Download the MP3

Dan Florell:  Welcome to " NASP Dialogues," the dialogue podcast focused on events and issues in school psychology. I'm Dan Florell, the NASP webmaster and moderator of our current dialogue. Today we are discussing social justice, and we have with us Nathan von der Embse, Brianna Sarr and Dave Shriberg. Nathan, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself.

Nathan von der Embse:  Sure. My name is Nathan von der Embse. I'm a fourth year doctoral student at Michigan State University. My current research interests are in the areas of high stakes testing, educational accountability and policy, and social justice.

Dan:  Great. Brianna?

Brianna Sarr:  I'm Brianna Sarr. I'm a practitioner in the Centerville City schools, which is a suburb of Dayton. It's a rather suburban school district. My research interests at the moment include social justice obviously, disproportionality and special education referrals as well.

Dan:  Great. And Dave?

David Shriberg:  My name's Dave Shriberg. I'm a fourth year professor at Loyola University, Chicago. Prior to that I was a practitioner for several years in Massachusetts. My research interests also relate to social justice and in particular our family school collaboration.

Dan:  I guess the people who've clicked on this particular podcast are going, "What is social justice? Why does this thing keep popping up in this field when I never heard about it before?"

David:  That's probably the most commonly asked question. It's very hard to define so I'm going to attempt to define it in a couple different ways, first from more of research perspective, and then also from a more applied perspective. From a research perspective, the most common definition that you'll see related to social justice is really two components. One component is that social justice involves the protection of rights and opportunities for individuals. Sometimes you might see this also referred to as distributive justice. So it looks at resources, how they're allocated and is there an equality behind that. The other primary component of social justice that you often see relates to issues of respect, sometimes framed around discrimination. So another way to look at it from a psychology perspective is non‑discrimination.

And by the way, when we've researched this in school psychology, these two core ideas, there have now been two research studies specific to school psychology, when we've asked what is social justice, these same two ideas keep coming back.

Another way to look at it in a more applied sense and the way I tend to think of social justice is that it's a verb, it's an action. To me the way I think you could think of it is a combination of both a mindset and a skill set. The mindset involves a lens of looking at what's going on around you in the context of school psychology, looking at things that happen in our work, and looking at that critically and saying, "Whose interests are being served here. Is there justice in the school setting?"

The skill set involves taking some sort of action related to that critical mindset that you developed, and often the skill set involves advocacy in some way.

Dan:  So a common two set of awareness and how you think about an issue, the old moral framing. And also putting that moral thinking into action in some manner, either by advocating or some other way.

Dave:  Right.

Dan:  So it does sound a little bit different from what maybe many people lump this into as far, isn't this a multicultural, diversity issue? Is that just an extension?

Dave:  It is. To me it's very related to multicultural issues but also a little distinct. One way to think about it, and I first got exposed to this idea by Mary Clare who's another school psychologist, you could think of social justice as the aspiration. That's the goal that we're working towards as school psychologists. Advocacy is the most common strategy employed towards achieving that aspiration. Issues of cultural diversity often frame the context from which that advocacy takes place. So that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is I think social justice can be viewed as the logical extension of a multicultural movement in school psychology that's traced back for several decades. So in some ways, even though you started by saying this is a new idea or perhaps an unfamiliar idea to many people now, it's also an old idea from the perspective of people that have been involved in multicultural school psychology have been advocating for social justice in a long time.

What's happened is stage one has typically been just awareness and just the idea primarily in the '60s and '70s that life might be a little different for kids. Or interventions might be different if you're working with a girl versus a boy or a high school student versus an elementary student, white versus non‑white.

So that was phase one; just the awareness of cultural differences and similarities and then factoring that into your interventions. Phase two involved cultural competencies, which was still in and NASP developed cultural competency in the American Psychological Association. So once you identify that there are differences, then what are competent ways of practicing?

Then social justice, I would argue, is the next logical step. After cultural competency you could be culturally competent, but if you're not questioning societal structures that create inequities, what are we doing?

One quick example that might speak to that. Let's say you're a school psychologist and you've got 10 percent of your student population is demographic group X, and you're considered an English learner as a racial ethnic minority and so on and so forth. Now let's assume that 50 percent of that 10 percent group X is referred to you for special ed. evaluation.

