Abstract
Background: K-12 students have experienced increases in the amount of hate crimes and prejudice they encounter. School counselors are well-positioned to reduce oppression in schools, but often lack the means to develop advocacy skills that would do so. Objectives: We implemented the School Counselor Equity Fellowship (SCEF), a yearlong cohort-model social justice advocacy program for school counselors. We designed the program so that participants could develop and promote anti-oppressive, social justice advocacy skills to support their K-12 students. Research Question: What are the experiences of participants in a training program for social justice school counseling? Methods: We used a qualitative case study approach to explore participants’ experiences (N = 12). We used an instrumental case study and Yin’s (2017) case study analysis procedures. Data came from participant journal entries written throughout the SCEF and participant interviews completed before and after the SCEF program. Findings: Seven themes characterized participant experiences in the SCEF. Participants were impacted in the program through personal multicultural factors (1), encountered positive experiences (2), and reported a range of benefits (3). Participants also faced barriers to social justice work and SCEF participation (4), as well as challenging emotions in the program (5). Lastly, participants used school data in response to SCEF participation (6) and engaged in social justice advocacy in their schools (7). Conclusions: Findings indicate that the SCEF program may serve as a promising model for supporting school counselors and their social justice advocacy work in schools.
Introduction
Substantial increases in the cultural diversity of the United States and its public school students have been associated with increased bullying, hate crimes, and the need to reduce prejudice (Banks & McGee Banks, 2020; Human Rights Campaign, 2018; National Center for Education Statistics, 2021b; NCES, 2021a). Recent reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2021) indicated that one in four students who experienced bullying were targeted for their race, national origin, religion, disability, gender, and/or sexual orientation. Furthermore, one in four students ages 12 to 18 witnessed hate words in their school, including references to homophobia, anti-Semitism, and lynching (GAO, 2021).
Hate crimes in schools are not a new occurrence; however, they have increased since 2017, with most students targeted due to their race or national origin (GAO, 2021). In a survey of 17,366 secondary students, 15.8% reported experiencing race-based harassment, and as many as 70% of adolescents reported witnessing bullying due to race (Human Rights Campaign, 2018). Hate crimes have also increased due to sexual identity and orientation. Kosciw et al., (2019) found that 86% of LGBTQ+ students experienced discrimination in schools, and only 13% of students reported experiencing staff interventions on their behalf. These increasing levels of student victimization are especially concerning given their documented correlation with negative consequences for school performance and mental health (Kosciw et al., 2019; Lee & Ahn, 2013; Russell et al., 2012; Seaton et al., 2018; Trevor Project, 2020). As Ratts and Greenleaf (2018) summarized, “School personnel and other stakeholders cannot expect marginalized students to reach their potential if they feel unsafe” (p. 1).
School counselors are among such school personnel that ought to be aware of the negative consequences of hate crimes in schools. Moreover, they are a stakeholder that is uniquely positioned to utilize anti-oppressive, social justice counseling approaches to reduce racism, oppression, and discrimination in K-12 schools (ASCA, 2019; Merlin, 2017). Social justice is a term that refers to appropriately distributed privileges, opportunities, and wealth in a society (Oxford English Dictionary, 2023). School counselors who seek to advocate for social justice in their schools may engage in a range of intentional behaviors, including initiating difficult dialogues, teaching students self-advocacy skills, or using data to underscore critical issues (Singh et al., 2010).
Scholars have documented school counselors adopting social justice advocacy platforms in addressing issues of societal inequity in schools since the 1990s (see Trusty & Brown, 2005; Cox & Lee, 2007; Holcomb-McCoy, 2007; House & Martin, 1999; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2020; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2020; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2022; Ratts et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2010). Such efforts have been supported by national school counseling organizations, such as the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) (2016, 2019), the Education Trust (2006), and the American Counseling Association (ACA) (Lewis et al., 2002; Ratts et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2010). Notably, in the ASCA Ethical Standards (2021), ASCA acknowledged that social justice advocacy is not just a choice behavior, but an ethical imperative (Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2020).
Although the school counseling profession has increased its infusion of social justice advocacy approaches into school counseling preparation programs in recent years (Moody et al., 2022), this improvement does little to benefit professional school counselors who graduated prior to those changes or who attended counselor preparation programs that lacked social justice approaches (Dameron et al., 2020; Dogan, 2022). Moreover, little research exists regarding how practicing school counselors embed social justice advocacy into their work (Singh et al., 2010). Given these gaps, professional development appears needed for practicing school counselors in the areas of anti-oppressive, social justice advocacy. Research on such work is also needed to enlighten the school counseling profession about its efficacy.
Social Justice Advocacy in School Counseling
Several historical initiatives built a foundation for social justice advocacy within the school counseling profession (Singh et al., 2010). The Transforming School Counseling Initiative’s (TSCI) collaboration with the Education Trust in 1996 explored innovative roles for school counselors and outlined advocacy as an imperative role for school counselors. The initiative further emphasized that school counselors identify educational disparities and advocate to close achievement gaps (Bemak & Chung, 2008; Crook et al., 2015; Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Ratts et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2010). In 2010, Singh and colleagues enhanced advocacy literature by publishing the first exploration of school counselor social justice agents and how they advocated for systemic change in schools. Other researchers have continued to explore and promote school counselors’ social justice advocacy efforts, solidifying the construct as core to the school counseling profession (see Feldwisch & Whiston, 2015; Lopez-Perry & Whitson, 2022; Merlin-Knoblich & Chen, 2018; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2022; Simons & Cuadrado, 2019).
