School Social Work Association of America’s National School Social Work Practice Model 2.0: The Past, Present, and Future

This editorial on the School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA)’s National School Social Work Practice Model 2.0 is presented at a critical juncture for the profession—a time for reflection on the identity and purpose of school social work. The original model was first introduced in 2011 and approved by the SSWAA board in December 2013, and revisions began in 2021, culminating in approval in December 2023. This revised model shares several key similarities with its predecessor. First, it continues to provide a common framework for our profession, promoting consistency in the education, credentialing, practice, and evaluation of school social workers. Second, both models were designed to provide direction for a broad audience, including social work educators, administrators, and consumers of school social work services. Finally, both models are intentionally descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptively, the models highlight key areas where school social workers engage, which must be broad enough to encompass the diverse and dynamic roles of the profession. Prescriptively, they serve as roadmaps, providing actionable strategies and directions to guide educators and practitioners to address the evolving needs of students and schools.

HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE NATIONAL MODELS

The appropriate role for school social workers has been discussed, studied, and debated since Costin (1969) conducted the first survey of school social workers (Allen-Meares et al., 2000; Frey & Dupper, 2005; Kelly et al., 2010, 2015; Meares, 1977). Consistent with the organization’s goal of shaping and advocating for school social workers, SSWAA has been at the forefront of emphasizing the importance of a national framework to standardize and strengthen the profession’s impact nationwide.

The first National School Social Work Practice Model was informed by prior perspectives on school social work practice as well as several contemporary issues impacting support services in educational settings, including the growth of mental health services in schools, the Response to Intervention movement, emphasis on data-based decision making, and the rise of evidence-based practices (Frey et al., 2012). Led by Andy Frey (second author) and colleagues, the initial model focused on three core practice areas: (1) providing evidence-based education, behavior, and mental health services; (2) promoting a school climate and culture conducive to student learning and teaching excellence; and (3) maximizing access to school-based and community-based resources. These practice areas were informed by four key constructs: (1) home–school–community-linkages, (2) data-based decision making, (3) adherence to ethical guidelines, and (4) advocacy for education rights. The model’s tagline “Improving academic and behavioral outcomes” encapsulates the profession’s mission to enhance student success across multiple dimensions.

Nearly a decade after being approved by the SSWAA board, the original authors, all of whom were SSWAA members, agreed that the model required updating. These discussions coincided with significant societal and educational shifts in the early 2020s involving a national reckoning related to social justice. Kevin Tan (first author) led the revision process, which proved to be both arduous and profoundly challenging.

SSWAA’S National SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Practice Model 2.0

Over two years, with the support of a dedicated group of SSWAA members, Tan navigated numerous difficult, complex, and emotionally charged conversations, and carefully considered feedback from over 200 participants through focus group discussions, surveys, and sessions at national platforms such as the SSWAA annual conferences (Chicago, Illinois, in 2022; Denver, Colorado, in 2023), and the Society for Social Work Research School Social Work Interest Group Meeting (Phoenix, Arizona, in 2023). This process could not be rushed, as it demanded careful deliberation and sensitivity to the evolving needs of the profession and the changing political landscape in which social workers practicing in educational settings work. For Tan, this was the most challenging work of his career, as the conversations often involved confronting uncomfortable truths and skillfully navigating diverse perspectives.

Model 2.0 was shaped in its early stages by reviewing practice models from school counselors, school psychologists, and school nurses. This approach ensured that the model reflected a comprehensive and multidisciplinary understanding of the various roles within educational settings. Its design features a set of intersecting wheels, encouraging practitioners to consider how its various levels interact with one another. As depicted in Figure 1, Model 2.0 places a central focus on student and school well-being. School well-being has been explicitly incorporated in this iteration to emphasize the profession’s impact at the school building level, extending beyond attention at the individual student level (Tan & SSWAA, in press). Surrounding this core are four key focus areas: academics, mental health, social and emotional development, and school climate. These areas reflect the work of school social workers in fostering both academic achievement and soft skills—skills that research has consistently shown are critical for long-term success in life (Heckman & Kautz, 2012). Model 2.0 makes explicit the key outcomes that frequently drive school social workers’ actions.

Model 2.0 reinforces the practice domains of the home–school–community, emphasizing the socioecological, person-in-environment perspective that defines our profession; this remains consistent with the initial model. These practice domains and key focus areas are further supported by five professional activities that are critical components of the work school social workers engage in: practice, research, policy, leadership, and advocacy. These five professional activities capture the core practice areas and foundational principles outlined in the first national practice model while also allowing for the variation in the roles of school social workers across different regions and school districts.