You could evaluate each of those students as individuals in a way that someone might say, "That was a culturally competent evaluation." If it's an English language, well, you can say, "We made some great adaptations. We made sure to assess in their native language" all these things.

But at some level if you're not questioning, "Well, why is it that 50 percent of any demographic group is referred to special education, then I would argue that's where the social justice component comes in in the sense it's an extension of cultural competence.

Dan:  What benefit, Brianna, does attending to social justice provide to the field of school psychology?

Brianna:  Part of our job as school psychologists is to promote change at an institutional level when it's needed and also to advocate for student rights. When we examine our decisions through a social justice lens, it allows us to better promote those changes where they're needed by first identifying where progress could be made, where do we need to make improvements, and then allowing us to truly advocate for that progress.

Social justice essentially provides us with the framework to be able to effectively evaluate those decisions and then advocate in the areas that we need to. So it enhances it.

Nathan:  Social justice is also this area where we can examine the inherent values and attitudes that we all have. So for instance when Dave was saying, looking at these schools and maybe disproportionality in terms of identification, what kind of values do we hold as individual school psychologists maybe even within that school system? Social justice is again a way to promote that awareness of our own values and attitudes.

Dan:  So much like RTI provides a framework in which to explore, say, behavioral issues or academic issues, social justice is a similar framework in which to understand cultural diverse issues and also individual differences in fairness, equality, lots of those types of terms that seem to be flowing out there. How would these current issues in school psychologists such as that RTI, hope I didn't steal any thunder there, relate to social justice?

Brianna:  Well, I'm glad that you brought up RTI because RTI actually promotes social justice. When you use RTI you're evaluating decisions based on an individual student's progress compared to the progress you would expect that student to make. You're comparing them to themselves. You're not comparing them to a student who is at a different level or a student from a different background. You're comparing them to themselves. When you do this, you're making decisions about their progress based on what they should be doing. And you're not comparing to them an unfair ideal or an unfair norm that would not be used for that particular child.

It promotes social justice because you're not examining their progress based on some unfair standard. You're examining it compared to themselves. So when you have observable, measurable data and you make decisions based on that data, you're promoting social justice because you're eliminating some of the bias in the decision makings.

When you're using a test that could be culturally biased, for example, that's not exactly promoting social justice for that individual child. By giving a measure to a child and looking at how much progress they made compared to what you would expect them to make, that is taking away some of the bias from that decision making.

Dan:  Because when you were mentioning the comparisons in themselves, obviously, there is the rate of progress but you also all talk about an aim line. Wouldn't that be, at least, some expectation of where you're trying to bring the individual up to? Is that still incorporating kind of a social justice where you're aspiring to them, even though you're comparing their own progress, you're also holding them to some sort of standard.

Brianna:  Sure. Well, when you're looking at comparing them to an aim line, typically the aim line is developed using the percentile that they're at. Most of the measures which are used to monitor progress are based on national norms, and when you have a national norm you have different percentile ranks. So, students might fall at the 70th percentile. They might fall at the 10th percentile. One of the benefits of using RTI is that when you're using a measure and the child falls at the 10th percentile, you're comparing them to the progress you would expect a typical child at that 10th percentile to make. You're not comparing them at the progress that the child at the 70th percentile would make. So, in that way it does eliminate the bias.

Dan:  So, in addition to RTI and kind of its relation to social justice, are there any other issues that you can also bring in then?

Brianna:  I think so, the recent Model Licensure Act through APA which has been a hot topic of discussion in NASP. One of NASP's original responses when the Model Licensure Act was being discussed is that it was unfair, and part of the reason it was unfair is that it was differentially biased towards women and minorities. The argument was that if by eliminating the use of the term "psychologist" to specialist level people you were actually differentially discriminating against minorities and women because school psychologists represent a larger portion of women and minorities than do other fields, subspecialties of psychology. In this way through a social justice lens again, it's disproportionately discriminatory against those particular groups.

Dan:  So, you can see how, not only in that day to day individual school functioning, but in a much broader context as you were saying earlier on how that can be incorporated from a social justice kind of perspective. How have school psychologists been working to advance social justice?

