Essentials: Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

21 mm 216 x 140 mm
PSYCHOLOGY/Assessment, Testing & Measurement
Black
A robust and comprehensive description and implementation
roadmap of SEL across all levels of your school’s curriculum
I
Essentials
Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

n Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL): The Complete Guide for Schools
and Practitioners, learning expert and advocate Donna Black delivers a rigorous and
compelling case for the adoption of crucial SEL components in your school, as well
as a step-by-step guide to its implementation.
The book walks readers through every step of understanding, designing, implementing,
and measuring an SEL program designed to create lasting and powerful change for your
students. The author describes strategies to engage students with relationships and
of Social Emotional
instruct them in core skills.
Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) also explores:
Learning (SEL)
• The emergence of social emotional learning as a world phenomenon, including
key definitions, critical areas of competence, historical influences, and the role of
emotional intelligence in SEL
• A rigorous review of current problems in education addressed by SEL, as well as
the latest empirical support and validation for the model
The Complete Guide for Schools and Practitioners
• A description of SEL as a sustainable framework for success, including a Provides a practical and comprehensive look at the
multi-phase guide to a whole-school implementation of SEL complete with tools,
evidenced support for SEL in schools and communities
templates, and checklists
A start-to-finish roadmap on the implementation of social emotional learning in schools Examines issues in education that often lead to
of all sizes, Essentials of Emotional Learning (SEL) is a must-read resource for school inequities and create barriers to learning for
administrators, teachers, and parents of school age children with an interest in addressing
many students
the barriers often faced by students.
Addresses learning from a whole-child perspective
DONNA LORD BLACK is a nationally recognized expert in social emotional learning (SEL)
and extends the domains of learning beyond that
and social emotional character development (SECD). For fifteen years, she has provided
field-based consultation and training on SEL and SECD and promotes implementation
of academic achievement
of the disciplines across all areas of education. She is President of the Social Emotional
Learning Alliance for Texas (SEL4TX) and is a faculty member at the Academy for SEL
Includes the tools needed to guide schools through
in Schools. She frequently speaks and presents on the subject of SEL and SECD at the a multi-phased, systemic approach to whole-school
local, state, and national level. implementation of SEL
A companion website with additional resources is available at
www.wiley.com/go/black/essentialsofsel
Donna Lord Black
Visit us on the Web at: www.wiley.com/essentials
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: © Greg Kuchik/Getty Images Alan S. Kaufman & Nadeen L. Kaufman, Series Editors
Essentials of Social Emotional
Learning (SEL)
Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series
Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman
Essentials of 16PF® Assessment Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention

by Heather E. P. Cattell and James M. Schuerger by Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
Essentials of Adaptive Behavior Assessment of Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions
Neurodevelopmental Disorders by Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy Mather
by Celine A. Saulnier and Cheryl Klaiman
Essentials of Executive Functions Assessment
Essentials of ADHD Assessment for Children and Adolescents by George McCloskey and Lisa A. Perkins
by Elizabeth P. Sparrow and Drew Erhardt
Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment,
Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Second Edition
Difficulties by Marc J. Ackerman
by David A. Kilpatrick
Essentials of Gifted Assessment
Essentials of Assessment Report Writing, Second Edition by Steven I. Pfeiffer
by W. Joel Schneider, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Nancy
Essentials of IDEA for Assessment Professionals
Mather, Nadeen L. Kaufman, and Alan S. Kaufman
by Guy McBride, Ron Dumont, and John O. Willis
Essentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Tests
Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessment
by Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. Reynolds
by Douglas K. Smith
Essentials of Autism Spectrum Disorders Evaluation and
Essentials of Intellectual Disability Assessment and
Assessment
Identification
by Celine A. Saulnier and Pamela E. Ventola
by Alan W. Brue and Linda Wilmshurst
Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development–II
Essentials of KABC-II Assessment
Assessment
by Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elaine
by Maureen M. Black and Kathleen Matula
Fletcher-Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman
Essentials of Behavioral Assessment
Essentials of KTEA™-3 and WIAT®-III Assessment
by Michael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, and R. W.
by Kristina C. Breaux and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger
Kamphaus
Essentials of MCMI®-IV Assessment
Essentials of Career Interest Assessment
by Seth D. Grossman and Blaise Amendolace
by Jeffrey P. Prince and Lisa J. Heiser
Essentials of Millon™ Inventories Assessment, Third Edition
Essentials of CAS2 Assessment
by Stephen Strack
by Jack A. Naglieri and Tulio M. Otero
Essentials of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Second Essentials of MMPI-A™ Assessment
Edition by Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy
by Linda Wilmshurst Essentials of MMPI-2® Assessment, Second Edition
Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other by David S. Nichols
Kaufman Measures Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Assessment,
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Y. Broadbooks, and Second Edition
Alan S. Kaufman by Naomi L. Quenk
Essentials of Conners Behavior Assessments™ Essentials of NEPSY®-II Assessment
by Elizabeth P. Sparrow by Sally L. Kemp and Marit Korkman
Essentials of Creativity Assessment
Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Edition
by James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John
by Nancy Hebben and William Milberg
Baer
Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment
Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Third Edition
by Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and
by Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, and Vincent C.
John Wasserman
Alfonso
Essentials of DAS-II® Assessment Essentials of PAI® Assessment
by Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. Elliott by Leslie C. Morey
Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions Essentials of WAIS®-IV Assessment, Second Edition
for Unique Learners by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman
by Jennifer T. Mascolo, Vincent C. Alfonso, and Dawn
Essentials of WISC®-IV Assessment, Second Edition
P. Flanagan
by Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of Processing Assessment, Second Edition
Essentials of WISC-V® Assessment
by Milton J. Dehn
by Dawn P. Flanagan and Vincent C. Alfonso
Essentials of Psychological Assessment Supervision
Essentials of WISC-V Integrated Assessment
by A. Jordan Wright
by Susan Engi Raiford
Essentials of Psychological Testing, Second Edition
Essentials of WJ IV® Cognitive Abilities Assessment
by Susana Urbina
by Fredrick A. Schrank, Scott L. Decker, and John M. Garruto
Essentials of Response to Intervention
Essentials of WJ IV® Tests of Achievement
by Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew K. Burns
by Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
Essentials of Rorschach® Assessment
Essentials of WMS®-IV Assessment
by Tara Rose, Michael P. Maloney, and Nancy Kaser-
by Lisa Whipple Drozdick, James A. Holdnack, and
Boyd
Robin C. Hilsabeck
Essentials of Rorschach Assessment: Comprehensive System
Essentials of WNV™ Assessment
and R-PAS
by Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and Steven
by Jessica R. Gurley
T. Hardy-Braz
Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment, Third
Essentials of Working Memory Assessment and Intervention
Edition
by Milton J. Dehn
by Daniel C. Miller and Denise E. Maricle
Essentials of WPPSI™-IV Assessment
Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification,
by Susan Engi Raiford and Diane L. Coalson
Second Edition
by Vincent C. Alfonso and Dawn P. Flanagan Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-2 Assessment
by Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds
Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5)
Assessment Essentials of Treatment Planning, Second Edition
by Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram by Mark E. Maruish
Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Assessments, Second Essentials of the California Verbal Learning Test
Edition by Thomas J. Farrer and Lisa Whipple Drozdick
by Hedwig Teglasi Essentials of Psychological Tele-Assessment
Essentials of Temperament Assessment by A. Jordan Wright, Susan Engi Raiford
by Diana Joyce Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL): The
Essentials of Trauma-Informed Assessment and Interventions Complete Guide for Schools and Practitioners
in School and Community Settings by Donna Lord Black
by Kirby L. Wycoff and Bettina Franzese
Essentials
of Social Emotional
Learning (SEL)
The Complete Guide for Schools and Practitioners
Donna Lord Black

Assessment Consultant at Western Psychological Services, President of the Social-Emotional
Learning Alliance for Texas, and Former Appointed Member of the Texas State Board of
Examiners of Psychologists (TSBEP), Frisco, Texas, USA
This edition first published 2022
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as
permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at
http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Donna Lord Black to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us
at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that
appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no
representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and
specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales
materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred
to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher
and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or
recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your
situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites
listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.
Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages,
including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Name: Black, Donna Lord (Psychologist), author.