Model 2.0 is grounded in the professional principles of social work values, equity, and the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW; 2021a) Code of Ethics, ensuring that all model aspects align with our profession’s ethical standards and commitment to social justice. Finally, the tagline “School social work promotes sustaining and equitable outcomes” reflects a call to action for practitioners to ensure that every student can thrive and that the systems supporting them evolve in just, inclusive, and sustainable ways.

Dilemmas in Designing a Unified Framework for Multiple Audiences

While the specialized field of school social work practice is complex and must be flexible to accommodate the needs of the students and the education system being served, two overarching dilemmas were central in creating the original and revised practice models.

Individual versus Ecological Focus

The first dilemma involved the extent to which the models prioritize services to students who require intensive, individualized support versus an ecological focus emphasizing culture and climate at the school, district, community level, as well as primary prevention, or interventions designed for all students, irrespective of risk status. The ecological systems approach has defined social work practice and school social work since the early 1980s (see Allen-Meares, 1994). Multiple school social work scholars have advocated that school social work practitioners overattend to student-focused interventions at the expense of systemic and multilevel interventions (Alderson, 1972; Allen-Meares et al., 2000; Costin, 1975; Dupper & Evans, 1996; Frey & Dupper, 2005, Kelly et al., 2010). Rather than targeting individual students, these authors suggest that a greater emphasis should be placed on whole-school intervention programs that seek to change the culture and climate of a school, clarify and communicate norms about behaviors, and include comprehensive programs that focus on social competency skills that are delivered over extended periods of time and continually reinforced in the school environment. While these calls have been consistent in the literature, multiple surveys of school social work practitioners indicate they spend the majority of their time providing tertiary support to individual students (Allen-Meares, 1994; Costin, 1969; Kelly et al., 2010, 2016).

Advocating for Social Justice versus Maintaining Neutrality

The second dilemma involved the extent to which the models prioritize social and political issues deeply rooted in social work values. This dilemma is related to the first in that tertiary-level support for individuals is unlikely to consider issues such as systemic and institutional oppression. Prioritizing social and political issues deeply rooted in social work values would result in a model that includes more assertive engagement at the macro level, based on the assumption that meaningful progress requires confronting broader societal inequities and historical injustices. There have been long-standing calls for greater recognition of social justice in school social work practice (see Crutchfield et al., 2020). In contrast, some individuals advocate for the models to maintain neutrality and soften or avoid the explicit use of language that could justify administrators and consumers of school social work services to marginalize or reject these services and, therefore, turn to other disciplines that provide similar support. The tension between these perspectives reflects a larger professional dilemma—balancing the imperative to pursue transformative change versus the need for pragmatic solutions.

Updates to SSWAA’s National School Social Work Practice Model

Integrating Both Individual and Ecological Focus

The original model prioritized the ecological focus; in that respect, it was more prescriptive than descriptive. For example, home–school–community linkages were the first of four key constructs highlighted in the model. Additionally, the first of the three practice areas (provide evidence-based education, behavior, and mental health services) addressed multitiered programs and practices, while the second (promote a school climate and culture conducive to student learning and teaching excellence) and third (maximize access to school-based and community-based resources) addressed broader, macro-level practices.

The revised version builds on the original model’s ecological foundation, encouraging school social workers to integrate micro- and macro-level practices into a more explicit, cohesive framework. Consumers of the original model sometimes struggled to connect the key concepts to the practice areas. To address this feedback, the original concepts and practice areas are now nested into a set of interlocking wheels in the Model 2.0. The revised model is organized around three ecological domains (home, school, and community), four key focus areas (academics, social and emotional, mental health, and school climate), and five professional activities (practice, research, policy, leadership, and advocacy) to function as an integrated whole.

Practitioners are encouraged to “spin the wheel,” reflecting on how the intersections across the domains, focus areas, and professional activities address the diverse and dynamic needs of students, families, and communities. For instance, combining the first word from each wheel prompts the question, “How might school social workers promote academics within the home environment through direct practice?” Similarly, selecting the second word generates another question: “How can practitioners foster social and emotional well-being within the school building through their research?”

The revised model provides an adaptable and comprehensive framework, empowering practitioners to explore and develop strategies that bridge micro- and macro-level practices. It encourages practitioners to consider macro-level engagement with their micro-level expertise such as through leadership roles (e.g., administrative positions), advocacy efforts (e.g., presenting at school board meetings), and policy development initiatives. This evolution reflects a deliberate effort to bridge micro- and macro-level practices while addressing systemic challenges within educational settings and fostering meaningful and sustainable change.