A recent report by ASCA (2021) confirmed that some school counselors are regularly engaged in social justice advocacy in their schools. In a survey of 7000 school counselors, ASCA found that in an attempt to reduce racism in bias in their schools, 38% of participants used individual counseling, 35% delivered classroom lessons, and 22% advocated against policies disproportionately harming students of Color. Though these statistics are promising, they indicate that many other school counselors are not yet engaging in social justice advocacy, suggesting that professional development in the area is needed. Indeed, ASCA’s survey also asked school counselors which topics for professional development were warranted. Seventy-eight percent of participants indicated a need for diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development, and 75% indicated a need for anti-racism practices in professional development.
Despite this established need, research about professional development efforts on social justice advocacy for school counselors is limited. In a thorough review of three research databases (ERIC, Education Research Complete, and PsycInfo), we found no published studies about social justice professional development programs for school counselors. Several studies have illuminated the need for further school counselor professional development in areas of social justice advocacy (see Dogan & Dollarhide, 2021; Goodrich & Luke, 2009; Moe et al., 2015); however, further research is needed to understand the impacts of such professional development. Thus, we designed the present study.
School Counseling Equity Fellowship
To address the need for school counselor social justice professional development, we developed and implemented the School Counselor Equity Fellowship (SCEF), a yearlong cohort-model program for professional school counselors to develop anti-oppressive, social justice advocacy skills to improve academic, social/emotional, and college/career outcomes for K-12 students. One university faculty member (the first author), two PhD students (the third and fourth authors), and two master’s students led the SCEF for practicing school counselors in two urban school districts in a Southeastern state in the U.S. They organized two cohorts of school counselors, with one cohort from the Western School District and one cohort from the Eastern School District in the state. Fourteen school counselors comprised the Western School District SCEF cohort, and nine school counselors comprised the Eastern School District SCEF cohort.
The first author designed the format of the SCEF based on best practices in school counselor professional development (Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2023). Researchers have found that the most impactful professional development experiences are those that are collaborative, incorporate active-learning experiences, are led by outside experts instead of peers, allow participants to adapt new skills to their unique settings, and are sustained in duration so that participants can implement new practices over time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2023). The SCEF was designed to reflect each of these elements, as well as a cohort model approach to professional development, which has been supported in research about school counseling professional development experiences, in particular (Kneale et al., 2018; Merlin, 2017; Merlin-Knoblich & Chen, 2018).
The purpose of the SCEF was to develop and promote participants’ anti-oppressive, social justice school counseling skills. We sought to support participants as they learned about social justice interventions in school counseling and implemented such work in their own schools. Thus, we designed the SCEF curriculum to reflect best practices in learning social justice skills (Starker Glass & Carter Berry, 2022). Such practices involve moving through a journey of reflection of one’s self, reflection of one’s context, reflection of one’s community, and reflection of society’s systems and barriers impacting schools (Starker Glass & Carter Berry, 2022). For example, in the initial SCEF seminar, we engaged in discussions and activities about local communities and school districts, including their histories with racial desegregation and re-segregation of students. The second seminar included a focus on participants’ own privileges, biases, and experiences with oppression. Subsequent seminars included a focus on barriers impacting students and their success in schools. We collaboratively designed each seminar based on our collective experiences teaching school counseling students about social justice school counseling (the first and third authors), previously working as school counselors (all authors), and researching school counseling social justice practices (the first author).
After gaining support from the participating school districts leaders, the first author recruited participants for the SCEF by emailing school counselors in the Eastern and Western School Districts. She provided information about the SCEF and invited school counselors to apply to the program by completing a brief electronic application with questions about their interest in the program and past experiences with social justice. Current school counselors at all levels in both districts were eligible to apply for the program if they were interested and had administrative support to do so. After consulting with school counseling leaders in both districts, the first author invited all applicants to join the SCEF given participants’ thoughtful applications and available space.
All participants were asked to attend six 90-minute seminars scheduled throughout the school year and held via video conference, due to COVID-19 protocols at the time. SCEF leaders held six seminar sessions for the Western school counselors and six separate seminar sessions for the Eastern school counselors. By separating the cohorts and hosting seminars for each cohort, the participating Fellows met solely with peer school counselor participants who worked in their same district. Both cohorts followed the same curriculum, seminar agendas, and requirements. Most participants attended all seminars as requested, with approximately 15% of participants attending only five of the six seminars due to scheduling conflicts.
SCEF Topics and Homework Assignments.