Title: Essentials of social emotional learning (SEL) : the complete guide
for schools and practitioners / Donna Lord Black.
Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, [2022] | Series: Essentials of
psychological assessment series | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021028407 (print) | LCCN 2021028408 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119709190 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119709237 (adobe pdf ) | ISBN
9781119709220 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Affective education. | Social learning.
Classification: LCC LB1072 .B63 2021 (print) | LCC LB1072 (ebook) | DDC
370.15/34–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021028407
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021028408
Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: © Greg Kuchik/Getty Images
Set in 10.5/13pt Adobe Garamond Pro by Straive, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
Prefaceix
Acknowledgmentsxi
Introductionxiii
About the Companion Website xv
Section I Emergence of Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

as a World Phenomenon 1
One Defining Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

and the Critical Areas of Competence 3
Two Historical Influences on the Emergence of SEL29
Three Emotional Intelligence and its Role in SEL57
Section II SEL – The Missing Link in Education 83
Four Current Challenges in Education 85
Five Evidenced Support for SEL 125
Six Making the Case for SEL 159
vii
viii CONTENTS
Section III SEL as a Sustainable Framework for Success 213
Seven Getting Started: A Multiphase Approach to

Whole-School Implementation of SEL215
Eight Tools, Templates, and Checklists 267
Nine Aligning SEL Assessment With Instruction

and Curriculum335
Ten SEL: A Roadmap for a World at Hope 383
Index407
PREFACE
I
n the Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series, we have attempted to
provide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in
the most efficient and accessible style. Many books in the series feature spe-
cific instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, educa-
tion, and neuropsychology. Books like this Essentials of Social Emotional
Learning (SEL), focus on crucial topics for professionals who are involved with
any aspect of assessment and intervention with school-age children. For the expe-
rienced professional, books in the series offer a concise yet thorough review of a
test instrument or a specific area of expertise, including numerous tips for best
practices. Students can turn to series book for a clear and concise overview of the
important assessment tools, and key topics, in which they must become profi-
cient to practice skillfully, efficiently, and ethically in their chosen fields.
Wherever feasible, visual cues highlighting key points are utilized alongside
systematic, step-by-step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct. Topics are
organized for an easy understanding of the essential material related to a particu-
lar test or topic. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of
each book, but always to enhance the practical application of the material, rather
than to sidetrack or overwhelm readers. With this series, we aim to challenge and
assist readers interested in psychological assessment to aspire to the highest level
of competency by arming them with the tools they need for knowledgeable,
informed practice. We have long been advocates of “intelligent” testing-the
notion that numbers are meaningless unless they are brought to life by the clini-
cal acumen and expertise of examiners. Assessment must be used to make a dif-
ference in the child’s life or adult’s life, or why bother to test? All books in the
series-whether devoted to specific tests or general topics-are consistent with this
credo. We want this series to help our readers, novice, and veteran alike, to ben-
efit from the intelligent assessment approaches of the authors of each book.
ix
x PREFACE
In Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL), the author captures the

essence of why SEL is not only important, but necessary in preparing students for
a future that envisages far more than academic achievement. Donn Black-a
national expert on SEL, a long-time public servant, and a school practitioner
with extensive knowledge and experience in the educational systems-offers a
comprehensive approach to SEL that examines the logic for it in schools, the
underpinnings of successful implementation (including the role of assessment
and data), and the evidence that supports SEL as a positive and sustainable
approach to educational reform.
This book is grounded by an exhaustive review of the research and science on
SEL, children’s mental health, and the neuroscience of learning. It examines the
far-reaching implications of issues that have long plagued our educational sys-
tems, including the barriers to learning that have led not only to underachieve-
ment, but to gross inequities and injustices as well. The book covers these issues
and more, and asserts that SEL can be the great equalizer in education. It offers
an approach to SEL that can be implemented in phases that are practical, yet
manageable, and are complemented by a complete set of tools and templates to
aid in the process. At a time when the world is struggling to recover from the
COVID-19 pandemic, this book offers a timely examination of the important
role SEL will play in schools. As education systems face the challenges of re-
engaging students and recovering the learning losses resulting from school clo-
sures, the need to integrate SEL with existing school structures has never been
greater. With this book, the author provides schools with a realistic and thorough
guide for implementing SEL in a way that is meaningful and sustainable.
Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, and

Nadeen L. Kaufman, EdD
Series Editors
Yale Child Study Center
Yale University School of Medicine
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
W
riting this book was the most exciting, painstaking, glorious, nerve-
wracking, challenging thing I’ve ever experienced. Without the
patience, encouragement, and support of my family, friends, and col-
leagues, I’m quite sure the emotions would have gotten the best of me. Before I
express my heartfelt gratitude to those who helped make this book possible, I’d
like to acknowledge my granddaughters, Kayla and Kelsi. You are my hope and
my inspiration. You are the reason for this book, so I dedicate it to you.
I begin by thanking my wonderful husband, Greg. For more than 48 years,
you have cheered me on and made me feel there was nothing I could not do. We
often have jokingly said that the only reason we are still married is because nei-
ther of us wanted a divorce on the same day. Well, this book tested that theory
and proved it wrong! Neither of us could have imagined how challenging the
book would be while living through a pandemic and enduring two surgeries in
10 months. Despite this, you were there to support and encourage me. I am
blessed to have you by my side, and I hope you know how much I love and appre-
ciate you, and look forward to many more years together.
I also could not have done this without the patience and understanding of my
loving family. To my son Jason and his fiancée Melinda, you stepped up when your
dad and I were not able. You were there after my surgeries to lend a hand. You ran
errands, brought us food, and helped with the granddaughters. For all this, I am
forever grateful. To my daughter Allison and my son-in-law Chris, you were so
patient with me during a time when I knew you desperately needed relief. You were
parents, teachers, and playmates to your children, while also juggling the demands
of working full-time from home. I cannot imagine how hard this has been for you,
and I owe you some relief time. When it is safe, there will be sleepovers and outings
with the girls once again, I promise. To my sister Yolanda and my brother-in-law
Darryl, I can’t thank you enough for helping keep the family connected. You were
xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
always there for the virtual happy hours and the family game nights because you
knew how much they sustained us through these challenging times. Your being
there supported me in ways you could not have known. To my nephew Aaron and
his fiancée Lyndsey, your interest in my passion for SEL is inspiring and gives me
hope for the coming generation. I thoroughly enjoyed our virtual discussions, and
I thank you immensely for your support. To my nephew Kyle, just seeing you with
your new fiancée during our virtual gatherings reminded me of how important it is
to have hope and why this book is so necessary.
This book never would have been possible without the support of friends and
colleagues. To my dearest friend and mentor Gail Cheramie, no words can express
how much your support has meant to me. You have been there for almost 30 years,
first as my professor and now as my dearest friend. If a teacher’s success is measured
by the success of her student, then I hope I have honored you well. There would not
have been successes without you. You have taught me that anything is possible if you
believe it is possible. Thank you for everything you do for me, and by the way, thank
you also for helping review parts of the book. You are a true friend! I also want to
thank my dear friend Ginger Gates for her help in reviewing the work. You inspire
me every day with your humor and your positive nature, and I am always striving to
become a better trainer because of you. You are the best. To Debbie Blackmon,
thank you for sharing your knowledge of equine-assisted learning and your applica-
tions of SEL to this specialized area. You are an incredible therapist and educator,
and I am lucky to have you as a colleague and a friend. To my partner in crime,
Angela Downes, I thank you for keeping me grounded and helping me see that the
dirt at the end of the road is worth more than a pot of gold. Your co-counsel, Ashton,
brought me a breath of fresh air when I needed it the most. To my physical therapist,
Monica, and her assistants, Rishi and Courtney, not only did you get me through a
tough recovery, you also lifted my spirits and kept me going. Through your
relationship-centered approach to therapy and your caring, nurturing environment,
you model the principles of SEL every day in the work you do with your patients.
I would be remiss if I did not thank Jeff Manson and Amanda Wynn at
Western Psychological Services. Not only did you support me in writing this
book, but your belief in SEL and your vision for its future strengthened my com-
mitment, and I am forever grateful. I also want to thank Clark McKown for his
willingness to share some of his work in this book. Your expertise in SEL assess-
ment offers support for an area in which schools have a tremendous need, and I
truly am grateful for your contributions. Lastly, I want to thank all the wonderful
people at Wiley who have helped make this process as painless as possible. For
Monica, Darren, and all the editing and production group, you were exception-
ally patient in allowing me to work through this at my own pace, and I am espe-
cially grateful. Without you, there would be no book.
INTRODUCTION
T
he intent of this book is to provide schools and practitioners with a com-
prehensive overview of SEL and a practical but systematic approach for
implementing it in schools. The book also offers suggestions for how
local communities can support schools through alignment of efforts and shared
accountability. Please note that the information in the book is applicable to indi-
vidual schools as well as to whole school systems, such as local education systems,
state or regional education systems, or national education. Therefore, in the
interest of clarity and consistency, the terms school and school systems are used
interchangeably.
SEL is a global concern, so the information provided in this book is grounded
in research from around the world. While a large part of the research focuses on
schools within the United States, this book strives to offer ideas and information
that can be applied to a global audience. Where there are gaps in research or
information, there will be limitations to how applicable it is for international
purposes. Thus, readers should be mindful of this and use their own judgment in
how the information is applied. Nonetheless, the research contained in the book
is the latest available at the time of this publication. Given the gaps between
research and practice, however, it is expected that more research will be forth-
coming and hopefully will expand beyond the United States.
xiii
ABOUT THE COMPANION WEBSITE
This book is accompanied by a companion website:
www.wiley.com/go/black/essentialsofsel
This website includes fillable versions of forms included in the print book for the
reader’s download and practical use.
xv
SECTION I
EMERGENCE OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL

