Running head: PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 1

Prioritizing Focus on Social and Emotional Learning: A Policy Paper

Cristina Montagna

Long Island University POST

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 2

Abstract

In light of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the positive outcomes associated with

social and emotional development in schools, which emphasize the importance of social and

emotional learning (SEL), there is a current a national trend on the holistic development of

students. Yet, most states lack a dedicated SEL focus, adopting optional SEL guidelines rather

than SEL standards. This can be primarily attributable to concerns related to how SEL is

defined, implemented, and assessed within curriculum. The current state of SEL implies the

need for education policy change in support of SEL prioritization in U.S. schools. This policy

paper makes several recommendations for this change, as supported by current research,

including: (a) adoption of a comprehensive SEL definition, (b) provision of teacher SEL

supports, (c) garnering teacher/administrator support of SEL, and (d) supporting the development

of reliable SEL assessment measures. The potential impact of these recommendations is also

discussed.

Keywords: social and emotional learning (SEL), holistic development, policy, learning standards
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 3

Prioritizing Focus on Social and Emotional Learning

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2016), approximately

50 million students, from diverse cultural, social, and economic backgrounds, will attend public

school this year. Educators serve these students, who possess different motivations for engaging

in learning, behaving positively, and performing academically. Social and emotional learning

(SEL) provides a foundation for safe and positive learning, and enhances students' ability to

succeed in school, careers, and life. In fact, 93% of teachers nationwide believe in the

importance of promoting the development of SEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social and

Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2014).

Broadly speaking, SEL refers to a holistic approach to education, one that addresses not

only students’ academic needs but also their development as individuals, classmates, neighbors,

and citizens. For example, SEL programs often touch on issues such as character education,

conflict resolution, civic engagement, the promotion of good nutrition and healthy personal

behavior, the prevention of bullying, and the creation of safe and supportive classroom and

school environments (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). The precise

definition of SEL, however, is somewhat hard to pin down, as the term is meant to serve as an

umbrella concept, encompassing a wide variety of specific educational goals and practices. At

present, the most widely adopted definition has been developed by an SEL research organization

known as the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), which

divides SEL into five key competencies. These competencies include: self-awareness (e.g.,

identifying emotions and recognizing strengths); social awareness (e.g., perspective taking and

respecting others); self-management (e.g., managing emotions and goal setting), relationship
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 4

skills (e.g., communication and cooperation); and responsible decision-making (e.g., evaluation

and reflection) (Durlak et al., 2011).

Recently, SEL is of particular interest to education policy makers, as the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 calls for school accountability systems to include non-academic

indicators of success (McCormick, Cappella, O'Connor, & McClowry, 2015).  State education

departments across the United Sates are in the process of developing SEL education standards or

guidelines to adopt as part of school curriculum. Despite this, inconsistencies with how it is

defined, implemented, and assessed within curriculum, make SEL prioritization and

incorporation difficult (McCormick et al., 2015). As SEL is not a policy by definition, the

purpose of this policy paper is to focus on the importance of SEL and the lack of its prioritization

across the United States, in addition to providing recommendations for SEL policy development.

Overview of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)

The first half of this policy paper presents: (a) background information regarding SEL-

related policy, (b) SEL standards or guidelines adoption across the United States, (c) the impact

of the SEL movement nationwide, statewide and locally, and (d) the importance of SEL and

related statistics.