Centering on Social Justice

While social justice terminology was included in the initial conceptualization of the original model (see Frey et al., 2012), progressive language was softened in the final version, largely based on practitioner feedback that the model might do more harm than good in practice settings where administrators might be turned off by references to systemic injustices perpetuated by the systems they control. In the final version, two of the four key constructs were included in the figure: (1) ethical guidelines and educational policy and (2) education rights and advocacy. Within the accompanying brochure, the ethical guidelines and educational policy construct emphasized the importance of the NASW (2021a)  Code of Ethics and SSWAA’s Ethical Guideline Series to define expectations for ethical school social work practice. Within the education rights and advocacy construct in the brochure it states:

School social workers address the ways in which structural inequalities and school processes affect school quality and educational outcomes. School social work practitioners are expected to raise issues of diversity and social and economic justice that lead to school failure and educational disparities. School social workers should be able to balance their mandate as school employees to advocate for students and families with their mandate as social workers to help change policies and practices that undermine the dignity and worth of students. (Frey et al., 2013, p. 4)

The decision to prioritize social justice language in the most recent version was even more complicated because the arguments for and against prioritizing social justice language have become more divisive. Specifically, early 2020 was marked by significant societal events that heightened awareness of racial and social inequities, such as the murder of George Floyd and other individuals of color and the COVID-19 pandemic. These events underscored the critical need for services that challenge and change oppressive and racist systems. This emphasis on social justice quickly gave way to a backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), making the implications of prioritizing social work values over practical relevance potentially dire, particularly for those in conservative locations. This tension is especially pressing in regions where resistance to certain terms is more pronounced, and alignment with state and federal mandates is perceived to be necessary to avoid alienating key gatekeepers who shape our work within schools. In fact, at the time of writing this editorial, President Trump, on his first day in office, revoked all federal DEI programs by executive order.

Despite these challenges, our commitment to social justice and advocacy for the students and families we serve must remain steadfast. This dedication, however, requires a delicate balance—ensuring relevance and inclusivity while avoiding the alienation of school social workers navigating politically charged environments. Achieving this balance demands both clarity in messaging and intentionality in actions.

Broader trends within the social work profession compelled the deliberate decision to elevate equity as a standalone construct in the revised model. For the first time in its history, NASW acknowledged the impact of racism within the profession, issuing a public apology for past practices that supported discriminatory systems and harmed people of color (NASW, 2021b). This acknowledgment marked a critical step in the profession’s ongoing commitment to addressing racial injustice and creating a more equitable and inclusive society. For the school social work profession, this reckoning calls for a deeper reflection on how our practices and systems must evolve better to serve historically marginalized students, families, communities, and practitioners of color.

Other major national social work organizations have also taken critical steps to acknowledge the need for systemic reform. In an unprecedented move, the Association of Social Work Boards (2022) acknowledged bias in its licensing exams, noting that minority test-takers, particularly Black and Latinx individuals, face significantly lower pass rates. These data suggest systemic racism and cultural bias in the exam content, creating a barrier for practitioners of color and limiting their ability to enter and advance in the profession. This recognition calls for systemic reforms to ensure greater equity and fairness in the licensing process, reinforcing the profession’s responsibility to confront and dismantle barriers to entry for underrepresented groups. For school social workers, such bias affects the diversity of our workforce, which in turn impacts the profession’s ability to represent and serve the increasingly diverse student populations effectively.

Similarly, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), in its latest Educational Policy Accreditation Standards (EPAS), has mandated that all social work educational programs align their teaching standards with antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion content by July 1, 2025. This ensures that social work students have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to serve marginalized communities better. These CSWE EPAS changes will impact how educators and practicum instructors adhere to accreditation standards and supervise aspiring school social workers during their internships, ensuring they are equipped with the competencies to address the diverse needs of students in an inclusive and equitable manner.

These developments within our broader profession reflect a growing commitment to confront and dismantle systemic racism while ensuring our practice remains diverse, equitable, and inclusive. The undeniable truth remains clear: The lived experiences of our students and families, particularly those from historically marginalized, oppressed, and racialized communities, and of our practitioners of color cannot be ignored. Turning a blind eye to systemic injustices and the profession’s complicity would be irresponsible and directly contradict the core values outlined in our Code of Ethics, specifically, social justice, equity, and the dignity of all individuals. Social workers are called to confront and address inequities, and remaining silent or disengaged in the face of these critical issues undermines our profession’s fundamental mission. These tensions were evident in the critiques Tan received in the Model 2.0 development and dissemination process, as described in the next section.

