Nicole M. Brown, M.A.
Doctoral Student
Graduate Teaching Associate
School Psychology Program
The Ohio State University
brown.4666@osu.edu
A Call for Change: Transformative Leaders
Day in and day out, the business and financial worlds are told to diversify their lives: investors are told to diversify their investment portfolios, businesses are told to diversify their goods and services, and so on. Why then isn’t the same message proclaimed in the education world when it comes to understanding the students in the schools? One would assume, with the ever-changing demographics in the student body, that the education world would be an expert at diversifying their goods and services (Ravitch, 2014; Shields, 2013); sadly, that is not the case. Consider the following factors: 1.3 million children are homeless; a quarter of all children in the United States grow up in poverty; over 38 million immigrants currently live in the United States; 80% of Latino students and 74% of African American students attend majority non-white schools; and certain racial groups are more likely to be incarcerated, fail to graduate, or even attend college. With such staggering factors, schools must equip themselves with the proper tools, training, and knowledge base so as to strengthen the support for our nation’s children. However, there seems to be a disconnect in the education world when it comes to advocating and striving for social justice, or the “full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs” (Bell, 2013, p. 21).
Schools today lack the knowledge and effort to diversify their roles in helping students’ thrive. Rather than working towards a socially just environment, one that allows every student the chance to learn, grow, and succeed, the education debt and achievement gap results in the segregation of students in schools. The education system has worked to disadvantage certain students by segregating them into groups and classes based on race, mandating unequal performance standards on standardized tests scores, and offering less support and resources to those who sorely need it, making the achievement gap inevitable (Kumashiro, 2012). Not only are the schools ill-prepared in providing equal opportunities for all, but they are also lacking in preparing our students beyond academics; so many students today are leaving school lacking certain soft skills, or qualities that add to society beyond those tested on standardized tests, such as character, empathy, critical thinking, creativity, and so on. It is not that those in education aren’t aware of these issues and aren’t trying to remedy them; they either do not know how to affect change or are too pressured from educational policies, such as No Child Left Behind to focus solely on testing and accountability that they do not have the time to do so. However, it is absolutely imperative that those in the education system take a step back and realize the bigger picture. Education shapes how we live and therefore can teach people either to manage themselves in a system that privileges only some or challenge that very system (Kumashiro, 2012).
How then do we make this change: the change of moving from an education system that values and advantages some but disadvantages, discriminates against, and marginalizes others to one of equitable and inclusive opportunities for all? How do we advocate for social justice in the schools? In her book, Transformative Leadership in Education: Equitable Change in an Uncertain and Complex World, Carolyn Shields (2013) posits a new concept for those in the education world: adopting transformative leadership in the schools. Transformative leaders acknowledge, understand, promote, and advocate for equal opportunity in academic achievement, family and community empowerment, citizenship, community engagement, individual empowerment, and more (Shields, 2013). They strive to even the unequal playing field plaguing our students in schools. More simply put, they advocate for social justice. Shields (2013) stated:
It is leadership that begins by recognizing that the inequities that prevent our attainment of a deep democracy not only exist in every community but that these material inequities powerfully and detrimentally affect the possibility of equitable educational outcomes for all students. Transformative leaders combine careful attention to authentic, personal leadership characteristics, a focus on more collaborative, dialogic, and democratic processes of leadership; and at the same time, attend simultaneously to goals of individual intellectual development, and goals of collective sustainability, social justice, and mutually beneficial civil society (p. 19).
Shields (2013) presented a compelling case as to why school leaders should adopt this stance. She defined school leaders as principals and teachers, or those holding formal positions of responsibility, to be the ideal candidates for transformative leaders. Equally important, and sometimes overlooked, are those leaders in the schools who may already come equipped with the skill set of social justice advocacy and are even striving for equality in more ways than one. Leaders, such as school psychologists, are in the perfect position to do this. Therefore, I am arguing that school psychology training programs should aim to focus on a training that equips future school psychologists with the knowledge, awareness, experience, and proper tools to act as transformative leaders in the schools so as to pave a way for equal learning opportunities for all youth.