LEARNING (SEL) AS A WORLD
PHENOMENON
One
DEFINING SOCIAL EMOTIONAL

LEARNING (SEL) AND THE CRITICAL
AREAS OF COMPETENCE
T
he realization that social and emotional skills matter as much as, if not
more than, academic skills has captured the awareness of schools and
communities around the world. Recognition of the critical role these
skills play in educating children has swept across the globe and has created a wave of
excitement, if not a worldwide phenomenon, that offers a promise of hope for the
future of education. As SEL is embraced in schools throughout the world, educa-
tors are accepting that this is not simply another trend in education, but is the
missing component in how students are educated and prepared for success, not
only in school but at home, in the community, in the workforce, and in life.
Unapologetically, schools are beginning to expand their focus beyond that of
rigor and accountability for academic instruction to an e ducational program that
focuses on the whole child, so that today’s students might be better prepared for
life’s o pportunities, responsibilities, and challenges.
While SEL is being embraced by more and more schools, implementation is
not without its challenges. One of the biggest challenges is understanding that
SEL is more than simply a program. Interest in SEL has risen so sharply that it
has spurred the development and availability of a plethora of programs and
curricula, along with books, articles, websites, blogs, and a host of other
resources. While schools earnestly attempt to address the social and emotional
development of their students, the rapid emergence of these pre‐scripted pro-
grams and curricula (often claiming to offer a complete package for SEL) can
be enticing to schools. These programs can sometimes make implementation
appear oversimplified and may lead to the use of already limited resources in an
Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL): The Complete Guide for Schools and Practitioners,
First Edition. Donna Lord Black.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Companion website: www.wiley.com/go/black/essentialsofsel
3
4 ESSENTIALS OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING (SEL)
ineffective and inefficient m anner. It is not uncommon, for example, for a

school or district to adopt a particular program or strategy to address behavior
and classroom management and believe this to be the entire solution for SEL.
Implementing this single program not only adds to an already fragmented pro-
cess, but also places the school at risk of making causal connections between the
program and any outcomes, especially if those outcomes have not been success-
ful. In such a case, the school might blame the lack of success on the program
rather than considering other factors, such as fidelity of implementation or skill
of staff implementing the program, as possible reasons for the lack of success.
Take, for example, Program XYZ. Let’s assume this hypothetical program uses an
application for tablet computers (commonly referred to as “tablets”) to improve
students’ social awareness skills by connecting them to one another through wire-
less technology. The school obtains a grant and purchases tablets for each student
with the program’s application installed on each tablet. Teachers and students are
trained in how to operate the program and all is well, until they experience repeated
failures with maintaining wireless connections between the tablets. Without a sta-
ble connection, the program won’t operate. Thus, many of the teachers abandon its
use. While the problems experienced with the program were related to technology
issues (i.e., getting the tablets to communicate with one another) rather than the
program itself, the teachers became disheartened and lost interest in the program.
Six weeks later, the school principal discovers that a large number of teachers are no
longer using the program, claiming it was ineffective. While there clearly was a
positive correlation between the teachers’ skills in using technology and the pro-
gram’s implementation (i.e., both decreased), this did not prove the program was
ineffective. It merely showed that teachers lacked the skills needed for resolving the
technology issues, and thus were unsuccessful with implementing the program.
The program was abandoned before effectiveness could be evaluated, thus wasting
valuable time and resources. In situations like this, schools run the risk of making
causal connections between a
program and its outcomes
when, in fact, the relationship CAUTION BOX
between the two may only have Poor program outcomes may not be the
been correlational at best. fault of the program, but may be due to
Therefore, schools may be less other factors, such as fidelity of implemen-
likely to pursue other efforts to tation or skill of the staff implementing the
address these critical areas of program. While there may be correlations
between certain factors impacting the pro-
need and may have difficulty
gram’s outcomes, this does not mean these
recognizing that SEL is more factors caused the outcomes.
than a program.
DEFINING SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING (SEL) 5
It is important to point out, however, that the vast majority of SEL programs
and curricula available to schools are of excellent design and may even be consid-
ered evidence‐based practices. Unfortunately, schools may not have methods or
standards developed by which these products can be objectively evaluated, espe-
cially with regard to how the product aligns with the school’s specific needs. As a
result, schools may make purchasing decisions based only on effectiveness claims
touted by the products’ developers. Without established criteria to guide the selec-
tion process, schools are vulnerable to these attractive claims and may expend
valuable resources without thoroughly reviewing whether the product comple-
ments and supports their existing efforts or if it duplicates (in whole or in part)
those efforts. Questions—about how the product was developed, whether the
developer applied scientific methods and principles in its development, and if field
testing included a broad and diverse group of students—often go unanswered.
If this weren’t challenging enough for schools, they also must face other obstacles
to implementation, such as gaining buy‐in and support from administration or
staff who may not understand the full benefits of SEL. Many educators believe that
adding SEL to a teacher’s plate of responsibilities is more than should be expected,
given the numerous demands and accountability measures already required of
them. What they struggle to recognize is that SEL is not another “add‐on” program.
Rather, it is a systemic process that can ultimately strengthen the teachers’ plates.
SEL is not and never has been touted as a program that takes away from or
supplants academic instruction. On the contrary, it has always been promoted as
a process for enhancing instruction and improving the learning environment,
and when implemented with fidelity, it contributes to improved outcomes for
students and for the systems that serve them. Until educators recognize and
accept that the benefits of SEL far outweigh the challenges of implementation,
there will continue to be resistance.
There also may be obstacles to acquiring funding and resources, as well as to
developing a SEL curriculum. Perhaps one of the most critical and often less rec-
ognized obstacles, however, is the need for staff training in SEL. Staff knowledge
and skills in SEL are fundamental to a sustainable approach to implementation,
but these are areas that are frequently overlooked. What are the knowledge and
skills needed by staff? While there are a multitude of frameworks identifying criti-
cal social and emotional skills, the framework developed by the Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL 2017) is the framework most
widely adopted by schools. The competencies identified by CASEL address five
key areas: self‐awareness, self‐management, social awareness, relationship skills,
and responsible decision making. A graphic illustration of the framework and a
detailed description of the competencies are provided in Rapid Reference 1.1.
Rapid Reference 1.1 CASEL’s SEL

Framework
HOW? WHAT AND WHERE? WHY?
COMMUNITIES
& CAREGIVE Research-based
Implementation Focus ILIES RS
FAM Student Outcomes
Areas SCHOOLS
Short-Term
SSROO M Improved Attitudes About
CLA S
Self, Others, and Tasks
Build Foundational Perceived Classroom and
Support and Plan School Climate
SELF- SELF-
AWARENESS MANAGEMENT
Positive Social Behaviors
Intermediate
and Relationships
Strengthen Adult SEL Academic Success
SOCIAL
Competencies and AND Fewer Conduct Problems
Capacity SOCIAL
EMOTIONAL
RESPONSIBLE Less Emotional Distress
LEARNING
AWARENESS DECISION
MAKING Less Drug Use
Promote SEL for RELATIONSHIP