Background of SEL-Related Policy

Modern origins of SEL relate to Horace Mann, an education reformer during the 1840s,

who helped to improve instruction in classrooms nationwide, advocating that character

development was as important as academics in American schools (U.S. Department of

Education, 2008). The United States Congress, recognizing the importance of this concept,

authorized the Partnerships in Character Education Program in 1994 (through 2001), to provide

grants to state and local education agencies to support the development of character education.
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 5

In response, a majority of states passed legislation to mandate or encourage character education,

incorporating social and emotional education into the general curriculum starting as early as

kindergarten (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 reemphasized this tradition, as

demonstrated by the goals of the Department of Education's 2002-2007 Strategic Plan, which

strategized for the promotion of "strong character and citizenship among our nation's youth"

(U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 42). The current Department of Education's 2014-2018

Strategic Plan, continues to call for the improvement of "the health, social-emotional, and

cognitive outcomes for all children," (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, p. 26). To reach this

goal, the Department of Education has joined with state education agencies and school districts

across our country to provide vital leadership and support to implement character education

(U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Today, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, which replaced NCLB,

continues to emphasize the importance of SEL, as it contains several provisions [Sec. 1111(c)(4)

(B)(v)(I)] that encourage states and districts to promote the development of social and emotional

skills (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2016). The new law allows more

flexibility to states and local school districts in defining and assessing student success. As part

of a state’s newly designed accountability system, at least one additional "nonacademic"

indicator of school quality/student success is now allowed (CCSSO, 2016). As such, many

states are looking to adopt SEL as this "non-academic" indicator of student success.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) and Investing in

Innovation competitive grants have awarded significant bonus points for applications that make

SEL a priority in district-wide improvement efforts (Dusenbury, Weissberg, Goren, &

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 6

Domitrovich, 2014). In light of ESSA and these grants, currently, a growing number of states

have developed and adopted social and emotional learning standards, goals, or guidelines.

SEL Adoption

There have been three different approaches to developing K-12 learning standards for

social and emotional learning (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Some states have developed free-

standing, comprehensive standards or guidelines for SEL, such as Missouri, Tennessee,

Alabama, New York, Vermont, and Maine (see light blue states in Figure 1). Other states have

developed clearly articulated standards that are focused on a particular aspect of SEL K-12, such

as Kansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (see dark blue states in Figure 1), or K-3,

such as Washington, Idaho, Ohio, Massachusetts and Connecticut (see medium blue states in

Figure 1). Yet, the majority of states integrate learning goals or guidelines, that are relevant to

SEL, into other academic content areas (see gray states in Figure 1). Although most states have

developed SEL goals or guidelines, in many cases, their implementation is on a voluntary basis,

at the discretion of individual schools (CASEL, 2016).

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 7

Figure 1. States that have adopted K-12 SEL learning standards. Dark blue states adopted

clearly articulated SEL standards K-12. Medium blue states have adopted free-standing SEL

standards K-3. Light blue states have adopted some free-standing SEL standards or goals or

guidelines. Gray states have not adopted SEL standards, but have integrated SEL goals into

other academic content areas. Adapted from "State Scan Scorecard Project" by CASEL, 2016.

As there are different approaches to developing SEL standards or guidelines, it is evident

that in most states, SEL is not prioritized independently but rather integrated into other standards.

Addressing it as just part of a larger standard, if addressed at all, can lead to a lack of dedicated

SEL focus. According to several recent studies, in which data was collected via surveys and

interviews, respondents indicated a similar lack of SEL prioritization in their states (Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD], 2015). This lack of prioritization may be

due to several factors, including: (a) how SEL is defined, (b) how it is implemented within

curriculum (including teacher supports/training and teacher and administrator buy-in), and (c)

how it is assessed within curriculum. Clarification of these concerns is necessary to expand the

presence of SEL in federal and state policy nationwide (see Suggestions for Policy Design and

Implementation section).

How SEL-Related Policy Impacts Education Nationwide, Statewide, and Locally

Nationwide, ESSA calls for school accountability systems to include non-academic

indicators of success, and states respond by adopting free-standing SEL standards or SEL

guidelines/goals (which may be optional) integrated into other content areas. However, states

have an important role in SEL initiatives, including setting formal standards or guidelines,

providing supports (professional development and best practices), drawing on their ability to
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 8

network across many districts, serving as a centralizing resource, assisting with measurement and

coordination, and securing and allocating funding (ASCD, 2015, p. 18). Although SEL can and

should be integrated into a state’s strategic plan and vision, SEL initiatives must be championed

at the district level and tailored to each local context, in order to build on existing success

(ASCD, 2015, p. 19). Therefore, to take root, SEL must be a priority for the entire community of

actors that make up public education systems (e.g., teachers, administrators, students, parents,

community organizations, and local businesses).