Why School Psychologists?
School psychologists are leaders in the schools who work to provide effective services to help children and youth succeed academically, socially, behaviorally, and emotionally. Moreover, the profession of school psychology has been grounded in a concern for equal access to education for all children with its origins in the special education rights movements. For example, the history of school psychology in the past 40 years is reflected in federal legislation, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the passage of Public Law 94-142, all of which are borne from movements related to civil and educational rights (Moy et al., 2014; Speight & Vera, 2009). These reforms have strengthened over the years and efforts have been made to define and refine the impact of social justice in school psychology. In a seminal study conducted by Shriberg and colleagues in 2008, researchers initiated an empirical focus on social justice in school psychology by creating a social justice “lens.” This study used a Delphi approach, interviewing 44 “diversity experts” on a multicultural panel. Results from the panel looking at social justices issues found that school psychologists must partake in advocacy work that “both supports the rights and opportunities of all and recognizes potential obstacles as well” (Shriberg et al., 2008, p. 465). For example, in a commentary piece on the Shriberg et al. (2008) study, researchers found that the preparation of school psychologists for social justice action would require knowledge of law, ethics, current issues, resources, and best practices, in addition to skills training (Nastasi, 2008). Further, Nastasi (2008) noted that knowledge and skill development must be tied to advocacy, interpersonal interactions and collaboration, personal responsibility, and systemic interventions. Finally, the findings of Shriberg et al. (2008) presented a novel look at social justice in school psychology, furthering the argument for creating a social justice “lens” in school psychology, thus paving the way for transformative leaders.
In their words and actions, school psychologists promote fairness and justice. They use their expertise to cultivate school climates that are safe and welcoming to all persons regardless of actual or perceived characteristics, including race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, socioeconomic status, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or any other characteristics (p. 5).
As indicated in the Fairness and Justice Principle, school psychologists are to ensure a welcoming and safe school environment for any student who walks through the building’s doors. They are to use their training and expertise to promote social justice throughout the school and when working with any person, regardless of personal characteristics. Moreover, under Principle I.3, the standards further the claim for social justice by stating,
School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning…school psychologists do not engage in or condone actions or policies that discriminate against persons…and work to correct school practices that are unjustly discriminatory or that deny students, parents, or others their legal rights. They take steps to foster a school climate that is safe, accepting, and respectful of all persons…and finally, school psychologists strive to ensure that all children have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from school programs and that all students and families have access to and can benefit from school psychological services (p. 6).
These NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010) are used to guide and structure training, professional development and practice in school psychology, and function at a systems-level in terms of making change. Lastly, in 2007, a Social Justice Interest Group was founded in the NASP and continues to act as a major communication network for change in the field of school psychology (Moy et al., 2014).
More recent work has looked at how the field of school psychology has progressed in its mission of social justice and what that progression looks like. In a research study by Shriberg and Desai (2014), they examined social justice in school psychology and how as youth advocates, school psychologists should not only support and practice social justice, they should live by it. The need for school psychologists to see social justice as a verb was emphasized when the authors stated, “mechanism involves viewing social justice as a verb, that is, a set of direct actions that researchers and practitioners can take” (p. 4). The authors go on to describe the school psychologists’ “commitment to action” (p. 5) and establishment of children’s rights with the example that just being culturally competent is not enough (e.g., performing culturally competent assessments with English Language Learner (ELL) students referred to special education). Instead, every situation must be examined through a socially just “lens” (e.g., why are there so many referrals of ELL students to special education? And what can be done about that?) (Shriberg & Desai, 2014). Similarly, other literature has challenged the status quo of school psychology; specifically, why did these social justice efforts remain stagnant for so long? There was, and still is, a need for intervention in the schools to embody transformative versus ameliorative goals such that ameliorative interventions are designed to promote well-being (e.g., well-being of individuals in the system), whereas, transformative interventions go beyond promotion of well-being to include change directed toward eliminating oppression and changing power relationships (Nastasi, 2008), similar to the idea of transformative leadership. Moreover, “For school psychology, such transformation would require moving beyond efforts to understand and ameliorate the effects of economic and social injustices at an individual level, to include concerted efforts to alleviate the injustices at institutional and societal levels” (Nastasi, 2008, p. 491). These notions continually emphasize the need for transformative leaders in school psychology. If this call for socially just change in the field is so straightforward, why then has the field remained stagnant for so long? One answer could be that change takes a long time. Many in school psychology are working towards making this change with concerted efforts but not enough are coming together to make a lasting difference. This collaboration may take years but with enough awareness and education on the issue, this length of time may decrease. Another reason for the stagnation may be because school psychologists are in such a unique position in the schools that reform is often an obstacle within itself.
