Future Implications

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).

Self- Care and Preventing Burnout

Maslach and Jackson (1981) aptly pointed out that helping professionals are often required to spend considerable time in intense involvement with clients. The time is focused on solving the client’s current problem and may therefore be charged with a wide array of strong emotions. In addition, Maslach and Jackson (1981) noted that solutions are not always easily reached, thus adding to the social workers’ feelings of frustration or inadequacy about job performance. “For the helping professional who works continuously with people under such circumstances, the chronic stress can be emotionally draining and poses the risk of burnout” (Maslach & Jackson, 1981, p. 99). Finding solutions to client problems can be tough, especially dur¬ing times of dwindling resources. It is critical for social workers to stay connected to their own energy level, sense of agency, and self- care during times when the lack of adequate resources constrains the amount and types of services practitioners are able to provide.The practice of self-care is important in providing quality service and may help to prevent burnout in the workplace. Over time, practitioners may become overwhelmed by societal ills, declining resources, and the pressure to fix really tough problems. Critical service learning (CSL) is an approach to practice that empowers students or youth to work toward solutions and encourages them to take action toward social change within their own communities. Furthermore, CSL provides secondary benefits to the practitioner. The practitioner becomes proactive in addressing community problems by empowering youth to examine and challenge the status quo. In this way, practitioners may feel reenergized by an empow¬ering process. Practitioners may also realize faster returns on their investment of time and energy as students or youth become more engaged in community action. In addition, CSL allows the practitioner to seek creative solutions and new strategies for dealing with difficult problems. Implementing CSL projects promotes innovative youth engagement. A well- executed CSL project has the potential to enhance the practitioner’s job satisfaction as well as increase youth motivation. As practitioners engage youth in CSL and witness youth becoming more empowered, the practitioner’s sense of purpose may be renewed.

Logic Model Development to Aid Project Planning

The logic model, a tool that has been around since the 1970s, was defined by Bickman (1987) in the late 1980s and became popularized in the 1990s. Bickman saw the logic model as a presentation of how the program will work to solve identified problems under certain conditions. Basically, a logic model shows a graphic depiction of a program, its goals, and underlying assumptions and a plan of action and outcomes. This model is helpful for the school- based practitioner to clearly articulate critical service learning (CSL) goals to school administrators. According to the Kellogg Foundation, a logic model provides a visual way to present a program in a systematic fashion (Kellogg, 2004). In this instance, it is a visual map of the CSL project depicting the project’s goals. This includes articulating the understanding of CSL and why it is believed it will work; providing a concise format to share with others; and conveying the relationships among the resources available to operate the program, the activities planned, and the desired changes or results. In sum, the logic model represents a graphic depiction of CSL and its benefits. One benefit of using the logic model is that it helps the school- based practitioner think through the CSL project- planning process in its entirety as youth develop and plan activities, identify needed resources, and anticipate what is needed to evaluate it. Practitioners may use the logic model in a couple of ways: (a) The logic model can demonstrate the benefits of the CSL project to administration to gain buy- in; and (b) once the program is launched, the logic model may be used to incorporate what the youth envision. The school- based practitioner must remain true to the CSL tenets of allowing youth to plan and design the project. Perhaps one of the nicest benefits of a logic model is that it creatively illustrates the CSL program’s components to stakeholders in a succinct way. A completed logic model allows stakeholders to quickly review the program’s goals, activities, and projected outcomes; furthermore, it presents a summary of complex theory as understandable units.

The Nuts and Bolts of Critical Service Learning Theoretical Foundations

Critical service learning (CSL), social and emotional learning (SEL), and positive youth development (PYD) represent key elements for promot¬ing healthy attitudes and behaviors among youth. This chapter explains each component and provides a theoretical overview. As mentioned in Chapter 1, CSL represents a therapeutic strategy that encompasses a philosophy of youth empowerment. CSL emphasizes youth becoming empowered to view themselves in relation to others, as partners, to bring about change in their environment. Mitchell (2008) defined CSL as an approach that challenges youth to become self-aware of how their own situations influence their relationships within their community. When these relationships are based on the concerns of the community, they can facilitate CSL through the examination of issues of power, privilege, and oppression— and disparaging assumptions of class, gender, and race— and then take action to address unjust and inequitable social and economic systems (Cipolle, 2010). Youth engage in critical thinking about the problems they face within their own communities and are encouraged to take action. The critical approach to service learning promotes social justice and challenges the status quo. The approach to CSL involves three key elements: “working to redistribute power amongst all participants in the service learning relationship, developing authentic relationships in the classroom and in the community and working from a social change perspective” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 50). The goal of CSL is to examine power relations, challenge oppressive institutions, and cultivate in youth the power to take action. In our model, the CSL approach presents “student voice” as a necessary component to create a sense of empowerment and authentic engagement. The community web-mapping tool discussed in Chapter 3 serves as the vehicle for students to address social justice issues as they compare and contrast their vision of perfect and imperfect communities (Figure 2.1). Social and emotional learning is a framework that provides opportunities for young people to acquire the skills necessary for maintaining personal well-being and positive relationships across their life span (Elbertson, Brackett, & Weissberg, 2009). The five competency clusters for students are the following: 1. Self- awareness: the ability to accurately recognize one’s emotions and thoughts and how they influence behavior.

