effectiveness through data collection and analysis, ultimately shaping the future of the profession.

Areas of Model Integration

In this column, we discuss integrating the National Model in the four broad areas of policy, research, education, and practice within the SSW profession. We will also provide recommendations on infusing the National Model across the profession. We recognize that it is potentially a big lift for SSW practitioners, educators, and researchers to fundamentally rethink how we approach the foundations and thinking about the profession. This is a starting space for a conversation about the importance of the National Model driving the SSW profession rather than simply fitting elements of the model into current practices, hence the chicken, not the egg.

SSW Policy

For the National Model to be widely adopted, it should be incorporated into legislation, regulations, and policies at the district, state, and federal levels, including departments of education. Currently, many states do not mandate specific standards, with others defaulting to the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW; 2024) Practice Standards for School Social Workers, providing few incentives to learn or implement the National Model. Incorporating the elements of the National Model in legislation, certification requirements, statutes, and administrative rules would serve to codify the language and extent of what SSW practitioners are capable of doing, laying the groundwork for SSW practitioners to implement the National Model.

We recommend embedding the National Model into educational legislation and school district policies while aligning it with the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE; 2022) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards and the revised NASW (2024) school social work practice standards to guide state certification criteria.

SSW Research

National SSW Research Agenda

A first step is establishing a focused research agenda to evaluate the implementation and impacts of the National Model. A comprehensive research agenda provides process and outcome studies that examine each National Model component. Engaging researchers and practitioners creates opportunities to address the research-to-practice gap. This involves how SSW practices impact student outcomes across academics, school climate, social–emotional development, mental health services, and specific National Model elements and individual, family, peers, school, or community underlying risk and protective factors.

We recommend sponsoring a national summit that brings together researchers and practitioners to develop a national research agenda focused on the National Model.

Funding

Efforts should explore funding mechanisms that support each National Model component and across all three tiers of multitiered systems of support (MTSS), not just Tier 3 intensive individualized services, to ensure adequate support for systemic (Tier 1) and smaller group (Tier 2) work.

We recommend aligning funding opportunities with the National Model and research documenting SSW funding variations across states and regions.

Practice Evaluation

Adapting teacher evaluation rubrics is common in assessing SSW practitioners’ performance. An accurate assessment of SSW practice and its impact requires an evaluation grounded in the National Model standards and delineated along the differing performance expectations by career stage. What a SSW practitioner should know and be able to do changes depending on the beginner, mid-career, or advanced practitioner role. SSW evaluations should accurately reflect the expertise of SSW practitioners and provide valuable, actionable feedback for continuous improvement.

We recommend developing collaborative practice evaluations across state and national organizations for SSW practitioners that differentiate knowledge and application of the National Model across each SSW career stage (i.e., early, mid, advanced).

SSW Education

University Programs

The National Model is a benchmark for the knowledge and skills that students need for SSW practice. Universities should play a key role in teaching the model’s skills and components throughout their curricula and exposing students to the model before graduation. Students should be exposed to specific SSW knowledge, which extends beyond clinical areas to school policies, special education law, MTSS, alternative discipline, and the historical context shaping educational practices and SSW. Increased exposure to the National Model across university courses could drive growth in SSWAA membership as more school social workers become familiar with and apply the model.

We recommend that higher education institutions develop SSW courses and curricula based on the National Model, aligned with NASW (2024) standards and CSWE (2022) competencies, while strengthening connections between state and national SSW associations and universities to promote and teach the model content effectively.

Coaching and Supervision

To fully integrate the National Model, SSW practitioners at all levels should receive coaching and supervision from other SSW colleagues and mentors versed in the model’s components and applications. This reinforces SSW development and aligns it with the model’s comprehensive framework and components.

We recommend advocating for SSW practitioners to receive regular supervision from a knowledgeable and certified school social worker, mirroring the clinical licensure process and promoting school social workers as immediate supervisors or, when not feasible, connecting practitioners with SSW mentors within or outside their district.

SSW Practice

Practice Roles

SSW practitioners possess specialized knowledge and skills defined in the National Model, differentiating them from other specialized instructional support personnel (SISP). This lens is grounded in educational equity and a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging while emphasizing the impact of systems and environments on youth, including mental health and well-being.

We recommend aligning SSW practice roles with the National Model and crosswalking the NASW (2024) practice standards for better integration.

Leadership

SSW leaders can play a vital role in facilitating school improvement plans; prioritizing educational equity; and elevating the needs of students, families, schools, and communities. The National Model provides a guiding framework for communicating the value of SSW practitioners to key leaders like administrators, parents, teachers, and community partners. The emphasis on clinical skill development in graduate programs often overlooks the importance of leadership training, and many SSW practitioners need more leadership skills to help shape the SSW narrative, establish roles and promote positive support in schools.