High School Graduation
Students SKILLS College/Career Readiness
Long-Term
EL e
at Safe Sexual Behaviors
S
In s im
Sc tr u Cl ie
s Healthy Relationships
ho c tio n ro o m l i c
olw & C la s s o Mental Health
Reflect on Data for
id e &P
Continuous Improvement culture, Practices, Reduced Criminal Behavior
Auth Civic Engagement
en tic Par tnerships
A li g
ned ti e s
L e ar n in g O p p o r t u n i
Source: Core SEL Competencies, from CASEL. © 2017, CASEL.
The CASEL 5:
Self‐awareness
The abilities to understand one’s own emotions, thoughts, and values and how
they influence behavior across contexts. This includes capacities to recognize one’s
strengths and limitations with a well‐grounded sense of confidence and purpose.
Examples:
Integrating personal and social identities
Identifying personal, cultural, and linguistic assets
Identifying one’s emotions
Demonstrating honesty and integrity
Linking feelings, values, and thoughts
Examining prejudices and biases
Experiencing self‐efficacy
Having a growth mindset
Developing interests and a sense of purpose
Self‐management
The abilities to manage one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors effectively in
different situations and to achieve goals and aspirations. This includes the
c apacities to delay gratification, manage stress, and feel motivation and agency to
accomplish personal and collective goals.
Examples:
Managing one’s emotions
Identifying and using stress management strategies
Exhibiting self‐discipline and self‐motivation
Setting personal and collective goals
Using planning and organizational skills
Showing the courage to take initiative
Demonstrating personal and collective agency
Social awareness
The abilities to understand the perspectives of and empathize with others,
including those from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and contexts. This includes
the capacities to feel compassion for others, understand broader historical and
social norms for behavior in different settings, and recognize family, school, and
community resources and supports.
Examples:
Taking others’ perspectives
Recognizing strengths in others
Demonstrating empathy and compassion
Showing concern for the feelings of others
Understanding and expressing gratitude
Identifying diverse social norms, including unjust ones
Recognizing situational demands and opportunities
Understanding the influences of organizations and systems on behavior
Relationship skills
The abilities to establish and maintain healthy and supportive relationships and to
effectively navigate settings with diverse individuals and groups.This includes the
capacities to communicate clearly, listen actively, cooperate, work collaboratively to
problem solve and negotiate conflict constructively, navigate settings with differing
social and cultural demands and opportunities, provide leadership, and seek or offer
help when needed.
Examples:
Communicating effectively
Developing positive relationships
Demonstrating cultural competency
Practicing teamwork and collaborative problem solving
Resolving conflicts constructively
Resisting negative social pressure
Showing leadership in groups
Seeking or offering support and help when needed

Standing up for the rights of others
Responsible decision making
The abilities to make caring and constructive choices about personal behavior and
social interactions across diverse situations. This includes the capacities to consider
ethical standards and safety concerns, and to evaluate the benefits and conse-
quences of various actions for personal, social, and collective well‐being.
Examples:
Demonstrating curiosity and open‐mindedness
Identifying solutions for personal and social problems
Learning to make a reasoned judgment after analyzing information, data, and facts
Anticipating and evaluating the consequences of one’s actions
Recognizing how critical thinking skills are useful both inside and outside of school
Reflecting on one’s role to promote personal, family, and community well‐being
Evaluating personal, interpersonal, community, and institutional impacts
Source: From CASEL with permission. ©2017 CASEL. All rights reserved. Learn more at
www.casel.org.
The degree to which teachers have knowledge and skills in these competencies
is an area where concern is warranted, given that teacher‐preparation programs
traditionally have not incorporated SEL into their curriculum. Likewise, many
state certification requirements do not include knowledge and skills in SEL.
A recent study of teacher preparation programs in the United States was con-
ducted by the University of British Columbia’s Department of Educational and
Counseling Psychology and Special Education. The study scanned teacher educa-
tion programs in colleges of education throughout the United States. The pur-
pose of the scan was to examine what states require teachers to know about SEL
for certification and what institutions of higher education actually teach these
teachers. Results of the study showed that while all states require some level of
SEL knowledge and skills for teacher certification, none of the states require
knowledge and skills in all five of the SEL competencies. Greater than half of the
states require teachers to have knowledge in teaching three of the SEL competen-
cies—self‐management, relationship skills, and responsible decision making—
but less emphasis was placed on the SEL competencies of self‐awareness and
social awareness. While most pre‐service programs fell short of providing com-
prehensive training in SEL, there were three exemplary programs identified in
the report (Schonert‐Reichl, Kitil, & Hanson‐Peterson, 2017). These are
described in Rapid Reference 1.2.
Rapid Reference 1.2 Exemplary

Programs Where SEL Content Is Included
in Pre‐service Teacher Preparation*
Academy for Social‐Emotional Learning in Schools (Academy
for SEL), College of Saint Elizabeth and Rutgers University
The Academy for SEL is a partnership between the College of Saint Elizabeth and
Rutgers University. It offers an online credentialing program designed to help school
professionals develop the competencies needed for successfully implementing social
emotional learning, character development, and positive culture and climate
initiatives schoolwide. Students earn a certificate in social emotional learning and
character development with a concentration in either school leadership or
classroom instruction. Participants in the program benefit from exclusive access to
an online professional learning community (PLC), which provides resources, online
discussion forums, access to a secure resource library, and access to program
mentors. The program’s faculty and mentors include highly experienced teachers,
principals, district leaders, superintendents, and higher education professionals who
have significant experience in implementing social emotional learning and school
culture and climate initiatives at the school and district levels. The program is
co‐directed by Patricia Heindel, PhD, and Maurice Elias, PhD.
Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child (CRTWC),

San Jose State University
The CRTWC views SEL from a systemic perspective, rather than as an add‐on
program. The program seeks to transform teacher preparation by integrating SEL
competencies and culturally responsive teaching practices into course content
and field experiences. SEL is infused into the fifth year of the K–8 teacher
certification program using a framework developed for the program called the
Social, Emotional, and Cultural Anchor Competencies Framework. It focuses on a
broad set of SEL competencies needed by teachers and students, along with
specific strategies for teaching them, and refers to this as the Social‐Emotional
Dimensions of Teaching and Learning (SEDTL). The program’s executive director
is Nancy Markowitz, PhD.
Attentional Teaching Practices (ATP), University of Pittsburgh
The ATP program helps pre‐service teachers enrolled in the Master’s in Teaching
program learn to focus on the psychological space for learning. Students who are
getting certified to teach in middle and high school are taught mindfulness and
self‐regulation strategies to increase their own self‐awareness and recognize their