Brianna:  Well, as we said earlier with RTI, by making database decisions. When you have data and you're making your decision based on data, you're eliminating some of the bias that comes in the decision‑making. That's part of the reason in an intervention process we are requiring teachers to come to us with information and data about the student's progress, not just saying I have a gut feeling that the student isn't doing well. Not that the gut feeling isn't valid, but it could be a little bit more biased. When we have data, it has a tendency to be a less biased form of decision‑ making, I think, by evaluating and critiquing our team decisions that we make and guiding and advocating for its decisions which are not based on bias. So, we're making decisions whether a child needs to be referred for evaluation. I think we need to be looking at the data and keep the team focused on the data, and as school psychologists that's a critical part of our role in helping teams evaluate the data, understand what it means and then translate it into something that is going to be effectively helping that child.

Dave:  Like Brianna said, even within these team decisions that we're making and back to an earlier point, it's that we're constantly examining our own values and how these might affect the decisions and how they affect team decisions. So, social justice lens and being aware of these social justice issues really brings a broader or a sharper light on what we're doing and how these values are affecting these. Then, also I think another way that school psychologists have been advancing social justice is really providing these systemic supports, whether it be through our RTI, whether it be through PBS. These kind of initiatives really help kids avoid slipping through the cracks.

Brianna:  I think, too, that in individual practitioner's daily life we can do things on a more manageable level in making sure that when we're writing our reports that we're writing fair, unbiased reports, that we're really evaluating the data, that we're guiding those teams through those decisions. Because I think sometimes when we think of social justice it is a rather abstract term and it's kind of this unimaginably huge ideal that we're striving for. And, I think it's important to emphasize that in our daily practice. There are little things we can do that are promoting social justice.

Dave:  And, it sounds like even from your, what your examples are, the subjective of a teacher saying this child may be in trouble, but even when you refer to data and going into assessment issues, it sounds social justice can apply as far as because we can collect lots of data. It depends on what type of data is being collected and how it's being collected. For that you need things like awareness of assessment issues, reliability, validity, norm sampling. It sounds like social justice permeates a lot of what school psychologists do, not just from this oh, are we being fair or not, but how does that manifest itself in having to select instruments that are going to have good data to analyze beyond just data being generated.

Dave:  Yeah. In fact, when we've, we recently, and all three of us have been heavily involved in the NASP Social Justice Interest Group. When that interest group did a survey of NASP members about 2008, that exactly what you said when we asked like what are some ways to support social justice, the types of things you just said were right on target with what NASP members said in terms of conducting culturally fair assessments, being aware of the law, being aware of ethical codes, all those kind of things that could be conceptualized as a solid practice. More generally, when we put in a social justice framework, a lot of those same strategies come out. Again, it comes back to me, it's sort of as much of a lens as it is as a skill.

Dave:  I think like what you see with RTI, it sounds like social justice, once you peel back the abstract aspect of it because it is kind of heavy stuff when you first hear it, knowing that for the most part good professional practice will get you towards some social justice practice. It won't, obviously, be the answer, but it won't be like I'm starting from scratch having to learn something totally anew to be able to practice in this type of manner.

Dave:  Absolutely it's a framework for looking at things and you could think, you can consider data base decision making, for example, as a tool towards achieving the goal of social justice. I guess what I would add to what you just said is to me social justice does imply a certain level of advocacy and questioning of the status quo and commitment to action that isn't always as apparent in some of the other documents and standards that you might see in school psychology.

Dan:  So if you wanted to expand on it and give us a key social justice issue in our field and maybe how we can address that, what would that be?

Dave:  Sure. Let me answer that in a couple ways. First, a broader picture and then some specific examples and specific topics that relate to social justice issues. I think in a broad sense, I think social justice can really speak to the moral implications of what school psychologists do almost regardless of topic. And, I think to the extent that social justice has started to become more popular and more widely used in our field, my experience has been, and it's only when people talk to me about it, it's because it's tapping into some moral sense of why they got into the field in the first place.

So, I think it could speak to some of the key questions in our field in terms of are children families in your school and are they viewed as problems to be solved or as people to be developed and nurtured. As a school psychologist are you expected to be doing things to people or with people?  And does your work align with your values?

So I think in some sense like those big picture questions on social justice can speak to in terms of the professional development we all experience.

In zooming into some specific topics, to go back to your original question, well let me just quickly add, I think those distinctions really matter. If your work is not aligned with your values, I think it's going to be hard for you to be successful regardless of whatever subtopic. And, I think social justice framework helps you to get at those answers.