Gaining Administrative School and Community Buy- In

Critical service learning (CSL), by its very nature, is conducive to collaborating, building a sense of community, and promoting a positive school climate (Kaye, 2010). In developing the CSL project, it is essential to understand the organizational structure of the school and how to collaborate with key stakeholders. The analysis of the organization should include a review of the school’s mission, its educational priorities, and level of administrative support. Schools have many competing priorities, such as improving academic achievement, curriculum development, Common Core learning standards, and promoting social and emotional learning (SEL). The school- based practitioner must recognize the school’s educational priorities and understand how CSL can support one or more of these priorities. This information should be ascertained prior to meeting with the school leader. Furthermore, the school- based practitioner should be fully prepared to articulate connections between CSL and specific school priorities when seeking administrative approval for the project. The principal’s support as the school leader is critical to the development of a new program within the school. To ensure the success of the CSL project, the school social worker or school- based practitioner must first confer with administrators about the value of this work, which may be viewed as more radical than day- to- day interventions with students. Sharing literature that speaks to the effectiveness of CSL may assist in this process. Therefore, as a first step in developing a CSL program in the school, the practitioner should reach out to the school principal. For CSL to be successful, the practitioner must clearly express to him or her how CSL aligns with, supports, or enhances one or more of the school’s educational priorities. Aligning with one of the school’s priorities represents an ideal way to gain buy- in from the principal and other school leaders. To ensure the success of the CSL project, the school social worker or school- based practitioner should share the value and uniqueness of this approach, which builds on students’ strengths and assets. It is also important to collaborate with teachers and community partners to develop an effective program.

The Role of the Practitioner

To help students develop a meaningful critical service program and project, the school- based practitioner must first have an understanding of critical service learning (CSL).Before starting a CSL project, the practitioner is encouraged to review the discussion in Chapter 1 regarding the differences between CSL and service learning. In addition, the practitioner must be willing to address his or her role from the following perspectives: CSL in relation to the redistribution of power; the ability to use insight as a practitioner to help students understand the critical components of service learning; a willingness to move from the traditional adult power position in the relationship to one that recognizes student voice in creating the program/ project; the ability to be introspective of political and societal influences; and, finally, the willingness to move from the practitioner role to that of a facilitator. When using a CSL approach, practitioners must help students understand how service can make a difference in either changing or perpetuating systems of inequality. O’Grady (2000) reminded us to go beyond individual problems to redress social policies that work to maintain dominant structures. In other words, unless we change systems that maintain inequality, our own efforts may perpetuate a cycle of dependence. We understand that students are not going to solve all of the social ills that exist in their com¬munities; however, CSL is an opportunity to increase their awareness of the advocacy–change–action process. The CSL approach fosters critical consciousness, allowing students to combine action and reflection in the group or classroom to examine both the historical precedents of the social problems addressed in their service projects and the impact of their personal action/ inaction in maintaining and transforming those problems (Mitchell, 2008). This analysis allows students to connect their own lives to the lives of those whom the service project addresses. In addition, a CSL approach allows students to become aware of systemic and institutionalized inequalities. The reflection dynamic of a CSL pedagogy (teaching strategy) encourages contem¬plation on both personal and institutional contributions to social problems and measures that may lead to social change (Marullo, 1999; Rice & Pollack, 2000).

Transforming Service Learning Into Critical Service Learning

Service learning is a pedagogical approach that engages youth in achieving learning goals that link communities and schools through intentional, structured activities (McReynolds, 2015). Through service learning, the practitioner engages students in projects that serve the community while building social, civic, and academic skills to help them learn about others. Critical service learning, on the other hand, builds on service learning and expands to include social justice principles. Critical service learning as an approach compels youth to interrogate systems and structures of inequality and distribution of power and to seek to develop authentic relationships among all participants (Mitchell, 2008). It also encourages participants to examine issues of power, privilege, and oppression within the service activity by questioning hidden biases and assumptions concerning race, class, and gender and to challenge the status quo by working toward changing inequities within social and economic systems (Cipolle, 2010). Engaging in critical service learning, as a therapeutic strategy, allows youth to con¬template community problem- solving through critical thinking that raises questions about the roots of social inequality. For example, youth who embark on service learning may develop a wellness project that considers the effect of health on mood and behavior. Students may incorporate simple physical exercises and healthy eating tips and create a nutritional food menu for students to share with their peers and families. Students who participate in this same example from a critical service learning framework not only will do all of these activities but also will critically analyze factors that contribute to healthy living. For example, students may explore the barriers to accessing fresh fruits and vegetables in communities that are food deserts (communities with a scarcity of mainstream markets that have fresh fruits and vegetables). Students may delve further to consider the economic and political decisions that reduce access to healthy foods in their neighborhoods. Students may perform action research through facilitating a shopping field trip to neighborhood, and mainstream food outlets to inspect and compare the produce for quality and price value. As a result, students may bring their findings to their local political office to request sup¬port to improve local food outlet resources.