own emotional triggers. The program focuses on how to create a classroom
environment that is optimal for implementing other pedagogical practices. While
not a complete SEL program, the ATP is a yearlong program that helps teachers
learn how to manage and cope with the future stresses they might experience as
a teacher. The program was co‐created and is co‐taught by Tanner Wallace, PhD,
and Shannon Wanless, PhD.
Source: Modified from Schonert‐Reichl, K.A., Kitil, M.J., & Hanson‐Peterson, J. (2017). To reach
the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social and emo-
tional learning. A report prepared for the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
What this means is that although most states don’t require teachers to have
knowledge and skills in SEL, teachers are required to teach and promote student
SEL competencies. This gap between what teachers are required to know about
SEL and what they are required to teach students is an area where schools must
prioritize their efforts in order to implement a sustainable approach to SEL.
These are but a few of the many challenges faced in implementing SEL, but
these are by no means the only ones. Implementation of SEL is a comprehensive
process involving many stakeholders and many aspects of a school’s or d istrict’s
operations. It is not a “one‐size‐fits‐all” model. Rather, it is a process through which
a school or district must include all stakeholders and all systems involved. It
requires a thorough analysis of all programs, resources, policies, procedures, oper-
ating guidelines, and other relevant data, which can then be used to inform a
multistage plan for aligning all system components, allocating resources, identify-
ing targeted areas of need, and implementing with fidelity and integrity. A detailed
discussion of implementation planning will be discussed further in Chapter 14.
DEFINING SEL
One of the most difficult challenges at the outset of implementation is that of under-
standing and agreeing on what SEL is. The ambiguity in defining SEL has led to
many terms being used to describe it. While some refer to it as soft skills, others use
terms like non‐cognitive skills, emotional intelligence, or character education to describe
it. Some prefer to describe SEL through programming models such as mindfulness
education or through frameworks such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(PBIS). Not only is there a lack of common language in describing SEL, but also
studies indicate there is a lack of understanding and agreement on the perceived
b enefits of SEL. While parents and educators understand and agree that SEL skills are
critically important, there is less agreement on the exact benefits of these skills. In a
study conducted by the World Economic Forum (2016), more than 2000 educators
and parents from around the world were surveyed regarding the perceived benefits of
SEL. Results showed that educators and parents alike believed the primary benefit of
SEL was to achieve better classroom management and discipline. In a large majority
of those surveyed, there was less understanding of the broad benefits of SEL, such as
how it impacts academic achievement, or college and career readiness. There also was
less awareness of the role SEL can play in improving general health and in mitigating
the negative effects that can occur from exposure to some of life’s most difficult chal-
lenges, such as poverty, violence, trauma, abuse, and neglect.
Take, for example, the Anchorage School District in Alaska. The largest dis-
trict in a state that ranks among the h ighest per capita in rates of child abuse and
domestic violence, this district has more students exposed to violence and trauma
than in most other states (Boss, 2011). Exposure to these types of adverse child-
hood experiences (ACEs) places these students at risk for poor educational, social,
health, and economic outcomes. The Anchorage School District recognized the
need to combat these risk factors, and in 2006 it became one of the first school
districts in the United States to adopt a set of SEL standards for both students
and teachers (Education First, 2016). Since then, these standards have been
implemented in kindergarten through 12th grade classes and have transformed
the business of educating students in the Anchorage School District (Davis,
2018). Is it working? Educators and parents alike believe it is making a difference,
but results aren’t that easy to quantify. That may be because the skills themselves
aren’t easy to quantify, and without high‐quality assessment tools to help, educa-
tors won’t be able to determine which instructional strategies work and which
ones are ineffective and may be wasting critical resources.
The science behind SEL recognizes the need for resources to help clarify and
provide guidance in assessing and quantifying these skills, but this field is just
beginning to grow, albeit rapidly. While data can and should be used to help
inform and guide instruction (and, thus, ensure adequate use of resources), it’s
also important to understand that the purpose for the data is not to detract from
other important activities, but to enhance those activities.
Establishing the Critical Areas of Competence

Throughout the history of SEL, there have been ongoing challenges to under-
standing exactly what it is, despite the various definitions and descriptions
provided in the literature. SEL has been described by many as a concept for
which it is difficult to “wrap one’s head around.” As previously mentioned, this

may partially be due to the differences in terminology being used to describe it,
but it also is largely due to a lack of agreement about how it should be conceptu-
alized, defined, and quantified. This ambiguity translates into a host of chal-
lenges, particularly in communicating the concepts and how they are connected
to specific skills, but also in successfully obtaining resources and funding, and
adequately translating research into practice, among others.
There are more than 100 SEL frameworks identified in the research, and each
has been developed for specific purposes, but primarily to facilitate social and
emotional development. Each framework employs its own language that is
aligned to that framework’s goals, so terminology is often different for each
framework. This makes contrasting and comparing frameworks extremely chal-
lenging and complicated. Additional frameworks continue to emerge each year,
adding to the already cluttered and confusing landscape.
In an effort to add clarity and address some of these dilemmas, Harvard
University’s Graduate School of Education undertook the Taxonomy Project.
One of the outcomes of the project was the creation of a web‐based platform that
showcases areas where SEL frameworks align and areas where they diverge (Jones,
Bailey, & Nelson 2019). The project examined more than 40 SEL frameworks
and the non‐academic domains covered by each framework. The frameworks
were selected for inclusion in the project based on three criteria: (a) being repre-
sentative of a wide range of disciplines, (b) being widely adopted, and (c) includ-
ing descriptive skills, traits, competencies, strengths, mindsets, and/or attributes
that were defined and could be coded (EASEL Lab, 2020).
One of the goals of the project was to enable users to compare the skills within
each framework and across the different frameworks so they could then be con-
nected back to evidence‐based practices. Since skills may be labeled differently
across the various frameworks, the project was especially mindful of the need for
clarity and transparency in defining the skills so that decisions about interven-
tions and strategies could be better informed. In other words, through the work
of the project, specific skills were identified for six different non‐academic
domains, and the skills were then connected to those that may be labeled differ-
ently in the various frameworks. For example, under the cognitive domain, the
skill of inhibitory control is identified as self‐management under the CASEL
framework, but under the Building Blocks for Learning framework, it is identi-
fied as executive functions. Categorizing skills according to the six non‐academic
domains allows the skills to be connected across the frameworks and eliminates
confusion created by the various terms used to describe the skills. Consequently,
practices can be better aligned with the scientific evidence that supports them.
Consensus About SEL

While the Taxonomy Project adds clarity and helps address some of the dilemmas
in the field, there are individuals who have raised questions about the efficacy,
legitimacy, and appropriateness of SEL in education. To be clear, many (if not
most) educators have embraced the principles and practices of SEL and believe it
improves learning and performance, while removing some of the barriers to edu-
cational equity in schools. These proponents advocate for SEL as a viable means
of improving student and system outcomes. However, there are those who express
doubts about the claims that SEL offers. There also are those who believe it to be
more than an educational initiative, and therefore not appropriate in education.
In general, opposing views of SEL can be categorized into two areas: (a) those in
which the efficacy and legitimacy of SEL are called into question, and (b) those
in which SEL is viewed as an ideological belief system.
Opponents of SEL who are not completely convinced of its effectiveness or its
research‐supported legitimacy respectfully argue that SEL advocates have not
clearly identified what it is and have oversold the research. Given the ambiguity in
defining what SEL is and the confusion over terminology (as previously discussed),
these arguments are valid, but not confirmatory. The existence of a vast number of
SEL frameworks has not helped dismiss the argument either. Although efforts
such as the Taxonomy Project might help diminish some of the confusion, a cer-
tain amount of ambiguity will continue, so long as there are more than 100 SEL
frameworks from which to choose. The prominent work done over the past several
decades by organizations such as CASEL (2017), the Committee for Children
(2020), and the Search Institute (2020), among others, has helped increase the
understanding of what SEL is, and may also be helping to propel some of these
frameworks to the forefront in education. Indeed, the CASEL framework has
become the most widely adopted framework in schools during the most recent
years. As more schools adopt a framework for SEL, the level of transparency will
continue to increase, leading to a corresponding decrease in the level of ambiguity
and confusion in the field.
Opponents of SEL also argue that advocates have oversold the research and are
promoting SEL as the solution for all the problems in education, including the dispro-
portionate achievement gaps, the disproportionate disciplining of certain subgroups of
students, and the overreliance on standardized test scores. These opponents further
argue that disagreements in the field over how to measure and assess the outcomes of
SEL make it challenging to prove effectiveness. Proponents of SEL, however, counter-
argue that SEL is based on a body of educational research spanning several decades.
In fact, Shriver and Weissberg (2020) point out that “the evidence supporting SEL
doesn’t come from a single set of studies but from the coming together of many strands
of rigorous research,” and “this research demonstrates that well‐implemented, universal
SEL programming, both in and out of school, promotes a broad range of short‐ and
long‐term academic and behavioral benefits for K‐12 students” (p. 54). Proponents
further argue that SEL has not been driven by any federal mandates but has been
“based on the emerging consensus of successful communities, convinced that this is
the missing piece in American education” (NCSEAD, 2019, p. 8).
Other arguments in opposition to SEL raise concerns about the adoption of SEL
standards. Essentially, opponents of SEL believe these standards will become the
non‐academic version of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2020) and
that schools will be measured on how students feel and on students’ social behaviors
(Gorman, 2016). Ideological opponents further argue that SEL is a “nationwide
effort to develop government standards for kids’ feelings, social behavior, and rela-
tionships” (Pullman, 2016) and is nothing more than social engineering. Pullman
(2016) likens SEL to a “liberal social agenda on race and sexuality” and states that
“[it] is all about psychologically and emotionally manipulating children in order to
push a certain political agenda.” Advocates for SEL contend that it is not ideological
at all but is based on research and knowledge of strategies that support learning in a
social context and promote healthy development. Advocates further argue that these
strategies have proven far more effective than the traditional policies and practices
that have long relied on blame, control, and punitive approaches.
Clearly, there is much work to be done to gain consensus on whether social
and emotional development are two critical dimensions of learning. While
healthy and respectful debate can be useful and can lead to constructive results,
there also is the possibility that the debate will become one that is less focused on
the educational benefits and more focused on political and ideological issues.
Indeed, it has been suggested that critics are “gearing up for another education
war, one that could easily become as nasty, divisive, and damaging as the reading
wars, the math wars, and—the mother of all education wars—the war between
progressive and conservative philosophies of education” (Zhao, 2020).
If SEL is to be successful, there must be ongoing research and evidence to sup-
port its efficacy, along with a commitment to the hard work needed to lay a
foundation for success and ensure implementation with fidelity. Evaluating out-
comes of SEL must include a comprehensive process for collecting, reviewing,
and analyzing qualitative and quantitative information, all of which can be
undermined by inappropriate and incohesive data. Proven metrics and systematic
methodology will be essential to the decision‐making process. Finn and Hess
(2019) offer seven suggestions for avoiding pitfalls and delivering on SEL’s prom-
ise. A description of these suggestions is provided in Rapid Reference 1.3.
Rapid Reference 1.3 Seven