The Importance of SEL and Related Statistics

The current effort to adopt SEL standards or goals/guidelines has also been driven by the

increasing recognition that, to maximize their effectiveness, school-based, universal

interventions that take an integrative, holistic approach to provide more coordinated, sustained,

and systematic services may have better chances of greater impact than those programs that are

academically-focused alone (Durlak et al., 2011). Reports published by the ASCD (2015), a

national organization, which has long supported work to nurture non-cognitive skills, and

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2015) call for the

development of the "whole child," with a balanced set of cognitive, social and emotional skills,

so that students can better face the challenges of the 21st century. In addition, research indicates

that the development of social and emotional skills matter because they correlate with: (a)

employment (b) academic performance, and (c) social and emotional well-being.

Employment. According to the OECD's (2015) report, Skills for Social Progress: The

Power of Social and Emotional Learning, the transition from school to work has become

increasingly more difficult for new generations, as United States youth unemployment rates rose

more than 5 percentage points (from 10.0% to 15.0%) between 2007 and 2012 (see Figure 2).
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 9

Figure 2. Youth unemployment rates between 2007 and 2012 across OECD countries. Adapted

from "Skills for Social Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Learning" by OECD, 2015.

According to Kautz, Heckman, Diris, ter Weel, and Borghans (2014), school-wide approaches to

improving young people’s employment prospects should consider fostering social and emotional

skills, such as self-management, responsible decision making, and relationship skills. Their

study suggested that employers rank the aforementioned SEL abilities as the most vital for youth

to succeed in the labor market (Kautz et al., 2014).

Academic performance. A recent meta-analysis by Durlak et al. (2011) provides

empirical evidence that social and emotional competence building programs have substantial

effects on children’s academic success. The researchers found that, on average, school-based

interventions contributed to an 11% increase in standardized achievement test scores (see Figure

3). Although based on a small subset of all reviewed studies, the gain in academic performance

achieved in these programs is noteworthy, especially for educational policy and practice. These

results add to a growing body of research indicating that SEL programming enhances students’

connection to school, classroom behavior, and academic achievement (see Figure 3). Educators
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 10

who are pressured by ESSA legislation to improve the academic performance of their students

might welcome programs that could boost achievement.

25
20
15
10
5
0
Percent of Students

Figure 3. Percentage of students who experienced increases in SEL skills, academic

achievement, and positive attitudes, after exposure to school-based SEL interventions. Adapted

from "The Impact of Enhancing Students' Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of

School-Based Universal Interventions" by Durlak et al., 2011.

Social and emotional well-being. According to the National Institute of Mental Health

(NIMH) (2016), 1 in 5 children have, or will have, a serious mental illness (see Figure 4).

However, an Institute of Medicine (2009) report examining outcome studies indicated that the

promotion of social and emotional skills can serve as a foundation for both prevention and

treatment of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. In fact, the OECD's (2015) report,

suggested that social and emotional skills play a particularly important role in improving health-

related outcomes (obesity, depression) and reducing anti-social behavior (conduct problems and
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 11

bullying).

Figure 4. Infographic indicating mental health statistics of children and teenagers between the

ages of 13-18. Adapted from "Mental Health Facts: Children and Teens" by NIMH, 2016.

The clear empirical evidence that exists, supporting SEL's substantial effect on children,

equally supports the relevance of prioritizing SEL in schools nationwide.

Suggestions for SEL Policy Design and Implementation

The second half of this policy paper presents: (a) a suggested SEL policy design and

related implementation ideas, (b) current literature supporting the policy recommendations; (c)

potential costs, benefits, and risks of this suggested policy implementation, and (d) the expected

social, academic, and economic impact of this new policy design.

