The range of tasks in school social work

As previously outlined, there is a great range of tasks in SSW in an international context; this subchapter focuses especially on the tasks of German and Finnish school social workers and draws a short conclusion.

Germany

The tasks of German school social workers are manifold and vary depending on their respective conceptual directions. SSW in Germany that works in accordance with Section 13 of the SGB VIII aims at compensating for social disadvantages and individual impairments (SGB VIII, Section 13). Specifically, SSW counsels and supports socially disadvantaged children, conducts individual casework and social-pedagogical group work, crisis intervention, parental work, project work, as well as cooperates with school personnel and other committees (Lerch-Wolfrum & Renges, 2014, pp. 47–50). Hence, SSW is solely focused on children that are socially disadvantaged, individually impaired or both. An evaluation of SSW (2012–2015) that follows Section 13 of the SGB VIII revealed that the first contact between school social workers and pupils arose in 2014 due to different reasons. Among these were verbal violence against classmates (12%), a lack of concentration in class (11.7%), classroom disruptions (10.9%), social withdrawal (8.8%) and being a victim of verbal or physical violence (7.0%). Thus, the aim of individual casework was to process and solve problems primarily within a pupil’s individual personality (43.4%), family of origin (24.2%) and social environment (13.3%) (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, Familie und Integration (StMAS), 2020).

In contrast, SSW in Germany that is in accordance with Sections 11 and 13 of the SGB VIII additionally promotes a child’s development and enables

“self-determination, societal responsibility and social engagement” (SGB VIII, Section 11; as cited in Beck, 2017, p. 5). Particularly, SSW counsels and supports children, offers open youth work, carries out social-pedagogical group work, engages in conflict management, mediates democratic values, provides school-related support, works with migrants, recognises intercultural diversity, offers vocational orientation and supports minors in their transition from school to work, works with parents and contributes to school programmes and their development; hence, SSW combines “elements of youth social work, youth work and of the educational child and youth protection” (Kooperationsverbund Schulsozialarbeit, 2015, pp. 12–18, this researcher’s translation).

With reference to the other German classification, SSW counsels children, conducts social-pedagogical group work, offers leisure time activities and open talks, contributes to classroom projects and, in school committees, cooperates with and counsels teachers and parents and cooperates with the community;

these tasks are seen as a “minimum set” [Mindesangebot] (Speck, 2014, pp.

83–84, this researcher’s translation). In addition, SSW provides open and preventive services (e.g., a pupil café) and leisure time activities (Michaelsen, 2007, p. 43). An evaluation of SSW in Chemnitz and the municipality of Zwickau, which work in accordance with Section 1, subsection 3 of the SGB VIII, as well as Section 13, subsection 1 in conjunction with Section 11, subsection 3, number 6 of the SGB VIII (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Soziales und Verbraucherschutz (SMS), 2017, p. 4), shows that professionals work on topics such as school distance, problems within the family of origin, and difficult cooperation with parents; further topics that are of specific interest to the municipality of Zwickau are drug use, delinquency and pregnancies among young women (Organisationsberatungsinstitut Thüringen, 2014, pp. 13–14).

Finland

In Finland, SSW is described as heterogeneous as SSW practice there is, to a great extent, shaped by a professional’s personality, as identified in current SSW research (Rácz, 2008, pp. 33–34; referring to Jääskeläinen, 2004, p. 49;

Laine, 2006, p. 35; Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p. 163) and through the local needs

(Rácz, 2008, p. 33; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p. 163). For example, it was noted that SSW in each school is like the respective professional who exercises the work; hence, there is a great variation in SSW practice (Pippuri, 2015, p. 9; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004).

Meanwhile, psychological and school social work services have two legally anchored tasks, namely, (1) to promote the well-being of the school and study community and to cooperate with the family and others close to the pupil and (2) to support the learning and well-being as well as social and psychological abilities of the pupil (Pupil and Student Welfare Act 1287/2013, Section 7).

However, there is no differentiation between psychological and SSW services in the law; moreover, SSW is influenced by its professional tradition and theory (Wallin, 2011, p. 56). Thus, a detailed description of the specific SSW tasks can be found in publications produced by scholars (see, e.g., Laitinen, K. & Hallantie 2011; Wallin, 2011).

In this context, SSW promotes a pupil’s growth and early support, supports parenting, enhances social welfare, as well as engages in multi-disciplinary and professional collaboration; furthermore, SSW provides proactive child protection and creates accessible welfare services for all, as well as identifies risk factors at an early stage and provides children with the necessary support to reduce the need for child protective services (Wallin, 2011, pp. 59–65), thereby preventing problems and solving those that have already developed, which was always a central task of school social workers in Finland (Rytioja, 2010, p. 7; with reference to studies conducted by Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004 and Lipiäinen, 1977).

Nevertheless, current studies show that professionals estimate that 63%

of their own work is focused on remedial work, 37% on preventive work (Rytioja, 2010, p. 13; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p. 118). A further study shows that as little as 20% is focused on community work (Hietanen-Peltola, Vaara & Laitinen, K., 2019, p. 8).

A study that investigated SSW practice in the City of Espoo, based on a client-information system including data from 2002 to 2013, shows that school social workers deal primarily with behavioural issues (29%; e.g., school absenteeism, breaking school rules and motivation problems), issues

connected with social relationships³ (29%; e.g., bullying, relationship issues and conflicts with teachers), emotional issues (13%; e.g., depression and dejection as well as anxiety and fears), family-related issues (12%; e.g., care- and upbringing-related issues, family crises, changes within a family structure and custody issues), school attendance issues (12%) as well as learning difficulties (5%) (Pippuri, 2015, pp. 58–77). In contrast, a study that investigated SSW in Lapland (2011) reveals that school social workers predominately deal with emotional problems, depression and anxiety, as well as motivational and behavioural problems (Tallavaara, 2011, p. 11).

Concluding remarks

To conclude, in Germany, the tasks of SSW vary depending on the respective conceptual direction and the specific region in which they are practiced.

Also in Finland, despite the fact that SSW is legally anchored and basic tasks are stipulated by law, research indicates that tasks vary and that there is a high level of professional discretion; thus, SSW in Finland is confronted with different issues that vary between regions, schools and employees (Rytioja, 2010, p. 13). In addition, societal changes have brought new social problems into Finnish schools, such as the use of intoxicants, motivational issues, a lack of parenting and mental health issues (Jänkä, 2011, p. 20; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, pp. 7–8). Associated therewith, research indicates that

“the psychosocial climate at school” is of specific importance to promoting well-being (Virtanen, Kivimäki, Luopa, Vahtera, Elovainio, Jokela & Pietikäinen, 2009, p. 559). Thus, the tasks of SSW in both countries are diverse are vary between and even within the two countries.

3 Pippuri (2015, pp. 66–67) notes, in this current study, that social relationships represent a more central topic for school social workers than is found in the studies conducted by either Sipilä-Lähdekorpi (2004, pp. 122–123) or Jauhiainen (1993; pp.

211–212).