A consistent question from parents and teachers is, “how do I help my students regulate themselves?” A common answer has been to have parents act as the default co-regulators of their children’s learning. School social workers have an opportunity to directly address this concern during the pandemic.
Does Restorative Justice (RJ) work? Or better yet, to the extent that RJ does work in K-12 schools, how would we even know? Is it because the program that is offered at our professional development day claims to be “evidence-based,” or because we know that it is? And even more directly, how would we figure out if something is evidence-based, and where would we start in looking for that evidence? These are the questions I asked the 4th cohort of the Loyola School Mental Health Advanced Practice Program (SMHAPP) students. As part of the “EBP in School Mental Health”hey were asked to examine these questions around RJ and school violence prevention programs, and to create a Research Brief (RB) that described the evidence for a study that looked at RJ. Several of the students also wrote short descriptions of what they found, why they chose that specific article, and what they learned from the SMHAPP EBP class. What follows are their RBs, and some selected references from the articles they drew from.
I’m thrilled to move into Week #2 of our SMHAPP SSWNetwork Takeover with Kenya Butts and Patrick Wolf, 2 Illinois SSW and members of the 4th SMHAPP cohort, talking about the EBP and the on-the-ground realities of Restorative Justice (RJ) in K-12 schools . Just as in Week #1, we will end the week over at SSWNetwork with a LiveChat from 9 a.m.-10 a.m. central time where we come together to discuss what we learned over the past week. Here in their own words is what they’re going to be doing this week in this “SMHAPP SSWNetwork Takeover,” along with some further biographical information about these two mighty school clinicians.
The meta-analysis study (N=62) found that interventions led to small but reliable improvements in body image, but insignificant effects on beauty internalization and social comparison tendencies. Previous reviews had found larger effect sizes in all three outcome areas but had high risk of bias across and within studies. The study identified numerous change techniques (noted above in the text box) that are effective and could be used in future interventions, and also several that are contra-indicated: 1) self-esteem enhancement (cautionary, needed more studies), 2) discussing physical fitness and 3) discussing client’s individual differences (both #2 & #3 potentially due to focus on weight and appearance).