Launching Critical Service Learning: A Quick Guide to Each Phase

This chapter is as a visual guide for launching a critical service learning (CSL) project with the goal of providing step- by- step implementation instructions. The implementation process may be different, depending on the setting, target population, and level of cognitive ability of the youth. The chapter is divided into five phases: (a) preplanning and screening, (b) skill building, (c) planning, (d) implementing/ action, and (e) evaluating. The content is structured to accommodate 12 group sessions. Each phase provides suggested materials, preparation tips, anticipated outcomes, and a content focus. In addition, two case examples are included, depicting a CSL project in an elementary school and one in a high school. Materials will be determined based on the focus and the marketing and recruitment needs of the project. Possible material may include marketing flyers and referral forms. Other notifications (parent) depend on school policies.

Steps to Developing Critical Service Learning Projects

After the practitioner gains administrative buy- in, as discussed in Chapter 5, the focus should turn to conducting the critical service learning (CSL) project. In this chapter, the five phases of conducting a CSL project are described. The first step in preplanning is for practitioners to determine the type of group to be developed, the facilitation approach (individual or cofacilitated), and the target audience. It is important to determine whether the group will be integrated into an existing counseling or therapeutic group or a stand- alone group focused specifically on CSL. If practitioners integrate the CSL project into an existing group, they may use the existing facilitators for the group. However, if it is a stand- alone group, practitioners may create an opportunity for cofacilitation of the group using other school- based personnel. Practitioners must also identify the student population they will recruit for the intervention. Work conducted through the Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Education Innovation (n.d.) suggests several considerations for screening group members: considering youth’s prior knowledge, youth’s motivation, the diversity of perspectives, familiarity with one another, and personality types. When considering youth’s prior knowledge, previous experiences, and skills, practitioners must assess the youth’s strengths, skills, and abilities. All youth have strengths that may be utilized in the CSL process. Another consideration is the need to assess youth’s motivation as they may have varying degrees of self- awareness or desire to address community issues. If the goal of the group is to expand students’ abilities to relate to multiple perspectives, practitioners may seek diverse group membership. It is likely that CSL projects will focus on perspective taking and will need to consider diversification as a main priority of the group. Practitioners may also think about students’ familiarity with one another and per¬sonality types (introverted or extraverted) within the group. The initial screening of students requires that practitioners assess students’ social and emotional learning (SEL) needs and skill levels for fit and selection into the group. Students with common SEL needs may be one consideration as practitioners consider the group’s composition. Practitioners must also assess students’ willingness to contrib¬ute to the CSL project and become a part of the group process. Otherwise, some youth may not commit to the overall project.

Critical Service Learning and Group

Critical service learning (CSL) emphasizes that youth become empowered to see themselves as partners with others to bring about change in their environments (Muscott, 2000). The nature of CSL evokes youth voice and choice in the application of cognitive, social, and emotional skills to everyday situations. This is especially true when conducting CSL in a group modality. Groups are ideal therapeutic intervention settings where CSL can be incorporated. Group work provides a smaller arena in which members may receive feedback, support, and guidance from peers. In fact, membership may allow youth to practice new behaviors or roles (Greenberg, 2003).Furthermore, CSL offers a natural fit for groups geared toward social and emotional learning (SEL) skill development (e.g., social skill groups, anger management, bullying prevention, confliction resolution). Within the multitier system of support (MTSS) framework, different tiers are designated for the provision of academic and social and emotional support to students where needed. CSL is beneficial within all tiers, but is especially effective at the Tier 2 (tar¬geted) and Tier 1 (universal) levels. On average, 5%– 15% of students in a school setting are in jeopardy of disengaging from the school environment (Scott & Eber, 2003). These students do not necessarily have an individual educational plan (IEP) but may have come to the attention of school- based practitioners as a result of office discipline referrals, suspensions, or truancies (Lindsey & White, 2009). Targeted group interventions provide additional support to these students for learning and practicing prosocial skills in a smaller and more insulated arena. For students who also receive special educa¬tion services, Klienert et al. (2004) contended that students receiving those services can benefit from interventions in the form of CSL. The benefits of CSL projects among the high- risk youth population may provide them with a way of building many of the developmental assets (such as positive experiences, resources, and other healthy characteristics) that help them make informed decisions and that are all protective factors for youth successes (Nelson & Eckstein, 2008).