During seminars, the SCEF leaders guided participants through activities about their homework and the designated topics (see Table 1 for topics). They used large-group discussions, small breakout group discussions, independent reflections, and videos in their seminar facilitation. In addition to seminar participation and homework completion, SCEF leaders asked all participants to complete two action projects by the end of the program. In the first action project, participants designed and implemented an intervention to improve the multicultural awareness of students or faculty at their schools. In the second action project, participants analyzed school data for disparities among students and proposed an intervention to close the gaps they found. In the final seminar, participants shared their experiences in both action projects. All participants received a $125 stipend, funded by a small university grant.
Methods
To explore the experiences of SCEF participants, we conducted a qualitative case study. The study purpose was to explore the experiences of participants in the SCEF and its possible impact on them as school counselors. In this way, we sought to evaluate the SCEF through the perspectives of its participants, while answering one research question, which guided the study: What are the experiences of participants in a training program about social justice school counseling practices?
We used a qualitative case study methodology in which we explored a single, unique experience—participation in the SCEF—with the same bounded time, space, and people (Hancock et al., 2021; Hays & Singh, 2012). The case study approach allowed us to understand the single case through an in-depth understanding of participants’ experiences in it (Hancock et al., 2021; Prosek & Gibson, 2021). We selected an instrumental case study approach because the methodology aligned with the exploration of a single case, the SCEF (Stake, 2005). Identifying the boundaries of such a case is essential in case study research (Hancock et al., 2021; Yin, 2017). The boundaries of the case in this study were: practicing school counselors in two large urban school districts in the Southeastern U.S., who participated in the SCEF program hosted by leaders at a large public university over the course of the 2021-2022 academic year.
We used a constructivist epistemological lens throughout our research process. This stance assumed that we, as researchers, actively constructed knowledge with participants in the research relationship (Hays & Singh, 2012). Our ontological approach was realism, the belief that constructs exist even if they cannot be fully understood (Yin, 2017). Axiologically, we held that our assumptions and beliefs as researchers impacted the research process and thus engaged in reflexivity, described next (Hays & Singh, 2012).
Researcher Assumptions
The research team for this study consisted of the first three authors, with the fourth and fifth authors assisting in manuscript preparation. The first author (she/her/hers) identifies as a White, cisgender, heterosexual woman, who is a former school counselor and current counselor educator. The second author (she/her/hers) identifies as a White, cisgender, heterosexual woman, who is a former school counselor and current counselor education PhD student. The third author (she/her/hers) identifies as a Black, cisgender, heterosexual woman, who is a former school counselor and current counselor educator. The fourth author (she/her/hers) identifies as a White, queer woman, who is a former school counselor and current counselor educator. The fifth author (she/her/hers) identifies as a Black, cisgender, heterosexual woman, who is a former school counselor and current PhD student.
Understanding that researcher assumptions influence all research, we sought to acknowledge our real and potential biases in an attempt to minimize them throughout the research process (Hays & Singh, 2012). Our reflexivity began with individual journals, which we began prior to initiating data analysis and used to describe biases and assumptions we may have towards the research study, its participants, and its findings. Next, we formally discussed our reflections on biases at our initial data analysis meeting and processed the potential these biases could have in influencing that analysis process. Lastly, we informally checked in with one another about assumptions towards the findings throughout the analysis process.
Some of our assumptions related to our previous experiences as school counselors. The third author, in particular, previously worked in Western School District and was familiar with its practices. The first and third authors also were involved in facilitating and planning the SCEF, so they held assumptions both about its apparent success and areas for improvement. The second author was not involved in the facilitation of the SCEF, but instead collected all interview data for the study. She noted potential biases due to her interactions with participants during the interviews, such as an impression that participants had valuable experiences in the program and were enthusiastic to share their positive experiences.
Lastly, we each reflected on the impact our multicultural identities had on the research process, including how participants interacted with us during the SCEF and data collection in response to our racial, gender, sexual orientation, and intersected identities. We also considered how our privileged multicultural identities blinded us to experiences of oppression that participants may have experienced before or during the SCEF, as well as how our personal experiences with oppression may have aligned us with those participant experiences. The first and second authors noted their awareness of their Whiteness and the ways in which this identity prevented them from fully understanding the racialized experiences of SCEF participants of color. The third author noted that her Black identity was not representative of all Black people and her lived experiences may be different or similar from those in our study.
The first author also sought to be mindful of potential power dynamics during the data analysis process. She served as a faculty member in the department where the other authors were PhD students at the time of this study. In an effort to minimize power dynamics, she invited the other authors to participate equally in the analysis process and speak openly about their interpretations of the data. The first three authors agreed to share their individual opinions about data and find consensus in each step of the analysis before finalizing study findings.
Participants and Context
We obtained research approval from our university Institutional Review Board and both school district research committees before beginning study activities. We adhered to ACA and ASCA professional ethics standards throughout the research process. Once approved, the second author emailed the SCEF participants with an invitation to participate in the study. She explained that study participation was invited irrespective of SCEF participation and that participants’ identities would only be known to her, and not the other authors who were facilitating the SCEF. Twelve SCEF participants agreed to participate in the study via written informed consent, representing a 52% participation rate from the 23 SCEF participants in both cohorts combined.