In a review looking at the literature that overlaps psychology, disability, and multicultural issues in understanding social justice change, results found that school psychologists are forerunners in appreciating and understanding the individuality of all students, while at the same time, less focus is given to supporting individuals by working for social change. Specifically, school psychologists are in a dilemma because they are taught to ensure the well-being and respect the diversity and uniqueness of their students yet they are reluctant to ask others to change for the best interests of the students due to administrative, ethical, and legal barriers within the school system (Bartolo, 2010). Thus, a critical examination of schools, schooling, and school psychology is essential for a social justice and transformative leadership agenda (Speight & Vera, 2009). School psychologists are trained to be advocates for children in the schools, therefore, they are taught to not only identify the unmet needs of those in the system, but to also take action to change the factors that contribute to the problem. Because “schools are major social institutions that reflect the values of the dominant culture” (Speight & Vera, 2009, p. 94), school psychologist cannot sit idle while status quo allows for the perpetuation of unjust school systems and cultures. Instead, they must advocate in three ways: helping clients advocate for themselves (i.e., empowerment), advocating directly with institutions or policymakers on clients’ behalf, and advocating indirectly through training or educating professionals who work with underserved populations (Speight & Vera, 2009). Some may argue that the three-tier Response to Intervention (RTI) model is one way in which schools and school psychologists have advocated for children in that if a child has not received culturally tailored, scientifically based instruction, then that should be addressed before any interventions are implemented or special education classifications are made (Speight & Vera, 2009). However, I argue that there are still many flaws with the RTI concept; either because many aren’t implementing it, or because they are not implementing it effectively, therefore, RTI is really only advocating on a micro-level. School psychologists must advocate on a macro-level, with school districts and policy makers, if they want to affect change. Although most school psychologists feel comfortable working with children, parents, and teachers, the direct confrontation of institutions and policy makers may present certain challenges, both personally and professionally, for school psychologists, thus abetting their contentment with the status quo (Speight & Vera, 2009).
The lack of advocacy at the macro-level is at the crux of being transformative leaders. School psychologists must overcome this dilemma in order to pursue the rights of children and fight for their well-being in the schools. A commitment to social justice and becoming transformative leaders would move school psychology from demonstrating “sensitivity to injustices and human suffering to [engaging in] dedicated effort to challenging those systems that maintain inequities” (Speight & Vera, 2009, p. 87). School psychologists may be lacking in their training and in their ability to be self-reflective and self-examining because more often than not, school psychology directly, indirectly, and/or inadvertently, maintains the status quo, which contributes to the oppression in schools. Therefore, social justice efforts and transformative leadership require more emphasis to be placed on research, graduate training, and application within a social justice framework (Speight & Vera, 2009). Therefore, the social justice and transformative leadership agenda must begin with school psychology graduate training programs.
Begin With Training
In order to train school psychologists to become transformative leaders in the schools and support the social justice agenda, we must ensure that graduate training models and graduate training programs specifically teach diversity, social justice, inclusion, multicultural competence, advocacy, and more, because all of these topics are necessary ingredients for effective transformative leaders. The idea of social justice training in the field is relatively new; however, some programs have already successfully adopted such a model. Therefore, my argument is to support the development of these training programs and use them as models to help inform and refine other established training programs. I will briefly describe the research on these training programs’ effectiveness and how the results of such research can inform practice.
