Qualitative Program Evaluation Discussion

A Qualitative Study of School Social Workers’ Roles and Challenges in Dropo…: EBSCOhost (capella.edu)  For this discussion, critique this article, which uses a qualitative program evaluation model:

• Webber, K. C. (2018). A qualitative study of school social workers’ roles and challenges in dropout prevention. Children & Schools, 40(2), 82–90.
  • What are the strengths of the design?
  • What are weaknesses or limitations to the methodology, analysis, and conclusions drawn from the data?
  • How would you recommend strengthening the design?

Apply concepts of qualitative research to the program evaluation design that you started in the previous discussion posts based on a previous or current work, internship, or volunteer experience.

• How would you collect qualitative data and analyze it?

Note that your post should be substantive and be 500–750 words. It should be well-organized and proofread.

here is the link this was only other way to send it

High school dropout remains a persistent educational and social problem in the United States, despite promising declines in dropout rates. Social workers are uniquely positioned to identify and address numerous factors influencing students‘ likelihood of graduating. The purpose of this small qualitative study was to describe social workers’ engagement in dropout prevention efforts and the context in which this work occurs. Through interviews with school social workers, school counselors, and district-level administrators, three focal practice areas were identified: (1) supporting student attendance, (2) providing intensive support for selected atrisk students, and (3) encouraging dropouts to return to a diploma-granting program. Respondents also identified common barriers and ethical dilemmas that hindered their practice, including challenges in defining the scope and boundaries of the social work profession, and tensions between the needs of the school and the needs of students. Suggestions for future research are provided, and implications for policy, practice, and the education of future school social work practitioners are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High school dropout remains a persistent educational and social problem in the United States, despite promising declines in dropout rates. Social workers are uniquely positioned to identify and address numerous factors influencing students‘ likelihood of graduating. The purpose of this small qualitative study was to describe social workers’ engagement in dropout prevention efforts and the context in which this work occurs. Through interviews with school social workers, school counselors, and district-level administrators, three focal practice areas were identified: (1) supporting student attendance, (2) providing intensive support for selected at-risk students, and (3) encouraging dropouts to return to a diploma-granting program. Respondents also identified common barriers and ethical dilemmas that hindered their practice, including challenges in defining the scope and boundaries of the social work profession, and tensions between the needs of the school and the needs of students. Suggestions for future research are provided, and implications for policy, practice, and the education of future school social work practitioners are discussed.

Keywords: dropout prevention; high school; occupational roles; qualitative research; school social work

High school dropout remains a persistent educational and social problem in the United States, despite promising declines in dropout rates. In 2016, the National Center for Education Statistics estimated that approximately 7 percent—roughly 2.6 million—of the nation’s 16- to 24-year-olds were not enrolled in high school and did not have a high school credential ([12]). Dropout rates tend to be higher among students of racial or ethnic minority groups, students from lower-income homes, and students with a history of academic or discipline problems ([7]; [12]). Despite a substantial reduction of dropout rates over the past four decades (from 14 percent in 1973), the concentration of dropouts in certain schools (for example, high-poverty, rural, urban) and the ongoing overrepresentation of minority students among dropouts remain critical areas of concern ([12]).

Individuals who drop out of school are at higher risk of negative developmental outcomes such as poor peer relations, delinquency and crime, incarceration, violence, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, poorer physical and mental health, alcohol or drug abuse, unemployment, and lower annual and lifetime earning potential ([7]; [12]). Dropping out of school also affects the overall society through lost tax revenues ([12]), increased welfare dependence and use of health and mental health services ([16]), and higher rates of imprisonment ([18]). Taken together, these findings suggest that addressing the issue of school dropout not only affects the education system, but may also serve as a prevention effort for the welfare, mental health, and corrections systems.

Within a context of mounting demands for accountability, educators and other school professionals are challenged with meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse student body to stem the loss of students to dropout. This challenge is compounded by the fact that the cause of school dropout cannot be isolated to a single risk factor or cluster of factors. Rather, empirical studies implicate a diverse array of school, economic, community, family, and individual factors as being associated with, or predictive of, leaving school before graduation (see [16], for comprehensive review; also, [12]; [19]). These factors span multiple domains of a student’s life and often manifest over time and in unique combinations ([16]).

Social work’s ecological lens is responsive to the complex and interactive nature of the dropout problem because it “directs attention to all of the significant systems and individuals rather to any one part, system, or aspect of a pupil’s situation” ([1], p. 204). The person-in-environment perspective of social workers, combined with their knowledge of family and community conditions that contribute to the dropout problem, places school social workers in a unique position to address the multifaceted nature of the dropout issue.

ROLE OF THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER

Although the roles school social workers perform can vary notably across schools, contemporary social workers’ time and energies are primarily devoted to individual or small-group work, often focusing on students‘ mental health needs or students receiving special education services ([3]; [10]). For example, school social workers historically report case management, crisis intervention, and individual and small-group counseling as among the most frequent of their daily tasks ([1]; [9]).