Suggestions for Avoiding the Pitfalls
of SEL and Delivering on Its Promise
1. Slow down and focus on getting it right. While the need for SEL may be
high, going fast may not be the best approach. Growing the program steadily
and slowly will make it possible to focus on doing it wisely and well. A cali-
brated rollout can increase the likelihood of positive change.
2. Be clear about what SEL is and is not. It can be tempting and much
easier to build momentum and win allies by offering an inclusive or generic
definition of SEL, but proponents need to make clear that SEL is not a
replacement for rigorous instruction. Instead, it enhances instruction. It rests on
legitimate research, and it is part of preparing students to become competent
adults and responsible citizens.
3. Make sure that character and civic education loom large in the SEL
portfolio. The link between SEL, civic education, and character education is
equally as important as the link between SEL and academic achievement.
Promoting character formation and preparation for responsible citizenship
should be critical elements of the SEL portfolio.
4. Making schools safer is an appealing facet of SEL, so long as the
transcendent point is student safety, not adult agendas. The goal of
SEL should not be about promoting political and legal debates over discipline
policy and practices, but should adhere to the goal of making students feel safe
and valued. Strategies for doing this should be held to the standards of
evidence, not to standards that are ideologically friendly or politically useful.
5. Parental enthusiasm for SEL is healthy, but it ought not to become
a free pass for academic frailty. Social emotional learning is inextricably
linked to academic learning, and it is important to help parents understand this.
Policy makers can help by making vivid connections between SEL and academic
achievement on report cards and through accountability systems.
6. Make it a priority to develop valid, reliable, intuitive metrics for
SEL—and be honest about their limits. More reliable instruments are
needed for measuring SEL. This will improve credibility while also allowing
schools to view SEL outcomes alongside academic data. School climate
surveys are a start, but they are subjective and thus not sufficient. A relentless
commitment to evidence will increase credibility, but when evidence is shaky, it
should be acknowledged and not downplayed. Emphasis on transparency and
integrity is critical and includes distinguishing between “solid evidence” and
“thoughtful opinion.”
7. In celebrating “evidence‐based” practices and encouraging further

research, be wary of analysts who give short shrift to how their
findings translate to the real world. Evidence‐based recommendations
often play out better in controlled environments than they do in the real
world. SEL does not yet have large sets of data on implementation, and while
this is needed, careful evaluation of efficacy will be critical. SEL researchers and
advocates should seek feedback and evidence on what can go wrong in the
real world when considering which interventions can make a difference and
under what conditions.
Source: Finn, C.E., & Hess, F.M. (2019). What social and emotional learning needs to succeed
and survive. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Reprinted with permission of
Finn, C.E., Jr., Hess, F. and EducationNext.
THE NEED FOR A COMMON LANGUAGE, A COMMON

PERSPECTIVE, AND A COMMON VISION
Given the myriad of challenges in understanding what SEL is and how interven-
tion approaches should be aligned with scientifically supported practices, the
implementation process can be challenging. As with any new initiative, there
must be a plan, but the plans used by many schools have not always been well
prepared, nor have they been as comprehensive as they should be. This may be
due to the nebulous nature of SEL, but it is more likely due to schools’ percep-
tions of SEL as an add‐on program or service. Developing an implementation
plan for SEL involves so much more. It is effort‐intensive and must be viewed
through a lens that extends beyond programming.
As a precursor to developing a school‐ or district‐wide implementation
plan, schools should begin by engaging a group of key stakeholders. The pri-
mary goal for this group is to focus on sustainable implementation of SEL.
Accomplishing this goal would involve an in‐depth process whereby the
school’s or district’s infrastructure is thoroughly examined to ensure it can
sustain SEL efforts (this will be discussed in more detail in Section III). Given
that most schools struggle with an imprecise understanding of SEL, the
group’s first responsibility would need to focus on eliminating some of the
common misperceptions and misunderstandings that obscure the real mean-
ing of SEL and its potential benefits. A recommended approach for this
involves three critical steps that can help lay a foundation for the group’s
future successes. For a complete description of the three‐step process, read
Rapid Reference 1.4.
Rapid Reference 1.4 Three‐Step

Process for Developing a Common Vision
Step 1: Establish a common language. This first step focuses on clarifying
the language and terms used to describe SEL and then defining it in terms that
are understood by everyone. In this step, members of the stakeholder group
identify the many terms used to describe SEL, then discern which of these terms
better describe programs, frameworks, skills and competencies, or any other
aspect of SEL. Differentiating between the terms should include references to
scientific evidence when additional clarification is needed. The group strives to
define the terms in clear and precise language, avoiding any jargon or acronyms,
so the terms are observable and recognizable to everyone. The group then
decides which term or terms will be used by everyone to describe SEL and its
skills and competencies, along with any programs, strategies, or interventions that
may be used as evidenced support. The group clarifies and articulates the
importance of everyone using these terms consistently in all communications
between staff, students, parents, and community members. For example, if “SEL”
is the term that is chosen, then all stakeholders should agree on a definition of
what it is, the skills and competencies on which it will focus (list them), and how
it will need to be supported by various programs, interventions, and instructional
strategies, all of which will need to be discussed when developing the implemen-
tation plan. See “Case Example: Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development
in Schools (TxCEDS)” for a practical application of the importance of establish-
ing a common language.
Step 2: Establish a common perspective and understanding of the
issues. This second step helps identify the key issues needing to be addressed. In
developing a clear understanding of these issues, stakeholders will need to give
key consideration to the core values identified by the school or district, and how
(or if) they are being reflected in the school’s or district’s vision, mission, policies,
procedures, and guidelines. This step involves an open discussion about issues that
impact school culture and climate, as well as equitable access to education (e.g.,
disproportionate practices), cultural considerations, and social and civic responsi-
bility. More detailed information on current challenges in education will be
discussed further in Chapter 4.
Step 3: Establish a common, or shared, vision. Once a common
perspective of the issues has been clearly defined, understood, and articulated,
a vision for SEL can be developed. In this step, key considerations should be
given to aligning the school’s or district’s core values with the vision and
mission statements. An elaboration on the role of core values will presented
in Chapter 9.
Once the three‐step process has been completed successfully, the school or
district can move forward with developing a detailed, multistage SEL implementa-
tion plan that includes goals, strategies, identified needs or resources, timelines,
anticipated outcomes, and methods for monitoring and measuring progress, as well
as for adjusting, changing, and improving the plan.
Source: An Introduction to Social‐Emotional Wellness in Texas Schools, A Guide for Schools,

Agencies, Organizations, Parents, and Communities. Nancy P. Razo, Ph.D., LSSP.Texas Collabora-
tive for Emotional Development in Schools. © 2017, SPEDTex.
APPLICATION OF THE THREE‐STEP PROCESS: A CASE