Studies looking at school psychology graduate students’ understanding of social justice provide similar results. First, in a study by Briggs, McArdle, Bartucci, Kowalewicz, & Shriberg (2009), school psychology students in their third year of their training were asked, in a focus group, to describe their understanding of social justice. Results found that students generally referenced concepts such as, equality and equity and the distribution of resources and opportunities in their explanation of social justice. In addition, when asked how the impact of a school psychology program can better help students understand and apply social justice to practice, results from the focus group found that applied experience such as, practicum, service, and internship had the greatest influence on their understanding of social justice and that coursework and discussions with peers in class also enhanced this understanding (Briggs et al., 2009). Instead of studying students who are nearing the end of their graduate experience, Moy et al. (2014) extended this line of inquiry by employing a cohort-sequential design of semi-structured focus group interviews with four cohorts of graduate students over three years in order to investigate the graduate students’ perception of social justice throughout their training experience. Results from these interviews found that twelve major themes emerged and persisted through multiple rounds of focus group discussions on defining social justice, relating social justice to the practice of school psychology, and evaluating a school psychology graduate training program on its teaching of social justice. The twelve themes are as follows: Advocacy, Application (i.e., service learning), Awareness, Exposure, (i.e., internship experiences), Fairness/Equity (i.e., resource allocation, attitudes towards others), Instruction, Monetary Resources (i.e., a school’s financial standing), Program Features (i.e., faculty, staff, mission of program), Reflection (i.e., one’s self-reflection), Relationships, Service, and Time (Moy et al., 2014). As result, programs in school psychology can tailor their training to encompass such themes when teaching about social justice and training transformative leaders.
Lastly, in a study conducted by Miranda, Radliff, Cooper, and Eschenbrenner (2014), the researchers discussed specific social justice strategies that can be incorporated into a graduate training program with the goal of preparing school psychologists as social justice change agents. Moreover, they argue that training programs should develop a theoretical model which mirrors this call for change but also offers students various ways to implement social justice in applied settings as well as a chance to voice their opinion on the challenges of such a role. Specifically, this research article describes a particular graduate training program that utilizes a philosophy of social justice with the goal of training future school psychologists through five key elements of graduate training: mission statement, student body, program courses, community partnering, and community-based projects aimed at social justice (Miranda et al., 2014). This particular urban specialty focus training program integrated social justice through all of the program elements where:
faculty recognized that it was not simply about offering a course on social justice, but more importantly, it was about understanding social justice from an ideological perspective…it exposed students to social justice issues, challenged them to engage in self-reflection, and encouraged and supported them in becoming change agents for social justice (p. 349).
Support for this type of program was evidenced by the results of their mixed methods research design aimed to answer questions related to students’ self-rating of cultural competency after completing two years of coursework and a field-based practicum in an urban setting as well as what elements of the training led to that competency rating. The mixed method design involved surveying and interviewing school psychology graduate students from three different cohorts at different levels in their graduate training. Evaluative data from the three cohorts about the impact of their training were discussed and an explicit model for social justice graduate training was provided. Specifically, results found that a focus on social justice in the program, along with its program elements, improved students’ perceptions of social justice issues as well as helped them examine their own biases so as to prepare to be agents of change, or transformative leaders, in the schools. Moreover, results found five main Cultural Competency Themes, themes in which are very similar to the results presented in the Moy et al. (2014) study, emerge from the program’s key elements: Commitment to Lifelong Pursuit, Ecological Model, Awareness, and Empathy (Miranda et al., 2014). Overall, the researchers argue that each school psychology program should evaluate their level of social justice training and see where they can refine, add, or change certain elements of the program so as to embody the themes presented in their findings (they also offer a chart in explaining where programs should look for areas of improvement and how they can accomplish that change).