Critiques

Following the passage of Model 2.0 in December 2023, Tan led additional listening sessions in Spring 2024 to address concerns, gather feedback, and support the model’s rollout. Organized by geographic regions to reflect the various contexts across the country, the sessions were attended primarily by state association leaders, with about 50 participants in total. Throughout the sessions, members expressed trepidation, with critiques emerging alongside celebrating the profession’s progress. There were expressions of anticipation and gratitude to SSWAA for the long-awaited acknowledgment of equity, which some have felt had been absent or insufficiently emphasized in the prior model. However, this sense of joy was tempered by caution, as concerns were raised about the model’s practical applicability and potential political implications.

Practical Applicability. There were expressed concerns about the model’s practical applicability, particularly the perceived emphasis on macro-level systemic issues. The language surrounding the role of school social workers in creating systemic change has been viewed as inconsistent with the primary responsibilities of many practitioners, who are primarily focused on micro-level, direct service delivery. For these school social workers, the emphasis is on providing individualized support to students, addressing immediate needs such as mental health. As a result, concerns have been raised that the model’s focus on broader, systemic issues may not align with the day-to-day realities and priorities of those directly serving students in schools.

Political Implications. Other concerns centered on the inclusion of politically loaded terms (i.e., “equity,” “social–emotional”) in the model, as they risk provoking backlash, particularly from interested parties who govern funding and sanctioning of social work services. While the early 2020s saw a growing focus on equity and social–emotional development, this shift has faced resistance, particularly in politically conservative regions. Critics argue that equity challenges traditional values such as individual responsibility and that social–emotional learning programs risk politicizing the classroom. Some members report materials against social–emotional learning circulating in certain states and hotlines being set up to report school personnel engaged in equity and social–emotional work, highlighting a deep political divide. Concerns were also raised about including these terms in the model due to fear that they may undermine the acceptance of school social workers in certain communities and schools, particularly in states where such discussions are seen as divisive. Some fear this resistance could lead to states distancing themselves from SSWAA, and the inclusion of equity and social and emotional concepts could overshadow more immediate student needs, impacting employment, funding, and certification.

Hope and Promise

It is essential that these critiques are not dismissed as mere resistance to change but recognized as expressions of deeper concerns regarding the practical implications and political landscape surrounding school social work. Rather than barriers, these critiques should be viewed as opportunities for meaningful dialogue that would indicate the profession’s active engagement with its evolving role in educational systems. The call for accessible language and a more universally accepted framing of school social work, particularly at the micro level, is understandably needed. Flexibility is also essential to adapt to local political, cultural, and institutional dynamics, fostering collective ownership of the model; promoting sustainable, context-sensitive progress; and expanding the reach and implementation of school social work across even more settings. However, it is equally important to resist compromising on language or practices to avoid perceived political controversy. Yielding to every political objection risks diluting our profession’s core values, and such concessions can inadvertently maintain the status quo and reinforce the inequities we seek to dismantle.

Despite the critiques and dilemmas, there are promising signs. In February 2024, Tan delivered a successful pilot workshop in a Pennsylvania school district, engaging 60 school social workers and district administrators, while another introduction at the November 2024 Midwest School Social Work Council Conference in Wisconsin drew over 100 participants, yielding overwhelmingly positive feedback. Similarly, four national webinars in fall 2024 attracted more than 200 attendees, covering topics from foundational school social work roles to addressing equity and political challenges, with evaluations reflecting positive support despite a few critical voices. Additionally, an SSWAA–Oxford University Press implementation guide series coauthored by academics and practitioners on addressing collaboration with administrators, supporting diverse students and families, and tackling critical issues is in development. This momentum highlights the value of continued dialogue and reinforces the need for deeper engagement with the complexities shaping the profession’s future. While challenges persist, the positive feedback signals eagerness within the field to embrace this model.

A Path Forward

SSWAA‘s National School Social Work Practice Model 2.0 represents a significant step in strengthening and refining the profession’s role in addressing the complex challenges faced by today’s students and schools. The ongoing discourse around this revised model must be seen as a way of moving toward a common understanding and cohesive vision for the future of school social work. Civil discourse is essential in addressing the dilemmas and critiques raised in the model’s development, with particular attention to the potential harm experienced by practitioners and communities of color who have long faced marginalization and silencing. It is imperative to approach these conversations with empathy, respect, and humility.

Advancing Model 2.0 will require strategic thinking, patience, and collaboration. Strength can be drawn from the many historical and civil leaders who have walked the path of resistance, driving transformative change nationally and globally. Their resilience and vision inspire the profession to continually shape itself firmly grounded in justice, equity, and the well-being of all students. Complex and contentious, this work will undoubtedly face resistance, but it is necessary. By embracing this challenge, the profession not only shapes the future of school social work, but also paves the way for the next generation—those who are watching, learning, and ready to carry this work into the future with the same courage, determination, and conviction.

References