Of the 12 study participants, seven were school counselors in the Western School District, and five were school counselors in the Eastern School District. Five participants worked at elementary schools, four participants worked at high schools, and two participants worked at middle schools. Eleven participants identified as women, and one participant identified as male-presenting and nonbinary. Five participants identified as Black or African American, six participants identified as White, and one participant identified as multiracial. None of the participants reported fluency speaking languages other than English, and the average age of participants was 39. When asked how many years participants had worked as school counselors, responses ranged from 4 to 20 years, with an average of 12 years.
Data Collection
We collected data from three sources in this study, keeping in mind that case study research benefits from multiple, varied sources of information (Prosek & Gibson, 2021). The first two data sources were semi-structured interviews with participants, which is a common method for collecting data in case study research (Hancock et al., 2021). First, the second author conducted an initial interview with participants during the first month of the SCEF. Appendix A contains the initial interview questions, which allowed participants to explain their reasons for joining the SCEF and their initial impressions of the program. Second, the second author conducted a second interview with participants after the conclusion of the SCEF. Appendix A also contains the second interview questions, which explored participants’ experiences in the SCEF and the potential impact, if any, the program had on them as school counselors.
Initial interviews ranged in length from 30 to 87 minutes, with an average length of 52 minutes. Final interviews ranged in length from 36 to 99 minutes, with an average length of 58 minutes. The second author conducted all interviews using video conference software that produced both audio and video recordings of the interviews. She deleted all video recordings, retained the audio recordings, uploaded them to an electronic transcription service to be transcribed, and assigned pseudonyms to participants.
The third data source was participants’ SCEF journal entries. All SCEF cohort members were asked to complete a brief electronic journal entry following each SCEF seminar so that SCEF facilitators could review their responses and use them to guide subsequent seminar plans. Appendix B contains the questions on the journal template, which reflected the SCEF facilitators’ desire to learn how participants were experiencing the SCEF homework and seminars. SCEF cohort members who consented to participate in the study gave us permission to use their de-identified journal entries as data to be analyzed in the study.
Participants were asked to complete six journal entries throughout the SCEF program, and the journal entry template contained six prompts. On average, participants wrote 2-5 sentences in response to each of the six prompts. Not all participants completed all journal entries, resulting in a total of 44 entries from the 12 study participants across the six seminars. Although we did not analyze journal data until the final interviews were conducted, the journal data provided insightful information to participants’ experiences in the SCEF in real-time, allowing us to understand our identified case in its natural context (Hancock et al., 2021). One participant in the Western School District and one participant in the Eastern School District left the SCEF during the middle of the program due to job changes. Thus, two participants contributed partial data (one interview and journal entries) and 10 participants contributed complete data for the study (two interviews and journal entries).
Data Analysis
We used Yin’s (2017) case study analysis procedures to analyze the data in this study. After conducting the final participant interviews, we combined interview transcripts and journal responses to form our case study database (Yin, 2017). First, the three research team members read all interview transcripts twice to immerse ourselves in the data (Yin, 2017). Second, we independently open coded the interview transcripts by identifying significant words that aligned with the research questions (Hancock et al., 2021). Third, we met and discussed our initial codes, then collaboratively generated an initial code key based on our first round of open coding. We then divided up the transcripts and each used the initial code key to individually conduct frequency counts and investigate which codes were consistently present across the transcripts (Yin, 2017). Fourth, we met again and discussed our findings, narrowing the code key from 19 initial codes to 14 categories once consensus was reached among all research team members.
We next divided up the 14 tentative categories and returned to the data a third time, each independently verifying that the categories were present across a majority of participants, defined as eight or more participants. Fifth, we met and shared our findings from the data, narrowing our categories from 14 to seven based on our verifications. We then divided up tentative categories and independently reviewed all journal data to examine if our tentative findings aligned with ideas participants shared in their journals. We confirmed that all tentative categories were consistently present in the journal data and met one final time to discuss our confirmations. Lastly, we engaged in collaborative discussions to classify our categories, resulting in a final list of seven themes that answered the research question and represented participants’ experiences in the SCEF (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2017). The second author then emailed individual transcripts and a summary of study findings to each research participant for member checking. She invited them to share any corrections they had, and no participants did.
Trustworthiness
We used four approaches to address trustworthiness in this study. First, we embraced reflexivity, as previously noted in our Researcher Assumptions (Hays & Singh, 2012; Yin, 2017). Second, we used investigator triangulation by analyzing study data among three research team members and from three data sources. By collaboratively reviewing initial interview transcripts, secondary interview transcripts, and journal data, we were able to confirm the consistency of themes across participants and throughout their reported experiences in the SCEF (Hays & Singh, 2012). Third, we used member checking to share interview transcripts and study findings with participants, as well as seek their feedback. Lastly, we maintained a detailed audit trail throughout the research process. We documented study recruitment, data collection, and data analysis consistently so that the study can be replicated (Roulston, 2010).
Findings
We identified seven themes that reflected participants’ experiences in the SCEF.
Theme 1: Personal Factors and Multicultural Identities
Participants in the SCEF consistently reported that they were impacted throughout the program by their own personal factors and multicultural identities (n = 10). Particularly during the initial interviews, these factors emerged as playing an important role in why participants chose to apply for the SCEF. For example, Susan, who is multiracial, explained that she has always been drawn to programs about multiculturalism because growing up she saw her mom face racism. Similarly, Kim explained that she is a Black woman and a former honors student, who was drawn to social justice advocacy in part to help other students of Color feel comfortable in honors and advanced courses.