EXAMPLE
The following serves as an illustration of just how critically important it is to

establish a common language as the first step in the SEL implementation process.
It provides a detailed description of how one group overcame critical communi-
cation barriers and was able to develop a better understanding of the challenges
and issues schools face in implementing a sustainable approach to SEL.
Case Example:Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development

in Schools (TxCEDS)
The following information is based on information obtained from meeting documents,
personal knowledge, and observations related to the TxCEDS project that began in
2007 and ended in 2011 (M. Cordeau, personal communication, April 7, 2020).
Background
In 2007, the Texas Education Agency began a project to address the rising mental
health needs of students in Texas’s public schools. The project was led by the Region
4 Education Service Center and was known as the Texas Collaborative for Emotional
Development in Schools, or TxCEDS (Texas Education Agency & Region 4 Education
Service Center, 2010). A diverse group of key stakeholders representing parents, edu-
cators, mental health professionals, graduate training programs, child‐serving agen-
cies, and other organizations in the state was assembled in Austin, Texas. The group
was charged with developing a mental health model that could be used as a guide for
schools in addressing the escalating mental health needs in schools throughout Texas.
Process
The initial convening of the group focused on establishing the committee’s purpose
and identifying project outcomes. After researching, examining, and discussing the
issues on school mental health, the committee than set out to prioritize the issues
and begin the process of developing a proactive, state intervention model. As discus-
sions evolved, the committee began to realize that the development of a school‐
based model was far more complex than originally anticipated. The evolution of
this process brought to light a clear recognition that there could be no one solution
for the commonly shared problems that schools faced when addressing student
mental health. The committee acknowledged that this was largely due to the vast
differences between the school communities in Texas, but also was partly due to
how committee members perceived and understood the fragmented and complex
systems regulating eligibility for mental health services, how those services were
funded, availability and access to the services, and the occupational requirements
that governed the professionals providing those services.
Each stakeholder involved in the project held a very different perspective on
the issues of school mental health, and each member’s understanding of those
issues was directly influenced by how she/he perceived the eligibility determina-
tion process for services. This included how the need for services was established
and how the minimum standard of care was determined and evaluated.
Consequently, the varied perspectives on these issues (i.e., lack of a common
perspective) resulted in members struggling with how they might arrive at a pos-
sible solution to the problem.
During the early phases of the project, a significant amount of time was
devoted to increasing the committee’s understanding of school systems and
public education laws, including special education laws. Several non‐school
stakeholders and parents in the group expressed concern with public school
processes for identifying students who might need mental health services. Several
of these stakeholders felt schools were consistently denying services to children,
despite many of these students being diagnosed with mental health conditions.
However, when the school professionals in the group responded to this concern,
they explained that schools were obligated to provide educational services, and,
although some educationally related services might be considered mental health
services, the eligibility criteria for those services were established by education
laws, not mental health or healthcare laws. These school professionals described
the special education eligibility process (using acronyms commonly used in the
special education process) and the educational programs provided through special
education. This helped the committee members differentiate and better under-
stand the services provided in public schools from those provided in the private
sector or through public health services.
It soon became obvious to everyone that the language used to describe educa-
tional services was very different from the language used to describe mental
health services. Clearly, this was an area where misperception and misunder-
standing seemed to be perpetuating the problems and, ultimately, preventing any
possible solutions. The group quickly recognized that the language used among
the stakeholders (e.g., school vs. non‐school) was distinctly different, and fre-
quently focused on how children were diagnosed versus how they were catego-
rized, how services were educationally relevant versus clinically relevant, and how
credentials held by each professional were regulated differently. Ultimately, these
discussions led to the realization that a common language was essential in order
for the group to develop a common understanding and perspective on the issues,
for without a common perspective, the group would have difficulty arriving at a
common vision for developing viable solutions.
Critical Issues Identified

As a result of stakeholder input in the early phases of the project, the committee
identified three critical issues that were preventing them from understanding
the complex issues surrounding school mental health. After considerable discus-
sion, it became clear that the group was “admiring the problem” and that these
issues were creating barriers in their ability to move forward. Thus, the group
recognized that if they were to achieve their goal of working cooperatively to
develop a mental health model and guidance document for schools, they first
had to understand the issues from one another’s perspectives. These three critical
issues were:
1. The fragmented and complex mental health system that regulated
eligibility for services was creating significant confusion for everyone.
How those services were funded only added to the confusion.
2. Throughout the state, availability and access to mental health services
were extremely limited, and many of the group’s members weren’t even
aware that some of these services existed. This exacerbated the school
mental health problem and may have contributed to why so much of
the blame was being placed on schools.
3. The regulatory requirements that governed the professionals providing
mental health services differed for professionals in the private or public
sector compared to those in the educational sector.
Outcomes
The process for arriving at a common understanding and shared perspective on
the problem of school mental health required the group to investigate all issues
and conduct an in‐depth review of relevant data, including any procedures,
olicies, or regulations that might have created limitations, constraints, or unin-

p
tended consequences for any of the s ectors (i.e., private, public, or educational).
After this thorough review process, all members of the group had an improved
understanding of the issues underlying school mental health, as well as those fac-
tors driving the increased need for services. The three‐step process that guided
the group toward a common vision also enabled them to work toward the goal of
developing a school model for mental health support. Ultimately, the group
agreed that a proactive approach not only was more effective at preventing social,
emotional, and behavioral problems, but also would help reduce some of the
stigma surrounding mental illness. So, the group agreed that the model should
focus on promoting wellness, as opposed to focusing primarily on mental illness.
The project culminated in the development of the Texas School‐Based Social/
Emotional Wellness Model, which was based on a multitiered approach to preven-
tion and intervention. A detailed description of the model can be found in Rapid
Reference 1.5.
Rapid Reference 1.5 Texas

School‐Based Social/Emotional
Wellness Model
A description of the social‐emotional wellness model developed by the Texas
Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools (TxCEDS) was printed by the Region
4 Education Service Center in Houston, Texas, and was disseminated to the 20 education
service centers throughout Texas in October 2010 (Texas Education Agency and Region
4 Education Service Center, 2010). The document describing the model was entitled
“Social‐Emotional Wellness in Texas Schools: A Guide for Schools, Agencies, Organizations,
Parents, and Communities.” A summary of the model is provided as follows.
The Texas School‐Based Social/Emotional Wellness Model was designed as a
comprehensive service delivery model to promote collaborative and coordinated
approaches for addressing whole student needs through a multitiered process.
Improvements in student, system, and school outcomes, as well as improvements
in the model itself, are informed by an ongoing and systematic review of data
collected from five critical components of the model. Each of these components
works in tandem with one another to ensure effectiveness and improve out-
comes. The five components are:
1. Fundamental concepts
2. School‐based service delivery model
3. Student outcomes
4. System outcomes
5. Continuous improvement process
The foundation of the model is based on two fundamental concepts, psychologi-
cal and educational principles. Knowledge and understanding of these principles
are considered necessary for facilitating the delivery of scientific, evidence‐based
practices in service delivery. To ensure understanding of these concepts, the
model promotes the development and maintenance of high professional stand-
ards through ongoing professional development, increased awareness of mental
health issues, and recognition of the diverse backgrounds and needs of students.
The school‐based service delivery process is the central focus of the Texas model. It
is promoted as a whole‐child approach designed to address barriers to student
learning and performance by connecting services within and between schools and
communities. Interventions for struggling students are identified through the school’s
systematic, problem‐solving process, and, if outside support services are available,
they are coordinated through collaborative partnerships with agencies and
organizations within the surrounding community. Through increased access to
resources and supports, schools are better able to eliminate some of the barriers to
student learning and performance for struggling students. Collaborative partnerships
with which a school might coordinate additional supports and services may include
early childhood intervention programs, private practitioners, faith‐based community
supports, behavioral health agencies, public health agencies, juvenile justice, children
and families, children’s protective services, and recreational programs, among others.
Contrary to the traditional model of service delivery, where interventions are
targeted for separate and distinct problems (e.g., failing grades, poor attendance,
substance abuse, bullying, delinquency, violence, etc.), this model offers a compre-
hensive, whole‐child approach to the problem‐solving process. Using intercon-
nected systems, collaborative partnerships, and systematic review processes,
barriers can be identified, and interventions can be developed to address the
breadth and depth of any student’s needs.
Implementation of the comprehensive school‐based service delivery process
ultimately leads to improved student outcomes, as well as improved system
outcomes, which are two critical components of the Texas model. When student
performance improves, so does system performance. Furthermore, when systems
at all levels (i.e., educational systems, social services systems, community systems,
family systems, etc.) share responsibility for students’ social and emotional
wellness, improved outcomes for students might be seen in the following areas:
• Academic achievement
• Discipline and behavior
• Social relationships
• School attendance
• Community involvement and civic responsibility