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 12

Effective Policy Design and Implementation

The lack of SEL prioritization is of major concern as states focus on the holistic

development of students. To suggest nationwide education reform to include the requirement of

nationwide SEL standards, or the requirement of individual states to develop and adopt SEL

standards, may be unrealistic. Within the current SEL movement, this would require a

significant amount of funding and stakeholder buy-in, similar to that garnered for the recent

development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). As such, a major goal of this policy

paper is to present policy recommendations that can improve the prioritization of SEL across the

states, whether they have adopted SEL state standards or not.

As the lack of SEL prioritization may be due to several factors, including: (a) how SEL is

defined, (b) how it is implemented within curriculum (including teacher supports/training and

teacher and administrator buy-in), and (c) how it is assessed within curriculum, clarification of

these concerns is necessary to expand the presence of SEL in federal and state policy. Therefore,

the following policy changes, are recommended:

 adoption of a comprehensive definition of SEL;

 provision of teacher support via SEL training and professional development;

 garner teacher and administrator support (buy-in) of SEL via a cultivation of commitment

and incentives;

 support research and development of valid and reliable SEL assessment methods.

Ideally, these recommendations could be potential tenets of a bill, to be introduced to Congress,

in support of SEL prioritization in schools nationwide. Were these recommendations to pass

legislation, qualitative and quantitative studies could be used to assess their impact. Current

research supporting these policy recommendations follows.

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 13

Literature Supporting New SEL Policy Recommendations

SEL definition. One inherent challenge in SEL research is that SEL has been widely

defined or characterized, varying from conflict resolution, anti-bullying, and civic engagement,

to a host of other important but quite different topics (Zhai, Raver, & Jones, 2015). CASEL

(2014) provides a comprehensive and research-based definition of SEL (see Prioritizing Focus

on SEL section), yet the research and education fields lack consensus on terminology. According

to Durlak et al.'s (2011) meta-analysis, one of the main factors attributing to the mixed findings

on the impact of SEL programs on children's outcomes are mainly due to the variations in SEL

definitions across studies. This signifies the importance of federal and state collaboration, with

education research and policy organizations, in fostering consensus on a comprehensive

definition of SEL.

Teacher SEL supports and buy-in. Research supports the idea that translating SEL

standards or guidelines into classroom SEL programming is more effective when teachers are

trained properly in (and value the importance of ) SEL. In a recent study by Kendziora and

Osher (2016), involving 8 school districts, the researchers found that by providing SEL

implementation supports (e.g., providing stakeholder professional development and adopting

SEL Programs), in addition to generating stakeholder buy-in (e.g., cultivation of commitment,

incentives, and organizational support for SEL), results showed increased student pro-social

behaviors and academic performance.

In a similar study, Anyon, Nicotera and Veeh (2016), found that although they provided

SEL implementation supports, teacher buy-in differed by grade level as middle school teachers

felt that the implementation of SEL strategies took time away from teaching reading or math

skills, (aligned with high-stakes testing accountability). As such, these teachers spent less time
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 14

fostering SEL skill development, as reported in collected surveys. In an alternate study,

McCormick, Cappella, O'Connor and McCowry (2015) explored the impact of teacher

accountability on student social and emotional outcomes. They found that teachers shared the

perspective that parents (not teachers) are responsible for the social and emotional development

of their children. These studies highlight the importance in garnering teacher buy-in for

successful SEL implementation.

SEL assessment. Research supports the idea that accurate assessment of social and

emotional skills is challenged by a lack of reliable assessment instruments, as well as failure to

agree on valid, accepted definitions and metrics for SEL (Durlak et al., 2011). To date, the most

commonly used measures of social and emotional skills are student self-reports and teacher or

parent reports on students (Durlak et al., 2011). Yet, these survey-based measures may be

subject to various biases. For example, one recent study reported that parents and teachers

provide different assessments of similar skills (including self-management and relationship

skills) among the same children (ASCD, 2015).