In addition to being drawn to the program for personal reasons, participants also noted that their identities played a role throughout the SCEF. Julie stated, “I feel a responsibility as a Black woman, as one of the few Black women who are counselors at my school … to make sure that I’m advocating for students, especially students of Color, especially students from marginalized groups.” Jordan also illustrated the impact of one’s identity on participants’ experiences in the SCEF. He noted in a journal entry, “Our [SCEF] discussions often gave me concepts and perspectives to reflect on that I had not considered in my own experience as a white, male-presenting, nonbinary person.” Such reflections indicated that participants’ program experiences intersected with their lived experiences.
Theme 2: Positive Experiences
The second theme that emerged was that the SCEF was overwhelmingly a positive experience for participants (n = 10). Participants reported positive emotions and noted enjoying many aspects of the program, including homework assignments, action projects, and interactions with other participants. When speaking of the past school year, Maria stated: The SCEF, I would definitely say, was one of the highlights, because it made me feel productive and supported multicultural awareness. And equity is one of my main hopes for my school and my community. And so, meeting with other people, where that was a priority for them as well, was very rewarding and encouraging.
Participants reported multiple positive emotions when describing their time in SCEF, including excitement and appreciation for the experience. They described gratitude for what they learned from seminar leaders, course materials, and discussions with other school counselors about equity issues. Nine out of ten participants reported feeling more comfortable or confident bringing up issues of social justice, asking questions, and having hard conversations after the SCEF than they were before. For instance, Shea said in her final interview, “I feel much more confident in my ability to do that [social justice advocacy] in a helpful way now.” Veronica further stated about the SCEF, “It was very affirming. It offered me a sense of hope … it was just hopeful to have colleagues who were concerned about the same thing.”
Theme 3: Benefits
The third theme evident in data was that participants reported experiencing benefits from the SCEF (n = 10). Participants described a range of ways the program benefitted themselves personally and professionally, which we categorized into five subthemes.
Subtheme 1: Hearing Peers’ Perspectives
The first subtheme was participants’ engaging in powerful discussions in the SCEF that included rich perspectives from their peers (n = 10). Participants repeatedly noted that they benefited from hearing their peers’ perspectives, particularly if those perspectives differed from their own. Shea said, “I think the best parts were just hearing other people’s experiences and their stories and what they have been working towards or going through.” She further explained that she based her action projects on comments that peers had shared in discussions, because their ideas inspired her to act on similar problems in her school.
Participants also reported an appreciation for the nature of the discussions, which they described as, “powerful,” “safe,” “open,” and “honest.” Maria noted benefitting from her peers’ perspectives in a unique context. She explained: I don’t feel like that [social justice] is a topic of conversation often enough within communities and school buildings. And so this was really a set aside time to discuss this taboo subject. But it also was an opportunity for me to really listen to people’s honest, candid experiences and perspectives. And so that was incredible.
Subtheme 2: Self-Reflection
The second sub-theme was participants’ experience engaging in self-reflection as a result of their participation in the SCEF (n = 9). Participants’ reported self-reflection included considering their biases, privileges, equity and inclusion practices, and oppression experiences. For example, when asked in Journal 2 if anything discussed in the seminar impacted her as a school counselor, Jenny reflected on her interactions with students and other staff members, including, “whether or not I am projecting my beliefs on their situation or how comfortable they feel speaking with me.” Libby also spoke about reflections on privilege and guilt. When describing her time in the SCEF, she said, “there were some times when there was a little bit of white guilt that came up for me … And, you know, I have to kind of examine that and not be defensive and not push it away.”
Subtheme 3: Homework
In addition to self-reflection, participants noted the SCEF homework as a central benefit to their time in the SCEF, comprising the third subtheme (n = 10). Participants spoke frequently of an appreciation for the book, readings, podcast episodes, and videos assigned for their homework, as well as the benefits that these homework assignments had on them. Brenay described the homework by saying, “It gave light to, to what we were doing, helping you to even become that much better as a school counselor in the sense that it is forcing you to, to think outside of the box.” Participants also described specific articles, podcast episodes, and the selected book as especially valuable. Many noted that the book included tangible ideas for classroom lessons and school interventions. Maria said: I’m in charge of the SEL [social emotional learning] lessons for my school. And I create those using resources that [the school district] gives us. But I also used this book because frankly we don't have readily available material to offer students about interrupting racism about equity … And I just felt really empowered. Being able to say, you know, these are hard conversations to have, but I’m not making the lessons up out of nowhere.
Subtheme 4: Peer Network
The fourth subtheme was the benefit of new professional relationships and a network of peers engaged in anti-oppressive, social justice school counseling work. Participants (n = 8) expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet new colleagues in their school districts who were committed to efforts similar to their own. They noted an appreciation for engaging in small group discussions with colleagues, sharing ideas, and reflecting communally. Participants also expressed benefitting from building a support system with one another that will aid them when engaging in anti-oppressive, social justice school counseling efforts in the future. As Veronica wrote in her third journal entry, “It is my hope that the cohort will be a source of support after the fellowship has concluded.”