[5] suggested that the individual and small-group focus of school social work is the result of several factors, including (a) the profession’s historic commitment to addressing the immediate, sometimes crisis, needs of students and (b) the narrow understanding of social work held by many school administrators. There have been calls for school social workers to assume a leadership role in dropout prevention efforts ([8]) and to reduce their focus on individuals as targets for change in favor of prevention and intervention efforts that affect larger groups or systems ([4]; [5]; [10]). Therefore it is critical to better understand how school social workers contribute to the promotion of student persistence in school.

Toward this goal, the current study used an exploratory, qualitative approach to gain an understanding of social workers’ engagement in dropout prevention efforts and the context in which this work occurs. Part of our purpose was to better understand these topics from multiple perspectives and positions within a school district. Two broad overarching questions guided our study: (1) What do social workers perceive as students‘ needs (as related to school completion) and to what extent do they feel these needs are being met? (2) What roles do school social workers play in dropout prevention efforts and what policies affect this work?

METHOD

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study took place in a primarily urban school district in the southeastern United States. The district was selected because of its use of school social workers in dropout prevention efforts and its recent success in decreasing its dropout rate to below the state average. The student body of approximately 33,000 is 51 percent African American, 22 percent Hispanic, 21 percent white, 2.8 percent multiracial, and 2.4 percent Asian. Approximately 60 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. On state end-of-year tests, 56 percent of students were at or above grade level in reading, and 70 percent were at or above grade level in math. At the time of this study, approximately 30 school social workers were employed by the district’s student services department, which houses counselors, school social workers, student assistance programs, behavior support programs, wellness centers, and homeless services. Each middle and high school in the district is assigned a social worker, with larger high schools having two.

Purposive snowball sampling was used to recruit (a) school social workers and counselors from across grade levels and (b) district-based professionals knowledgeable of school social workers’ roles within the district. Participants included eight school social workers, two school counselors, the district-level coordinator for homeless student services, and the director of the district’s student support department. The two school counselors were recruited based on their involvement in dropout prevention efforts and close collaboration with the social workers in their respective schools. All participants were female, with 42 percent identifying as white, 42 percent identifying as black or African American, and 17 percent identifying as Latina. Participants varied in their work experience, ranging from one to 10 years in their current position and from one to 12 years of experience in their profession. Six of the 10 school-based participants worked in either traditional or alternative high schools; the remaining four worked in middle school settings. The two administrators supported schools districtwide.

DATA COLLECTION

Each participant took part in semistructured interviews that ranged from 30 to 90 minutes (one hour average). When possible, multiple interviews were held with each participant to allow for follow-up, clarification, and checking the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretations ([13]). When multiple face-to-face interviews were not possible, additional conversations occurred by e-mail or phone. Interviews with school-based staff focused on eliciting their lived experiences with dropout prevention efforts—to hear in their own words how they describe their work, situate themselves within the school setting, perceive student needs, and respond to social and political contexts in which their work takes place. Interviews with district administrators focused on how the role of school social workers is perceived and described at the district level as well as the district policies and decisions that influence social workers’ roles. Initial interview questions were developed to guide the conversations, and an iterative approach was used to refine interview questions based on emerging data ([6]). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. During transcription, reflexive notes regarding nonverbal communication and interviewer–interviewee interactions were added.

DATA ANALYSIS

Throughout the data collection process, interview transcripts were analyzed for emerging themes and areas for further examination using inductive analysis, which allows concepts and relationships among ideas to emerge throughout the research process ([6]). Once all interviews were transcribed, transcripts were read line-by-line and coded in [2] using an inductive, constant comparative process ([13]). As new codes emerged from later interviews, previously coded transcripts were reread and recoded. Once all transcripts were coded, they were compiled into one document and sorted by code to identify emerging themes across respondents. Next, the ATLAS.ti network tool was used to visually display all codes simultaneously to explore possible relationships between codes and to refine themes. Finally, all transcripts were reread in their entirety for both confirming examples and counter examples of the emerging conceptual framework ([13]). Debriefings with a senior qualitative researcher were used to guard against researcher bias and to solicit feedback on coding, interpretation, and communication of findings.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes emerged from the analysis: (1) barriers to graduation, (2) prevention and intervention strategies, and (3) role conflict and struggles. These overarching themes and their related subthemes are further elaborated in the sections that follow.

BARRIERS TO GRADUATION

Consistent with the dropout literature, participants identified a variety of individual, family, school, community, and economic factors as barriers to students staying in and completing school. For example, school social workers mentioned transportation problems, poor grades, teenage pregnancy, multiple family risks (for example, parent drug use combined with involvement of Child Protective Services or the Department of Social Services), and challenges with transitions (for example, to middle school or high school) as common barriers to graduation. Participants emphasized two barriers as being particularly important: (1) school policies and procedures and (2) economic demands. Because these two barriers have received less attention in the dropout literature than some others, they were selected for a more detailed discussion here.