Results from these studies support the notion that social justice training can and should occur in graduate programs. It is not enough to provide a lecture, or even a class, on the subject if we want to affect real change. Graduate training programs must adopt core social justice elements in their program if we are to see any change in eradicating the school psychology status quo. In order to promote the notion of transformative leadership in school psychology, we must prepare future school psychologists to take on such a role and feel competent and brave in their fight to beat oppression, discrimination, and marginalization in the schools.
Conclusion and Future Directions
A discussion on transformative leadership, why school psychologists can be transformative leaders, and how we can work towards accomplishing that goal have been presented. Therefore, I will conclude this paper with an example on how transformative leadership in school psychology can be applied in the schools.
Youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) are largely marginalized in schools today; reports indicate that three-quarters of LGBT youth do not feel safe in their school because of peers’ and teachers’ negative slurs, remarks, and behaviors towards them, with two-thirds indicating that these actions are a result of their sexual orientation (McCabe & Rubinson, 2009). Further, that the school staff’s lack of corrective action in these situations is a major reason why they feel unsafe in the schools. These youth are three times more likely to be assaulted or involved in a fight in school when compared to their heterosexual peers and outcomes of such abuse are staggering: lower GPA’s, less likely to graduate and go to college, more likely to skip school, and emotional, substance, and mental health effects increase (McCabe & Rubinson, 2009). Further, 90% of principals reported having heard anti-gay slurs in their schools but only 21% have done something about it (McCabe & Rubinson, 2009). This ignorance, silence, or even bias towards LBGT issues presents a major problem in the schools, one that requires severe reform and advocacy. Principals, teachers, counselors, and school psychologists may not be adequately trained to advocate for sexual minority youth and therefore may not be equipped to handle these situations. Specifically looking at school psychology training, when surveying 300 school psychologists, results found that majority felt they possessed a low to moderate level of knowledge relating to LGBT issues and that 85% reported not having any specific training in LGBT issues in their graduate programs (McCabe & Rubinson, 2009). In a similar study, researchers assessed graduate students in education, school counseling, and school psychology and their knowledge of LGBT issues, their training in identifying these issues, and their ability to confront these issues in the schools. Results from the focus groups found that majority of students did not acknowledge LGBT issues as a form of social injustice until it was raised as a question by the researchers. When asked to consider LGBT issues as a social injustice in the schools, students reported feeling incompetent as change agents for LGBT youth (McCabe & Rubinson, 2009). Additionally, students reported barriers to acting in an LGBT affirmative manner, where they listed unsupportive administrative, lack of knowledge regarding LGBT issues, a sense of powerlessness to act on behalf of LGBT youth, and possible dissatisfaction from colleagues or administration as barriers to advocating for LGBT youth (Nastasi, 2008). These findings support and highlight the need for transformative leaders in the schools. Not only is learning and acknowledging about the oppression of groups, such as LGBT youth lacking, but the fear associated with advocating for such youth is absolutely unacceptable and is the result of decades of oppression.
How then can school psychologists affect this change? There are a number of ways this can be accomplished and they all point to becoming transformative leaders. First, by incorporating LGBT youth, and other oppressed groups, in their understanding of social justice through their graduate training programs and field experience, school psychologists can lead the way in voicing these concerns in the schools, particularly, when others are too afraid to or lack the wherewithal to know how. Not only can school psychologists inform and educate the staff and students of such injustice, they are in the unique position to train the schools on this very matter and in particular, educate schools on this population. Leading by example, presenting at professional development sessions, intervening when needed, counseling on an individual basis, and overtly and covertly supporting all students in the schools are a few ways in which school psychologists can actively affect change. Again, this begins with the training. McCabe & Rubinson (2008) provide a Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model in helping schools train students to advocate and engage in LGBT-affirmative behavior. Additionally, they offer suggestions on how training programs can incorporate this model (e.g., curricula focusing on sexual orientation, skills training to intervene during anti-gay harassment, etc.).