Subtheme 5: Positive Impact on School Counseling Work
Lastly, the final subtheme was participants’ perceptions that the SCEF positively impacted them as school counselors and their school counseling work (n = 10). All 10 participants indicated that their multicultural skills were improved by the SCEF, and seven of the participants stated that the SCEF improved their multicultural knowledge and awareness, too. When describing her improved multicultural awareness, Kim noted that she was more aware of the broad nature of multicultural work, including religion and sexual orientation/identity, in addition to skin color. Other participants also described their improved multicultural awareness when they noted that the discussions in the SCEF prompted them to be aware of possible teacher biases towards students, as reflected in teacher behavior ratings, which some noticed were disproportionately critical towards Black and Latinx/Latine/Latin American students.
Participants further identified improved multicultural skills when describing their work with students and colleagues. For example, in addition to her action projects, Veronica noted, “I also developed another kind of activity where students who had been impacted by racial trauma could write an impact statement.” Participants pointed to the program content about the history of oppression in the local area as a source of improved multicultural knowledge. “I think I definitely learned a lot about like the history of racism and the education system in [our city],” Shea said, “And I think it really helped frame kind of, how I processed a lot of the information for the rest of the seminars”
In addition to improved multicultural knowledge, skills, and awareness, participants also described an improved motivation for continuing social justice school counseling efforts. They stated that it was motivating to learn from peers who were also engaged in anti-oppressive, social justice work, and learning from their peers inspired them to initiate or continue their own efforts. Jordan summarized this sentiment when explaining what he learned in the SCEF: Other people are out here doing the work, and it’s not perfect. I’m finding obstacles along the way … thinking, man, I must be doing something wrong, you know? Um, but then going in and talking with other people [in the SCEF] and hearing that they were also having challenges … that kind of gave me a little reassurance of, you know, it’s okay. Like you’re not doing anything wrong. This is just difficult work. So there’s gonna be obstacles and being a little kinder to myself and giving me a little more motivation.
Participants’ comments about their increased motivation, as well as their improved multicultural knowledge, awareness, and skills, reflect their perception that the SCEF impacted their school counseling work, in addition to themselves as school counselors.
Theme 4: Barriers
Despite their reported positive experiences in the SCEF, participants also consistently shared concerns about barriers to social justice work and their work in the SCEF program, the fourth theme (n = 10). Participants noted the online format of the program, staff and administration buy-in, and resistance from parents all as barriers to the SCEF program. Of their concerns, the most frequently cited barrier to engagement in the SCEF was time. Participants reported that finding the time to engage in the fellowship without interruptions was difficult. Julie explained, “Different times of the year, I’m just very busy with tasks that have to get done. And I definitely think sometimes that’s a barrier to doing more specific activities or interventions focused around equity.”
In addition to encountering barriers to their participation in the SCEF, participants also described barriers to doing social justice advocacy work in general. One participant, Maria, noted parent challenges as a barrier. She said, “Parents would call and complain about the SEL lessons talking about microaggressions or bias. And so, I had to have conferences with parents about how they didn’t agree with these topics.” Other participants described a lack of faculty and staff buy-in to addressing inequities in their schools. Participants expressed frustration with the barriers encountered, whether they restricted participants from engaging fully in the SCEF or from actively pursuing social justice advocacy work in their schools.
Theme 5: Challenging Emotions
The fifth theme that emerged was that participants experienced challenging emotions as they were participating in the SCEF (n = 10). Participants reported that some of the conversations during their SCEF seminars evoked challenging emotions and feelings. For example, white participants stated that they had feelings of guilt or shame during their participation. Participants of all races reported that social justice work is not easy and the conversations around the topic can be uncomfortable. They also described an openness to such discomfort throughout the process. In addition, participants reported feeling frustrated and overwhelmed with social justice work because there is still a lot of work to be done. For example, Julie stated, “It’s frustrating to sit and think about how much work has been done and how much is still left to go. And sometimes it can feel as though like, like ‘where do we go from here? What do we do? What do we try?’” Shea described similar emotions. She said, “I feel like there’s just like this huge mountain that you’re just trying to climb to the top of.” Both participants highlighted the daunting nature of social justice work in schools, illuminated by their experiences in the SCEF.
Theme 6: Use of Data
Another theme was participants’ consistent reported use of data in response to their participation in the SCEF (n = 10). All participants reported utilizing data for equity at their schools. Participants’ confidence and skills using data varied. Some schools had data platforms in place; however, some participants were not exactly sure how to analyze the data. All participants indicated that their experience in the SCEF called them to intentionally use data to support their school counseling programs and students. Jordan stated: Looking at all the data of our school, it showed I had to make some connections myself, because I hadn’t done that on my own time looking and comparing and connecting them all together. So it really showed me the challenges that some of our students are having.
