School Psychologists’ Perspectives on Social Justice

1. School Psychologists’ Perspectives on Social Justice Martha Ellen Wynne, Ph.D., David Shriberg, Ph.D., Angela Lombardo, M.Ed., Alissa Briggs, M.Ed., Gina Bartucci, M.Ed., & Jennifer Costello, M.Ed. Loyola University Chicago Introduction and Study Goals Results Goal #1: Defining Social Justice Goal #2: Importance of Social Justice Goal #3: Relevance of Institutional Power Within the past few years, the construct “social justice” has been the subject of significant research, practice, and advocacy from professional groups related to school psychology (e.g., American Counseling Association [ACA], 2003; American Psychological Association [APA], 2003; Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Goodman et al., 2004; North, 2006). While socially just practice may be an aspiration that most, if not all, school psychologists likely support, there is a lack of research delineating how this term translates realistically to school psychology training and practice. In order to address this gap, this study sought to expand the discipline’s knowledge base and potential action steps related to social justice vis-à-vis a survey of a random sample of members of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Goal #5: Practitioner Activities That Support Social Justice Respondents’ Mean Ratings Regarding the Importance of Social Justice to Four Areas Respondents’ Mean Ratings Regarding Possible Components of the Definition of Social Justice Respondents’ Mean Ratings Regarding Actions that School Psychologists Could Realistically Take in Order to Support Social Justice Respondents were asked, “Institutional power could be considered a topic that is salient to the discussion of social justice in school psychology. If institutional power could be defined as the exertion of control on individuals or groups by society's primary institutions, (i.e., schools, local education agencies, and government), do you agree or disagree that it is salient to the discussion of social justice in school psychology?” Given answer options of “agree or disagree,” 95% of respondents agreed that consideration of institutional power is salient to the discussion of social justice within school psychology. Building off the constructs developed by Shriberg et al. (2008) in their Delphi study on multicultural experts in psychology’s perspectives on social justice, this study sought to obtain NASP members’ perspectives on: • The definition of social justice within a school psychology perspective • The importance of the construct of social justice to school psychology research, practice, NASP, and continuing education • The relevance of institutional power as a key topic area in school psychology and social justice • The role of social justice within school psychology graduate training • The identification of practitioner activities that support social justice • The relative importance of barriers and supports related to promoting and implementing socially just school psychology practices 1= extremely unimportant, 7=extremely important *Item rated significantly higher than all others, p<.001 1= unimportant to the definition, 7= critical to the definition *Items rated significantly higher than all others (except each other), p<.001 Goal #4: Social Justice and School Psychology Graduate Training 1= extremely unrealistic, 7=extremely realistic *Items rated significantly higher than all other items (except each other), p<.001. **Item rated significantly lower than all other items, p<.001 Participants’ Ratings Regarding the Importance of Each Topic Area Toward School Psychology Graduate Students Becoming Prepared to Become Effective Agents of Social Justice Participants’ Ratings Regarding the Importance of Practice of Each of These Topic Areas in Practicum Experiences in Order to Prepare Students to be Effective Agents of Social Justice Methods Goal #6: Barriers and Supports Respondents’ Ratings Regarding Degree to Which Certain Factors Facilitate or Impede the Achievement of Social Justice through Service Delivery Participants Participants were 1,000 randomly selected NASP members. The survey response rate was 21.4%. Compared to recent NASP data reported by Curtis, Lopez, Batsche, and Smith (2006), respondents in this study were more likely to be female (78.8% versus 74%), less likely to be Caucasian (85.2% versus 92.6%), and were on average younger (M = 41.5 versus M = 46.2) than the typical NASP member. Instrument The Social Justice in School Psychology (SJSP) survey was piloted in the summer of 2008 with 44 participants. Survey items were developed based on study goals, using constructs identified in the Shriberg et al. (2008) Delphi study as conceptual anchors. The final version of the SJSP contained six primary sections plus a demographic section. The SJSP includes 27 items that ask participants to rate on a seven point Likert scale several constructs believed to be important to social justice. The SJSP also contains several open-ended questions asking respondents to provide examples and priorities for social justice within their work setting. Procedure In the fall of 2008, in partnership with NASP’s social justice interest group, 1,000 randomly selected NASP members received an email inviting them to complete the SJSP. Two follow-up emails were sent in subsequent weeks. All surveys were completed online. For the Likert items, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine if there are differences in items based on the age, degree, and years of experience of respondents. Where significant differences were found, a post-hoc Tukey’s or Dunnets C (if equal variances could not be assumed) tests were conducted. In addition, paired-sample t-tests were used to determine if there were differences between item means. This survey contained four qualitative questions related to barriers and supports to social justice in school psychology at both the field wide and individual practice level. The responses to these questions were analyzed utilizing an inductive content analysis procedure following a process outlined by Creswell (2009). 1= extremely unimportant, 7=extremely important 1= extremely unimportant, 7=extremely important *Item rated significantly higher than all others, p<.001 1=extremely impeding, 7=extremely facilitating Conclusion Visual model of Codebook for Social Justice Survey Qualitative Responses: Barriers and Supports • Ensuring the protection of rights and opportunities and promoting non-discriminatory practice identified as most central components of social • justice definition (matches North (2006) model well) • Knowledge of best prevention and intervention practices and ethical practice are seen as most central to graduate training and practicum • experiences in support of social justice • Promoting best practices, conducting fair assessments, and advocating for the rights of children and families are seen as most realistic actions • school psychologists can take to support social justice • Taking personal risks in promoting institutional change is seen as least realistic action school psychologists can take to support social justice • Knowledge of the law is seen as a bigger factor than anticipated as a facilitator of the achievement of social justice through effective service • delivery • Caseloads and excessive testing and assessment emerged as biggest barriers to achieving social justice Personal Components Professional Components Societal Components • School/Work Climate • General (School Policies) • Role of School Psychologist • Administrative Support • Interactions with Parents & Community • General • Money • Time • People • Field’s commitment to Social Justice • Knowledge Base • Cultural Proficiency • Influence of Professional Organizations • Drive/Willingness to Rock the Boat • Advances in the Field (i.e., RtI, PBIS, • Research) • Cultural Proficiency • Interpersonal Skills/ • Relationships • (i.e., Collaboration) • Individual Commitment to • Social Justice • View of Own Role • Personal Drive • Laws (including the • emphasis on achievement • test scores) • Cultural Context