We recommend connecting the National Model to the specific needs of schools and developing a crosswalk between the model’s terminology and the language used in schools to enhance communication, collaboration, and demonstration of the impact on student outcomes.

Advocacy

The National Model provides a clear framework for advocating for the profession by laying the foundation for articulating the roles and impacts of SSW practitioners. SSW practitioners can leverage the model to advocate for policies supporting all students’ well-being and academic success through an educational equity lens.

We recommend utilizing the National Model to demonstrate the scope of SSW practice and advocating for increased SSW positions and resources within schools and districts.

Overcoming Challenges and Promoting Action

There is a need to clearly articulate and communicate SSW practitioners’ unique capabilities and contributions so that students, families, teachers, and administrators can fully utilize their expertise. At the same time, there are already ongoing efforts to engage other SISP professionals and the social work profession (NASW) in collaborative efforts to support youth. A further step is to work strategically and purposefully to engage school psychologists, school counselors, and higher education institutions in identifying the strengths of each profession and the overlap between professions. Creating a comprehensive mental health framework across professions can better support marginalized youth across the spectrum of their needs and help move beyond siloed approaches and toward a more cohesive and evidence-based practice model to maximize effectiveness.

Aligning roles to the National Model creates opportunities and challenges. One concern is a potential disconnect between current practices and the National Model’s components and expectations. SSW practitioners asked to undertake new and unfamiliar roles or foci would need additional support and training. In other cases, practitioners may find that their current work does not align with the National Model, potentially meaning they would have to discontinue certain aspects of their practice. This shift could create tension between maintaining clear position roles and prioritizing their administration’s or school’s needs. SSW roles in many school districts have been narrowly defined or even limited to specific areas such as special education or attendance. Promoting a broader skill set, as laid out in the National Model, may require more support from several fronts: administrators who have preconceived notions of SSW roles, other SISP professionals who have traditionally performed these functions, and SSW practitioners who have become accustomed to their limited roles.

Building support for SSW practitioners must be concurrent with these integration efforts. It might be useful to create spaces for SSW practitioners to discuss successes, foster research-to-practice partnerships, and promote collaborative learning. Support for practitioners is especially crucial when a school’s approach differs significantly from the National Model in terms of an assigned role, value, or ethical dilemma, especially in antiracism and social justice areas. Navigating these complex issues requires ongoing dialogue, reflection, and a commitment to upholding the core values of the SSW profession (Mitchell et al., 2024).

Integrating the National Model across all aspects of the SSW profession requires a proactive approach from practitioners, state and national associations, researchers, and university educators. Engaging directly with school boards, administrators, and state departments of education to promote the National Model highlights the value brought to students and schools. Focusing on presenting solutions demonstrates the practical benefits of an SSW presence in schools. Focusing on the key areas of advocacy, strategic planning, and professional branding allows SSW practitioners to take meaningful steps toward implementing the National Model and reinforcing their indispensable role. A key aspect of effective advocacy is understanding funding sources for SSW positions. Practitioners should familiarize themselves with Medicaid reimbursement processes and explore alternative funding avenues to support and expand their roles. SSW practitioners should take a proactive stance rather than relying solely on school boards, state funding, or district administrations to secure funding and define roles. Presenting data-driven evidence that addresses local priorities established by the school board and school administration reiterates the need to retain and expand SSW positions and services.

Professional branding is another way to solidify the role of SSW practitioners. Individual SSW practitioners and the SSW profession must articulate a clear, compelling story that resonates with key decision makers. Branding efforts should include developing concise, informative materials that outline the roles and responsibilities of SSW practitioners for principals and school district administrators. Emphasis should be placed on SSW practitioners’ skills and perspectives, drawing on the National Model to highlight the extent of SSW impacts. Having clear roles and evaluations aligned with the National Model elevates the services and outcomes to students, families, schools, and communities; promotes the recruitment and retention of SSW practitioners; and fosters a deeper relationship to supporting student well-being.

In our efforts to prioritize and integrate the National Model into policy, research, education, and practice, a unified effort will be required. We must be as ambitious as we are self-reflexive in examining the model’s utility alongside contemporary school-based needs. We must also bring forward opportunities for critical feedback, inquiry, and possibilities for revisions and adaptations to meet these evolving needs. As social workers, it is our duty to be culturally responsive, ethically grounded, and oriented toward equity amid renewed school-based solutions. The National Model offers guidance and a foundation for action to achieve these goals.

References