SCHOOL POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Each participant stressed the difficulty students and parents encounter in understanding school policies and practices. For example, many ninth graders are unfamiliar with the concept of seat time, whereby receiving credit for a course depends not only on the grades earned, but also on being physically present in class for a minimum number of hours:

A lot of students drop out because of credits… they just get in a position where they don’t have any credits, or enough credits to move to the next grade. They don’t seem to connect credits to their attendance.

Confusion and misunderstanding of policies can result in students becoming frustrated and giving up. One school social worker illustrated her point by pulling out a large three-ring binder containing nearly 200 pages. “This is our manual with all the policies… do you think I have read it?”

The impact of language and cultural diversity on home–school communications is a related aspect of this issue. In this district with a growing immigrant population, resources for translation services and bilingual staff have not kept pace with demand. Efforts to communicate with families in their native languages are critical to fostering an active home–school collaboration that supports student success.

The parents don’t know their student isn’t coming to school and they’re getting these calls and these letters, but they are in English. Everything is in English… this is a huge thing we need to overcome…. How are they supposed to understand this process when everything is in English, all the guidance counselors only speak English?

ECONOMIC DEMANDS

Interview participants who work primarily at the high school level noted that it is becoming increasingly common for students to leave school to go to work. “Whether they have their own kid to support or just helping out the family, we definitely see that a lot.” One participant drew the distinction between students‘ futures and families’ present situations, thus highlighting a conflict she faces in her role as a school social worker:

When I go out to these homes, how can I convince that family that the student needs to be in school instead of working? Yes, it may be the difference for that child in the long run, but these families are concerned with today… it is about survival. I get that. I can’t be responsible for a family losing their home.

PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

In the study district, the role of school social workers in dropout prevention was described as “intervention implementer.” School social workers assume primary responsibility for implementing three distinct dropout prevention and intervention efforts, each of which is discussed in the following section.

ATTENDANCE AND TRUANCY

The primary role of school social workers in the study district is described as “ensuring that students who have excessive unexcused absences receive the support and follow-up that they need in order to come to school every day.” At the middle and high school level, this priority is manifest in social workers’ coordination of Truancy Court, a school-based intervention for students who have accumulated six or more absences. Truancy Court brings students and their parents before a team of school staff and either a judge or a school resource officer to determine the reasons behind students‘ absences, to remind parents of compulsory attendance laws and associated consequences for noncompliance, and to connect students and families to school and community resources as needed.

Each of the district administrators and school social workers described examples of Truancy Court’s effectiveness in improving student attendance: “[Truancy Court] is definitely having an effect on kids who are starting to skip or who have absences but don’t really have a reason.” However, the social workers also expressed mixed feelings about having attendance and truancy as their district-designated focus.

It is important, but I wish we didn’t focus on it so much… we are so focused on this, it pulls us away from seeing other things. Like, if a student doesn’t miss a lot of school, they don’t get noticed as much…. But, it does get us into other areas. It’s helpful in discovering if other issues are going on with the family.

Reasons for student absences range dramatically: “Sometimes it’s as simple as an alarm clock, but sometimes there’s a real problem—like drugs in the home.” One district administrator explained that although issues requiring social work intervention are occasionally discovered through Truancy Court, “most of the time, the home is fine. The parents just don’t know their child isn’t coming to school and the child doesn’t see the importance of coming.” In these situations, social workers try to encourage a future orientation by having students “look at where they want to be and what they need to do to get there. At this age, they can’t see past their own eyelashes, let alone past their own nose.”

RECLAIMING DROPOUTS

The final strategy involving school social workers is reclaiming dropouts, which involves locating students who have already dropped out and attempting to reengage them with the school. Because the majority of the district’s dropouts occur during high school, dropout recovery is a smaller portion of middle school social workers’ role. School social workers submit monthly reports of their efforts to locate students, including how many students from the list of dropouts from the previous and current school year have returned to school. One district administrator described this effort as an “intensive yearlong process to get students to come back.” Summers are especially busy for the few school social workers who are employed year-round, because district administrators expect them to “work intently to get students back in August before the dropout numbers are due to the state in October.”

Participants indicated that getting these students to return is often “a difficult sell because they have already been talked through the mill before they drop out.” Many former students have moved on to other endeavors, such as working or getting their GED. One social worker elaborated on the difficulty of convincing dropouts to return to their previous high schools.

I hate to say it, but it’s a lot of time for such a small return. Why would they come back? What do we have that is different than when they left? Sometimes I’ll get them to come back, but most of them end up on the dropout list again. They start having the same problems, so they leave again. I spend all my time chasing students rather than fixing what made them leave in the first place.

ROLE CONFLICTS AND STRUGGLES IN SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK

This study’s origin