Now, zooming into some specific topics. A couple of them come to mind. Right now there's a lot of interest in school psychology and bullying and school climate. When you look at the research related to that, if you're trying, in the general sense, if you're trying to kind of inflict the most psychological damage on one boy, what's the way to do it. You tag that child with homophobic comments, gay, fag, like for a lot of kids like those are the first kind of slurs that they use.

Now, you can develop bullying interventions that aren't necessarily centered around homophobia, but if you're not aware of homophobia, if you're not willing to kind of engage that topic, and it manifests differently in different school districts, it's very likely to achieve the systemic change that often we're looking for when combating homophobia.

As one who's a recent example, I was recently asked to do some training around bullying in the large metropolitan area, and this was the person that was in charge of diversity efforts in this huge school district. We talked about this, and my colleague, instead of saying homophobia, she used the language "GLBTQ" ‑ "gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, queer" and the person, this is the person who's in charge of the diversity efforts in the district, and the bullying efforts, said, "What does that mean? What do you mean, GLBTQ?" So I think there's sort of an awareness function that school psychologists can be very helpful with relating to homophobia.

The other topic that comes to mind would be school discipline procedures and how they manifest. This is where the gap between research and practice is quite apparent ‑ we have decades of research that shows disproportionate school discipline referrals, primarily for African American males, and non‑white students, more generally, so we know this as a field. That research is there, yet that research is not widely known in the educational community, so one of the roles that school psychologists can play is to say, "Look, we know that African American males are far more likely to be referred for discipline issues that are more subjective in nature, they're more likely to have more punitive punishments, and we know that there's a school to prison pipeline that's been existing for decades." So I think part of what school psychology as a particular issue could focus on ‑ and Pam Fenning has been a real leader on this is bringing those issues to light and really having some advocacy that can take social justice considerations into practice.

Dan:  So in this case it would be the school psychologist saying, once again, "Not only are 50 percent of the African Americans maybe failing, but they're also getting a disproportionate amount being put into these office referrals. Maybe we really need to look at what these office referrals are for and maybe understand where these African American boys are coming from, because with such a large number, there's something going on."

Dave:  Yes, and to be clear, I'm not trying to say that school psychologists should be doing this alone, or that they need to be the sole voice, but we have this wonderful combination of the psychological training, we're supposed to be good observers, listeners, consumers of data, and we have this access to the ecology of schools that almost no one else has, so I would say, from a social justice perspective, it's incumbent on us to be observers of these kind of things, and then to be a part of the process of changing unjust situations around. I do think we're at a great vantage point to do that, not as solo efforts, but as leaders in helping to make schools more just places.

Dan:  That leads me to my next question for Nate; when Dave talked about social justice, he also talked about kind of a restorative justice. Are those the same thing? What is restorative justice?

Nathan:  It's broadly defined; restorative justice is a method for applying social justice principles through an alternative to a suspension approach. It's really a method for educators, community members, parents, teachers and school psychologists, of course, to get together and find out three questions, and those questions are: "What happened?" having this common understanding of transgression, "Who was affected by this transgression?" and "How do we move forward and heal?" as opposed to this rut that we get stuck in, offending, suspending and reoffending. So it's moving away from that method and then moving into more, "How do we heal this actual transgression?" and moving forward without the suspension.

Dan:  So it really sounds like going with what Dave was talking about a little bit earlier in some of these social justice issues, that we look for the inequities, but we're looking for, it seems like, patterns that wouldn't be explained by just simple chance, but that there seems to be this pattern of maybe a re‑offending, and then they have the punishment, you get suspended for five days. And then the same child comes back in, same type of thing, five days, and what's really being accomplished there in this kind of roundabout way? A restorative justice if I understand correctly would go ahead and say "Now let's sit down and look at all factors that are going on here", not just the initial offender, but also what's the offender going through, what factors are there, and is there a way we can intervene in all of these manners so that everybody's rights are being respected in the situation and that we're not just doing this kind of cyclical thing.

Nathan:  Yeah, absolutely. I think you captured it very well. Again, it's moving forward and not getting in these cycles of the same kids getting suspended. Because once they're out of school, they're not learning. A school psychologist would need to recognize what's in the best interest of those kids, and how do we keep them in school? How do we make sure that they're achieving up to their potential?

Dan:  So this sounds really good. But how do we apply this in a school setting? I imagine that's quite a challenge.