Participants also shared that evaluating the data provided a catalyst to share knowledge with staff and students in an effort to close gaps. Libby explained, “I ended up doing a presentation for the staff on the data. It was one of my action projects. We just got our spring data back and it showed that the gap is still there, but it’s smaller.” In this way, participants acknowledged that their use of data, informed by their experiences in the SCEF, brought about awareness and a desire to take action on inequalities and gaps that present at their schools.
Theme 7: Engagement in Social Justice Advocacy
The final theme that emerged from the participant data (n = 10) was participants’ engagement in social justice advocacy. Much of the experiences that participants shared about social justice advocacy stemmed from their first action project assignment in the SCEF, which called on them to deliver a multicultural awareness intervention to students or faculty. For example, Maria explained, “We did three weeks of SEL [Social Emotional Learning] around activism, respect, microaggressions, and bias. We started posting the topics of the SEL lessons on our website to make steps towards dealing with [parent pushback] barriers.”
Participants also described social justice advocacy efforts that included presenting to faculty and staff about equity and multiculturalism, conducting a poverty simulation, organizing an audit of multicultural books in the media center, and leading small groups in which students of Color could voice opinions, connect with one another, and learn how to advocate for themselves. Liza noted that she hosted an affinity group for Black students, which was “an afterschool group focused on positive racial identity and connection.” Participants also described continued social justice advocacy efforts that they partook in concurrent with the SCEF. These efforts were part of the participants’ work even before beginning the SCEF and were shared with cohort members and facilitators during the fellowship experience. They compounded the impression that all participants were engaged in social justice advocacy efforts, whether sparked by the SCEF or already typical practices.
Discussion
The seven themes identified in this study paint a robust picture of participants’ SCEF experiences, in which participants were impacted by their personal experiences and multicultural identities (Theme 1) and encountered positive experiences (Theme 2), as well as benefits (Theme 3) in the program. Participants also encountered barriers in the program and their social justice efforts (Theme 4), as well as challenging emotions (Theme 5). Ultimately, their experiences included an emphasis on using school data (Theme 6) and engaging in social justice advocacy in their schools (Theme 7).
This study is the first of its kind exploring participant experiences in a SCEF designed to support practicing school counselors in their anti-oppressive, social justice advocacy, but it grew out of decades of momentum in the school counseling profession encouraging school counselors to serve as social justice advocates (Moody et al., 2022; Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Singh et al., 2010). Participants reported that the program was beneficial and led to their increased social justice advocacy in schools, a notable finding given the dearth of research on how school counselors engage in social justice advocacy (Singh et al., 2010). Findings also indicate that barriers may impede participants’ efforts to implement social justice work in schools and that experiences in this arena can be uncomfortable. Such challenges are critical to keep in mind as school counseling leaders and scholars consider how to further promote social justice advocacy in the profession (Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2020). As this was the first found research study about school counselors’ experiences in a comprehensive social justice professional development program, the findings represent significant, though tentative, contributions to the school counseling literature.
Although no previous researchers have examined the topic in this way, our findings align with related research findings. For example, Dogan and Dollarhide (2021) and Simons and Cuadrado (2019) explored school counselor experiences supporting immigrant and LGBTQ+ students, respectively. In both studies, researchers found that participants reported a need for further professional development to enhance their learning and skills about social justice advocacy. This finding aligns with the current study and participants expressing that they found the SCEF beneficial and impactful to their school counseling work.
Findings also reflect themes found by Singh et al., (2010) in their seminal study about strategies used by school counselors who identify as social justice agents. In particular, the value of a peer network emerged in our study as participants described the benefits of their SCEF participation. This concept also arose in Singh’s study as participants reported the importance of building intentional relationships to instigate social change. Data was also a parallel theme, as participants in the current study described how they used data for equity and participants in Singh’s study reported using data to underscore the need for social justice work in schools. Participants in both studies also noted challenges to social justice advocacy, including navigating relationships with stakeholders. These common themes in both studies are notable, particularly given the amount of time between studies—more than a decade—perhaps suggesting that the experiences of school counselors engaged in social justice advocacy can be relatively consistent.
Study findings also support recent research that some school counselors are engaged in social justice advocacy and believe they need more professional development in this area (ASCA, 2021; Merlin-Knoblich & Chen, 2018; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2020). Findings specifically reflect ASCA’s (2021) report in which more than three quarters of participants reported a need for professional development regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist practices. Our theme about barriers to such work also align with ASCA’s report, which indicated that 30% of participants found that incorporating anti-racism practices, pedagogy, or curriculum was challenging. Taken together, these studies and the present study indicate the need for greater attention on supporting school counselors’ social justice advocacy skills. As Dameron et al., (2020) and Dogan (2022) noted, an increased emphasis on social justice in school counseling training does not benefit practicing school counselors unless such training is extended to them. A program like the SCEF may be one way to do so. Given the increasing cultural diversity in U. S. public schools across a range of measures, as well as the startling increase in hate crimes in schools (Banks et al., 2020; Human Rights Campaign, 2018; NCES, 2021a; (NCES, 2021b)), school counselors trained in anti-oppressive, social justice practices could result in less discriminatory, oppressive experiences for K-12 students (Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2020).