Another way school psychologists can be transformative leaders in advocating for LGBT youth in the schools is by informing teachers of this social injustice and providing them with the necessary tools to address this issue in their classrooms. Research shows that teachers are the leading predictor of LGBT youth success in school if a positive relationship is formed. Moreover, students with positive feelings about their teachers report significantly less school difficulties related to their LGBT status, are more likely to approach school staff when dealing with LGBT issues, and report that a positive school environment serve as a protective factor for depression and drug use (McCabe & Rubinson, 2009). Therefore, school psychologists are in the ideal position to help teachers become aware of this plight and research and can work towards creating a more welcoming and safe environment for LGBT youth. School psychologists can not only shed light on this issue for the school staff, but they can lead trainings on the matter, provide applicable resources and interventions that can be applied classroom- and school-wide, and can be present in the schools so as to guide and assist teachers and staff in making this change. Schools must adopt a learning environment that is inclusive, welcoming, and equal for all students and that change does not happen overnight. Therefore, it is up to the transformative leaders in the schools to take a stance on this issue and all issues of social injustice in the schools by speaking up and acting out to affect change. Fortunately, the field of school psychology is incorporating this knowledge by providing many articles, resources, and suggestions for school psychologists to use when advocating for LGTB youth in the schools. Additionally, our national organization, NASP, has provided numerous position statements and policy statements regarding this issue (NASP, 2012).
Consequently, I propose the future of school psychology must make a change in its training of practitioners. We must train to produce transformative leaders in the field of school psychology. Transformative leaders who will stand up for what they believe, understand and acknowledge the inequality and inequity plaguing the school system today, and advocate to make a change even if that means facing many challenges and resistance in an age of oppression and discrimination. School psychologists can be transformative leaders, justice change agents, and can affect change for the students in our schools so as to better the education and overall lives of the youth in our nation.
References
Bartolo, P. A. (2010). Why school psychology for diversity? School Psychology International, 31, 567-580.
Bell, L. A. (2013). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 21–26) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Briggs, A., McArdle, L., Bartucci, G., Kowalewicz, E., & Shriberg, D. (2009). Students' perspectives on the incorporation of social justice in a school psychology graduate program. Trainer's Forum, 28(4), 35-45.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2012). Bad teacher: How blaming teachers distorts the bigger picture. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.
McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 469-486.
Miranda, A. H., Radliff, K. M., Cooper, J. M., & Eschenbrenner, C. R. (2014). Graduate student perceptions of the impact of training for social justice: Development of a training model. Psychology in the Schools, 51(4), 348-365.
Moy, G. E., Briggs, A., Shriberg, D., Furrey, K. J., Smith, P., & Tompkins, N. (2014). Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years. Journal of School Psychology, 52(3), 323-34.
National Association of School Psychology (NASP; 2010). Principles for professional ethics, 1-16. Retrieved from: http://www.nasponline.org/standards/2010standards/1_%20Ethical%20Principles.pdf
National Association of School Psychology (NASP; 2012). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth resources. Retrieved from: http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/glbresources.aspx
Nastasi, B. K. (2008). Social justice and school psychology. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 487-492.
Ravitch, D. (2014). The Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America's public schools. Random House LLC: New York, New York.
Shriberg, D., Bonner, M., Sarr, B. J., Walker, A. M., Hyland, M., & Chester, C. (2008).
Social justice through a school psychology lens: Definitions and applications. School Psychology Review, 37, 453-468.
Shriberg, D., & Desai, P. (2014). Bridging social justice and children’s rights to enhance school psychology scholarship and practice. Psychology in The Schools, 51(1), 3-14.
Shields, C. M. (2013). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable change in an uncertain and complex world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2009). The challenge of social justice for school psychology. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 19(1), 82-92.
Nicole M. Brown, M.A., is a fourth year graduate student completing her Ph.D. degree in school psychology at The Ohio State University. She is looking forward to continuing her research related to mental health and social justice and specifically working on her dissertation involving youth with autism spectrum disorders and bullying in the schools. Nicole currently works for a psychological clinic in central Ohio conducting social skills training groups, in-home behavior plans and consultations, and counseling youth with developmental disabilities. She also works as a graduate teaching associate in her school psychology program at The Ohio State University. After graduation, she hopes to work as a full time school psychologist working with students from urban populations.