Future Implications

Abstract

As presented in the case examples in Chapter 9, critical service learning (CSL) projects can be a tool for engaging young people in their school and neighborhood communities. Unfortunately, many US public schools may have limited resources (financial or personnel) to provide creative and innovative programming. (Spring, Grimm, & Dietz, 2008). However, a need still exists to ensure that all youth receive equal chances to succeed in school. According to Germain (2006), school mental health professionals such as school social workers should engage “the progressive forces in people and situational assets, and [effect] the removal of environmental obstacles to growth and adaptive functioning” (p. 30). Advocating against barriers that prevent equal access to resources is a cornerstone of social work practice, and CSL can be one vehicle by which equal opportunities are secured. As mentioned throughout this toolkit, CSL is appropriate for students at all tiers, including both regular education and students with disabilities. Many students who benefit from CSL projects and work with school- based social workers also receive special education support. Yet, even with targeted interventions, evaluative data from special education services continue to report poor outcomes for youth with emo¬tional and behavioral disorders (Lewis, Jones, Horner, & Sugai, 2010). Students who receive special education services may need additional supportive services to remain in and graduate from high school (Thurlow, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2002). According to 2010– 2011 data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics, more than 20% of students who received special education services dropped out of high school (US Department of Education, 2013). Approximately 20% of those students were diagnosed as emotionally disturbed, and 53% had a specific learning disability (US Department of Education, 2013). After controlling for gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, youth with disabilities are still among those at greatest risk for dropping out of school. No single reason exists regarding why students disengage from school; the issue is multifaceted. Sinclair, Christenson, and Thurlow (2005) asserted that “practitioners and policymakers in search of empirically supported intervention strategies will need to rely on studies that examine secondary indica¬tors of dropout prevention, such as reduction in problem behavior through positive behavioral supports or increasing student’s affiliation with school through service learning programs” (p. 466).