Nathan:  Absolutely. There's a couple different ways that restorative justice is applied within the schools. There are set programs and I encourage you to check out Amstutz and Mullet in 2005, they have a book that talks a little bit more about this and how it applies. But I think as a principle, it really just addresses this misbehavior. It imposes accountability by engaging all these parties. It empowers both victim and the offender to define what happened. So if we're using these ideas it's moving away again from the traditional discipline of suspending this kid, get him out of the school, and really understanding why this particular transgression happened.

Dan:  So I would say when an administrator would hear accountability and action, they would say "why yes, we are holding him accountable, that's why we suspend him." Isn't that accountability?

Nathan:  Well, sure, it's accountability by getting the kid out of the school, and more of a punitive punishment, where restorative justice gets to the why. Why is this happening and how do we move forward? So we can punitively punish a student for a transgression but does this lead to the reoffense? Does this happen again?

Brianna:  I think doing that goes back to promoting that systemic change, because by impacting the individual children who are committing the misbehavior, the transgression, and helping them understand the impact that their behavior has had on the other's lives, I think you're helping promote understanding and promote a sense of community and helping encourage collaboration working together, which is something that I think we all struggle in practicing in the schools, because it's a difficult task, and I think you're actually promoting some of that systemic change by impacting not only the individual who committed the transgression, but helping them understand their impact on others, and helping other people see them in a different light too, so that they can see the possibility for change in those individuals.

Dan:  This sounds really good, but then if I'm a school psychologist and I have a principal who's an old school kind of principal, or I have a parent of the victim who comes in and says "Why are you talking to this aggressor? Why? My child's the one that's been damaged. Why are we trying to do this outreach? I want this child suspended. I don't want them coming back to torment my child." How would we respond from a social justice advocacy framework when you have that sort of attitude which I imagine is fairly prevalent in a lot of incidents in schools?

Nathan:  Data is a powerful motivator and helps to change people's attitudes. So for instance, when the restorative justice program was implemented in Lansing, Michigan school district, just within one year over 1,600 suspension days were averted. I think something that we can all agree on is that kids do better when they're in school than at home on suspension. So I think one way is to suggest this is the data, and this is what's going to be in the best interest of the kid. Also, it's hard to have a social justice lens for everyone that comes to the table. We can't necessarily expect that. So having that data there, and suggesting these are the best practices for kids, and I think that is something that we all have in common.

Dan:  I was going to say, I would imagine, too, with the Lansing study did that improve the school climate when you had not only a decrease in suspensions but also hopefully an increase in awareness by these offenders?

Nathan:  Absolutely. When they did follow up surveys, over 90 percent of the participants in this process, and this involved over 1,500 students, over 90 percent of the participants said that they learned something, how to move forward, and how their actions are affecting other students.

Brianna:  I think also that examining offenses in the schools, using restorative justice approach can also be one way that we can actually use to promote a change in thinking at that systemic level. We know that positive behavior support systems are a very effective way of helping create that type of a climate and a more positive climate in schools giving kids these positive things to work for, giving them incentives to work for being positive instead of a putative system. I think if we're examining some of these offenses through a restorative justice lens, that's one way that we can build support for a larger scale implementation of a positive behavior support system in a school which ultimately is one of the systemic changes I think we work for in social justice.

Dave:  Yeah. This really speaks to social justice, restorative justice efforts or social justice more broadly. When you're thinking about advocacy, it typically means you have different messages and different approaches for different individuals and situations. So, you're thinking about it at the individual level and the systemic and also from the vantage point are different people on their particular situation. So, to go back to the question, Dan, because before I'd have you respond the way you might respond to the parent of a child who's been victimized, in that case that parent has every expectation to expect that their child's in a safe environment.

So on one level while we want to be sensitive to the situation of the aggressor in a situation, we also have an obligation to make sure that that child's safe. So, the message that you would give to that parent would be we're going to do everything we can to put your child in a safe situation and we're going to take whatever precautions might be necessary to make that happen. That obligation doesn't change.

The message you might give to the principal that wants to just toss out every child that has these behavior issues, well let's look at the data here. What really happens? And, you can talk a little more beyond the immediate situation difference. More particularly if you're doing, you may even suggest the other mechanism for tracking what's happened.

You can use a more persuasive argument with that person and talk, if you're talking with the parent of a child who's been aggressive, you can talk about what type of interventions have been helpful and talk to them and say we want to do what we can to support your child.