Critics caution that schools and districts do not need more formal, standardized

assessments (ASCD, 2015). Certainly, over-assessment can interfere with good practice.

Despite this, measuring progress also generates support. The more data that are amassed to

demonstrate SEL’s effectiveness, the more likely others (including funders, high-level

policymakers, legislators, and communities) are to support SEL initiatives.

Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Implementation

If policy changes, as proposed in this policy paper, were to hypothetically pass federal

legislation, its implementation could potentially be associated with several costs (e.g., SEL
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 15

funding), risks (e.g., teacher buy-in and assessment research), and benefits (e.g., SEL

integration).

Securing adequate funding. Unfortunately, because SEL is not the explicit priority of

programs across a majority of states, it lacks a dedicated resource stream, to not only fund

teacher training, teacher incentives, and professional development, but also fund SEL resources,

such as programming or curriculum. In the past, SEL advocates have accessed funding through

the Race to the Top (RTTT), and other grant programs (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Without

legislation that explicitly allocates funding, most states will need to strategically use

discretionary state grants and categorical funds to support implementation (ASCD, 2015). As a

supplement to local aid, community partners, such as private foundations and local businesses,

may also be able to contribute funding.

Acquiring teacher buy-in. Acquiring teacher buy-in can be a risk, because although

teacher incentives may be helpful, true change is voluntary and driven by engaged educators who

see SEL as an opportunity, not a requirement (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Eager volunteers can

form the basis for a strong SEL program, which can organically spread along professional

networks once they began to see positive results. SEL must be adopted school by school;

everyone should feel responsible for the development of an SEL culture.

Assessment. Policy that calls for further research on the development of SEL assessment

is a financial and policy-related risk. Many critics would agree that it would be a policy mistake

to create added assessment burdens that are attached to high-stakes consequences, particularly

when the field is in the early stages of determining what and how to measure SEL (Durlak et al.,

2011). On the other side of the argument, several pre-existing SEL-related instruments include

the Measures of Effective Teaching/TELLS survey, KIPP/Character Lab character growth card,
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 16

and the Farrington survey on Becoming Effective Leaders, which some would agree are still an

important window to SEL progress, and thus worth the financial investment, although they

cannot measure growth (ASCD, 2015, p. 29).

Integrating SEL. Existing initiatives that would benefit from integrating an SEL

approach include: college and career readiness, special education, counseling standards, teacher

preparation, violence prevention, suicide prevention, and Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

implementation (ASCD, 2015, p. 27). SEL integration can even extend beyond the boundaries

of the school building and can be strengthened by integration into health services, after school

programs, early education, nonprofit work, and the missions and goals of other local

(community) partners. Institutionalizing SEL as common practice, integrated into "whole child,

whole school, curriculum, and accountability together," would make all other dedicated

investments in the development of K-12 students more productive (ASCD, 2015, p. 27).

Policy Summary

Despite ESSA's school accountability indicators, a national trend on holistic development

of students, and the positive outcomes of SEL development in schools, most states still do not

prioritize SEL independently (via specific standards), but instead, develop optional guidelines

and/or integrate it into other content area. This has led to a lack of dedicated SEL focus, which

can be primarily attributable to concerns related to how SEL is defined, implemented, and

assessed within curriculum. Therefore, the current state of the SEL movement implies the need

for education policy change in support of SEL prioritization in U.S. schools. Recommendations

for this change, as supported by current research, include: (a) adoption of a comprehensive SEL

definition, (b) provision of teacher SEL supports, (c) garnering teacher/administrator support of

SEL, and (d) supporting the development of reliable SEL assessment measures.
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 17