Implications
Participants in this study reported that the SCEF benefitted them in a number of ways, including positively impacting themselves and their school counseling work. They further described using schoolwide data and social justice advocacy as part of their experiences in the program. Though this study is only the first about the SCEF, so findings must be interpreted with caution, they may suggest that it would be prudent for school counselor educators and school district leaders to consider implementing a program like the SCEF in additional school districts. In this study, the SCEF was supported through a small university grant that paid for stipends and books for participants. If school districts are challenged by these costs, they could consider offering continuing education credits for participation instead of stipends and use free materials (i.e., open-access journal articles, videos, and podcast episodes) for homework. Counselor educators and school district leaders can also consider adapting the SCEF to meet their contexts and needs, perhaps by modifying the SCEF program format or forming smaller or larger cohorts of participants, depending on school counselors’ availability for participation.
Whether leaders implement SCEFs similar to the one in this study or adapted slightly, findings indicate that they may benefit from incorporating feedback from our study participants to improve their program. For example, participants noted benefitting specifically from the homework assignments, the seminar discussions, and the new professional relationships formed with other participants. Thus, future SCEF leaders may choose to ensure that these program components are available to participants and emphasized in the format of their SCEF. Participants also spoke to the challenging emotions that they encountered while in the SCEF. This theme is a reminder for SCEF leaders to be prepared for such emotions and ensure that seminar activities and homework assignments are scaffolded to both challenge and support participants in the learning process.
Participants noted several barriers to their participation in the SCEF and social justice advocacy work in general. Time was one barrier that participants reported hindered their engagement in the SCEF. In response, SCEF leaders may want to reduce the number of program seminars or shorten their length. They also may consider hosting seminars in person, rather than via video conference, which could provide participants with a more protected physical space in which their students or colleagues could not interrupt their participation in the SCEF seminars. Lastly, SCEF leaders could consider developing a fellowship mentorship component to their programs, in which previously trained Equity Fellows serve as mentors to current Fellows, helping them navigate potential barriers to social justice advocacy efforts.
Counselor educators who want to replicate this program would benefit from reflecting on existing relationships with school districts open to social justice advocacy among its school counselors. Counselor educators ought to be mindful of laws in some states limiting the inclusion of professional development about diversity in schools. Even if state laws do not exist limiting the implementation of programs like the SCEF, counselor educators would benefit from adapting the SCEF model to meet the time, place, and cultural needs of a partnership school districts.
Limitations
Despite the valuable findings of this study, it had limitations. One limitation of the study was its limited geographical representation. As a qualitative case study, by definition, all participants comprised one case—participants in the SCEF, who were drawn from two large, urban school districts in the Southeastern U.S. However, the experiences of school counselors in these settings may differ from other school counselors in different regions of the U.S. or those working in rural schools. Self-selection bias is an additional limitation. Although participants represented 52% of all participants in the SCEF, it is unknown what the experiences were like for SCEF participants who chose not to participate in the research study. We propose that this limitation was cushioned by our data collection at the beginning and end of the SCEF, rather than solely interviewing participants at the end of the program and only attracting participants with positive SCEF experiences. However, it is necessary to note that 11 SCEF participants did not volunteer for this study, and thus, we cannot know how their program experiences were similar or different to those who did participate.
A final limitation of this study is the possibility of researcher bias. Although we were careful to monitor our biases, some biases may have been present. We attempted to stay aware of bias by completing reflexivity statements, journaling our reactions throughout the research process, and using a data analysis team of three researchers. Moreover, all interviews were conducted by the second author, who was not present for the seminars and did not have access to the materials presented and discussed. We also used participants’ journal entries to confirm emerging themes. Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize researcher bias as a potential limitation, particularly in a study led by program facilitators, as was the case in our study.
Future Research
Future research could expand knowledge around anti-oppressive, social justice school counseling practices in part by addressing these limitations. Given that we qualitatively explored participants’ experiences in the SCEF, quantitative research would be beneficial to complement or contrast with our findings and demonstrate the impact of participation in a SCEF on school counselors. Such research could include analyses of school counselors’ social justice self-efficacy, multicultural competence, and/or multicultural humility before and after a SCEF.
In addition, to continue supporting this work implementing social justice in school counseling, school counselors would benefit from a qualitative study that addressed the barriers school counselors face when implementing social justice programs or advocating for equity. Though all of the school counselors in this study aimed to advocate against inequities and promote social justice in their schools, many reported facing barriers that impeded their work. It would be beneficial to examine these barriers in-depth, perhaps through research with social justice advocate exemplars, in order to prepare school counselors to navigate them.
Lastly, this research study grouped SCEF participants from elementary, middle, and high school levels together. But social justice advocacy may differ across school levels. Thus, it would be beneficial for future researchers to implement SCEF programs with school counselors grouped by level and then explore the experiences of social justice advocacy at each level.
Conclusion
In this study, we explored the experiences of school counselors who participated in the SCEF, a yearlong, cohort-model, university-school district partnership program for anti-oppressive, social justice school counseling practices. Participants’ experiences illuminated the benefits and challenges that they witnessed while engaging in such work. Although research on a program like the SCEF is new, findings suggest tentative promise to support school counselors seeking to equitably support their students and reduce oppression in schools.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