Your message might be you're not being duplicitous, you're not being sneaky in any way, but you have different messages and different strategies to play. It's all towards the same broad goal of creating a healthy system that nurtures all children as possible. Within that, though, you may have different messages, so we're not suggesting to kind of like ignore the immediate. A parent who his child's been hurt has every right for their child to be safe in school.

Dan:  While I was listening to you, it doesn't sound like you're excluding a putative approach on occasion. You're not ruling out and saying we're going to all do kumbaya and say let's get along, but that we have to take in a multi-factor approach, that it's not just simple victim/aggressor things and the victim's always right and the aggressor never has any issues and that's by the book.

Dave:  Right, that's the putative approach is the data on the... what we usually associate with that is things like zero tolerance and the data on that is terrible. I mean, yeah, that exacerbates problems.

Dan:  But, it's so easy.

Brianna:  Yeah, but it doesn't solve the larger systemic problem. [laughter]

Dan:  Neither does spanking. [laughter]

Dan:  Sometimes that doesn't, that feels good as an administrator [laughter] or a parent. I think those are some, that's kind of a wonderful example of restorative justice, and I think it also belies some of the complexity when you go down this road, this is not the cookie cutter, memorized, this is what I do, move on, now what's my next subject for mastery, but that rather it sounds like it's a true process to come to that full point, and not only for you yourself to come to this social justice viewpoint but how you word it in a manner that is accepted by others that are in these systems. I guess that leads to my final question. How can a school psychologist or graduate student get involved? What are the next steps?

Brianna:  Well, I think a great step that anyone can take is to join the NASP social justice interest group. We just had our meeting here yesterday and it's a really wonderful opportunity to converse with other people in a community who are also excited about examining social justice issues and promoting systemic change and advocating for kids. I think all school psychologists want to do that, but this is a forum where people can come together, evaluate different issues and brainstorm for, how can we change things? How can we improve things? What can we do at the graduate level? What can we do at the trainer level? What can we do as practitioners? And anybody can join the listserv or the interest group.

Nathan:  Another way is really not being afraid to address social justice issues. Are we looking at this data and saying or suggesting that there might be inequities in something such as discipline practice. So I think as school psychologists our mission is to promote the best interests of that child. By doing that we need to raise awareness of these potential systemic inequities. So that's definitely one way that any school psychologist can be involved in social justice.

Dave:  I really think that being brave and taking risks is certainly important. But, I also think that also becomes easier if you can find community around that. What I've noticed being involved in the interest group is that a lot of people join it; some join it for the reasons of very specific points of interest, and the interest group really does support advocacy and work together in specific projects. I think a lot of people connect with it originally because they're looking for other people that feel a commitment to social justice and how people might define social justice, to go back to the first question, might be a little different.

But, the broader sense that social justice speaks to the moral purpose for why people became school psychologists and they go out and become practitioners and they get into these situations; they feel like "I see this as an injustice," or "This is wrong, what have other people done?" I think there is a community of support component that people find very valuable.

So sometimes just finding community, it may not solve all the problems in your immediate district helps people find that courage, and not just courage, but very pragmatic strategies that help turnaround the situations that they may be facing. So I think that the community building aspect is really important.

Dan:  Are there some more explicit resources that in addition to the NASP listserv that are out there, books or articles or things that people who are curious about the concepts and maybe defining those?

Nathan:  For those of you out there who are interested more in restorative justice I really encourage you to check out centralmichiganrestorativejustice.com. This is the website for the Lansing, Michigan school district, really explaining their program how it was applied, showing their some of effectiveness of data. And also a lot of resources about how school psychologists can use this kind of program in their own schools.

Dave:  Also within the NASP web page is always a great resource. There's a social justice page there where we have many resources posted relating to teaching and within the research component there are many communiqué articles that have come out in the last year that can continued out in the future. And I would have to point out that while we're focusing on social justice, its the kind of topic that overlaps with many related topics that NASP focus on. For example, the multicultural work group has many resources there, there's a bilingual school psychology network. So there are many different avenues within NASP that would speak to us on the topics we've raised today.

Dan:  I'd really like to thank all of you for participating today on our talk on social justice. That is Nathan von der Embse, Brianna Sarr and David Shriberg. That's going to conclude this Dialogues podcast. Please tune in again for future Dialogue podcasts available on the NASP website.