If the recommended policy changes were to take effect, the potential social, academic and

economic impact on students, would be for the better. Studies indicate that if students become

more skilled at monitoring and regulating their emotional impulses, then they should become less

likely to cause disruptions in class, engage in altercations, exhibit bullying behavior, experiment

with drugs, and commit crimes (Durlak et al, 2011). Studies also indicate that if teachers

become more skilled at creating safe, supportive, and engaging classroom environments, then

students should experience less performance anxiety, better relationships with their classmates,

more engagement in their school work, greater motivation to learn, and—in turn—greater

academic success (Durlak et al, 2011). In addition, SEL has also been related to some of the

nonacademic 21st-century skills that employers look for, such as skills that enable employees to

manage their emotions and make wise choices, work effectively with their colleagues and on

teams, understand their own strengths and weaknesses, and maintain high ethical and personal

safety standards (Kautz et al., 2014). In the long run, greater social and emotional competence

can increase the likelihood of high school graduation, readiness for postsecondary education,

career success, positive family and work relationships, better mental health, reduced criminal

behavior, and engaged citizenship (Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015).

This policy paper reminds us that education should be defined much more broadly than it

often is; that public education has a larger civic and societal responsibility; and that our schools

today are tasked with preparing children for a more complex world than ever before. In looking

toward that future, we should seize this opportunity to ensure that social and emotional learning

finally takes its rightful place in education policy and practice.

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 18

References

Anyon, Y., Nicotera, N., & Veeh, C. (2016). Contextual influences on the implementation of a

schoolwide intervention to promote students' social, emotional, and academic learning.

Children & Schools, 38(2), 81-88. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdw008

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2015). Social and emotional

learning: Opportunities for Massachsetes, lessons for the nation. Washington, D.C.:

Author. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/SEL_PolicyBrief_Final_11-16-15.pdf

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. (2014). The missing piece: A

national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and

transform schools. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from https://www.casel.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/01/the-missing-piece.pdf

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. (2016). State Scan Scorecard

Project. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/state-scan-scorecard-

project/

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Advancing equity through ESSA: Strategies for

state leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.schoolturnaroundsupport.org/sites/default/files/resources/AdvancingEquityTh

roughESSA101316.pdf

Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The impact of

enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based

universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2010.01564.x
PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 19

Dusenbury, L., Weissberg, R. P., Goren, P., & Domitrovich, C. (2014). State standards to

advance social and emotional learning: Findings from CASEL’s state scan of social and

emotional learning standards, preschool through high school. Chicago, IL:

Collaborative, for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/casel-brief-on-state-standards-january-

2014.pdf

Institute of Mental Health. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders

among young people. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. doi. 10.17226/12480

Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public

health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness.

American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283-2290. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630

Kautz, T., Heckman, J., Diris, R., ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring

skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success. Paris,

France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Fostering-and-

Measuring-Skills-Improving-Cognitive-and-Non-Cognitive-Skills-to-Promote-Lifetime-

Success.pdf

Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (2016). Promoting children's and adolescents' social and emotional

development: District adaptations of a theory of action. Journal of Clinical Child &

Adolescent Psychology, 9, 1-15. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2016.1997834

McCormick, M., Cappella, E., O'Connor, E., & McCowry, S. (2015). Context matters for social-

emotional learning: Examining variation in program impact by dimensions of school

PRIORITIZING FOCUS ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING 20

climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(1-2), 101-119. doi:

10.1007/s10464-015-9733-z

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-

144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf

National Institute of Mental Health. (2016). Mental health facts: Children and teens. Bethesda,

MD: Author. Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-

disorder-among-children.shtml

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Skills for social progress:

The power of social and emotional learning. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:

10.1787/9789264226159-en

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2008). Partnerships in

character education, state pilot projects, 1995-2001: Lessons learned. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charactered/lessons.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Performance

Management Service. (2002). U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan 2002-2007.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2002-07/plan.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Performance

Management Service. (2014). U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018.

Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2014-18/strategic-plan.pdf

Zhai, F., Raver, C., & Jones, S. (2015). Social and emotional learning services and child

outcomes in third grade: Evidence from a cohort of head start participants. Children and

Youth Services Review, 56, 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.016