• Graduation and postsecondary enrollment
When schools experience improved outcomes for their students, they are
more likely to increase their operational capacity as well, thus leading to improved
system outcomes. While system outcomes might include better ratings on
accountability measures, these aren’t the only improvements that might result.
Safer and more supportive learning environments promoted through this model
also can lead to increased involvement from parents and community members
with expanded opportunities for a continuum of school–community programs
and services. With these opportunities, schools can further increase their capacity
for serving their students.
The fifth component of the Texas model is the continuous improvement process
that includes periodic and comprehensive annual reviews involving reflection;
input from all stakeholders; a systematic collection, review, and analysis of data; and
decision‐making procedures. Outcomes, results, and recommended improvements
are reported annually to stakeholders.
The committee also developed a complete training program and a guidance

manual to assist schools, parents, agencies, organizations, and community
members with implementing the model through a school‐ or district‐wide

approach to social and emotional wellness (in October 2010). The training was
disseminated to all 20 education service centers in Texas, with the goal being
broad dissemination to all schools throughout the 20 regions in the state.
As the project was finalized, the group credited the three‐step process, which
was implemented at the project’s inception, with the ultimate success for the
project. Without this process, they acknowledged they likely would have contin-
ued “to admire the problem,” thus wasting valuable time and resources.
TEST YOURSELF
1. Which of the following is the most probable explanation for the failure
of many schools to implement c omprehensive SEL programs?
(a) The lack of availability of SEL curriculum programs
(b) Educators’ failure to implement programs with fidelity
(c) The lack of technology resources to support program implementation
(d) An overreliance on pre‐scripted programs and curricula as a sole
solution for SEL
2. There are many challenges that schools encounter when implementing

SEL, but one of the less recognized challenges is the need for:
(a) determining which SEL framework to implement.
(b) gaining stakeholder buy‐in.
(c) staff training in SEL.
(d) deciding on a SEL program and curriculum.
3. While there are a multitude of SEL frameworks, the most widely
adopted framework is:
(a) Developmental Assets.
(b) Building Blocks for Learning.
(c) Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
(d) Emotional Intelligence.
4. The CASEL framework focuses on the following core SEL
competencies:
(a) Self‐awareness, self‐management, social awareness, relationship skills,
responsible decision making
(b) Self‐awareness, self‐motivation, self‐management, relationships, responsi-
ble behavior
(c) Self‐awareness, self‐purpose, social awareness, student engagement,
(d) Self‐purpose, self‐management, social skills, relationship‐building skills,
5. Most teacher preparation programs in the United States include
comprehensive training in SEL.
(a) True
(b) False
6. Most educators and parents believe the primary benefits of SEL are to
(a) teach students critical social skills.
(b) achieve better classroom management and discipline.
(c) improve academic achievement.
(d) increase student performance on state assessment measures.
7. Critics of SEL argue which of the following?
(a) The research on SEL is not convincing and has been oversold by
proponents of SEL.
(b) The concept of SEL is ambiguous and confusing.
(c) SEL standards are destined to become the non‐academic version of the
Common Core State Standards Initiative.
(d) All of the above.
8. The nebulous nature of SEL often leaves schools to perceive it as an

add‐on program or service. For schools to develop a comprehensive
implementation plan, they must establish a common vision that extends
beyond a focus on programs. A three‐step process that can help with
this is as follows:
(a) Establish a common language; establish a common perspective or
understanding of the issues; establish a common, or shared, vision.
(b) Identify a group of stakeholders; conduct a research of evidence‐based
SEL programs; identify which SEL program will be purchased and
implemented.
(c) Obtain buy‐in from administrators and staff; review district policies and
procedures; develop a plan that is acceptable to everyone and aligns
with the district’s policies and procedures.
(d) Establish a staff position that is responsible for leading the SEL initiative;
develop a curriculum for implementing SEL instruction for a minimum
of 20 minutes each school day; determine a method for measuring and
reporting student progress.
9. One of the primary goals of the SEL stakeholder group is to:
(a) survey staff and parents to gain a better understanding of how each
group perceives the benefits of SEL.
(b) thoroughly examine the school’s or district’s infrastructure to ensure it
can sustain SEL efforts.
(c) identify the SEL program that will be implemented.
(d) develop recommendations for incorporating SEL measures into the
student report card.
10. In developing a district’s or school’s SEL implementation plan, key
considerations should be given to aligning the school’s or district’s core
values with the vision and mission statements.
(a) True
(b) False
Answers: 1, d; 2, c; 3, c; 4, a; 5, b; 6, b; 7, d; 8, a; 9, b; 10, a.
REFERENCES
Boss, S. (2011). Social and emotional learning: What experts say. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/social‐emotional‐learning‐experts
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2017).
Framework and social and emotional learning (SEL) competencies. https://casel.
org/what‐is‐sel/
Committee for Children. (2020). What is social‐emotional learning? https://

www.cfchildren.org/what‐is‐social‐emotional‐learning/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2020). Preparing America’s students
for success. http://www.corestandards.org
Davis, J. (2018). Aligned in Anchorage. The Learning Professional, 39(4),
26–29, 35.
Education First. (2016). Social and emotional learning: Why students need it.
What districts are doing about it. https://education‐first.com/wp‐content/
uploads/2016/10/Education‐First_Social‐and‐Emotional‐Learning_‐
October‐2016.pdf
Ecological Approaches to Social Emotional Learning Laboratory [EASEL Lab].
(2020). Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved April 21, 2020
from http://eploresel.gse.harvard.edu/faq/#included-frameworks
Finn, C. E., & Hess, F. M. (2019). What social and emotional learning needs to
succeed and survive. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. https://
www.educationnext.org/what‐social‐emotional‐learning‐needs‐succeed‐survive/
Gorman, N. (2016). Critics of social emotional learning standards call it a fad,
‘non‐academic common core’. Education World. https://www.
educationworld.com/a_news/critics‐social‐emotional‐learning‐standards‐call‐it‐fad‐
non‐academic‐common‐core‐498184814
Jones, S., Bailey, R., Brush, K., & Nelson, B. (2019). Introduction to the
Taxonomy Project: Tools for selecting and aligning SEL frameworks. Measuring
SEL. https://measuringsel.casel.org/frameworks/
National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development
(NCSEAD). (2019). From a nation at risk to a nation at hope. Washington,
DC: ASPEN Institute.
Pullman, J. (2016). Tennessee to create ‘safe spaces’ in K‐12 schools. The Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/08/08/tennessee‐to‐create‐safe‐spaces‐in‐k‐
12‐schools/
Schonert‐Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson‐Peterson, J. (2017). To reach the
students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social
and emotional learning. Report prepared for the Collaborative for Academic,
Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Vancouver, BC: University of
British Columbia.
Search Institute. (2020). The Developmental Assets Framework. https://www.
search‐institute.org/our‐research/development‐assets/developmental‐assets‐
framework/
Shriver, T. P., & Weissberg, R. P. (2020). A response to constructive criticism of
social and emotional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(7), 52–57.
Texas Education Agency and Region 4 Education Service Center. (2010). Texas
Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools (TxCEDS) Stakeholder
Group report: Social‐emotional wellness in Texas schools: A guide for schools,
agencies, organizations, parents, and communities (Project Coord. D. Black).
Houston, TX: Region 4 Education Service Center.
World Economic Forum. (2016). New vision for education: Fostering social and
emotional learning through technology. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf
Zhao, U. Y. (2020). Another education war? The coming debates over social
and emotional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(8). https://kappanonline.
org/another‐education‐war‐social‐emotional‐learning‐debates‐zhao/
Two
HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON
THE EMERGENCE OF SEL
INTRODUCTION
The knowledge we gain from his-

tory is not only informative, but DON’T FORGET
transformative as well. It gives us Understanding SEL from a historical perspec-
insight into current‐day prob- tive helps us move from admiring existing
lems, provides context to our problems to promoting viable solutions.
efforts, guides us forward, and
encourages us to think critically about future efforts as we strive to advance and pro-
mote SEL in schools. This chapter will explore recent events to highlight how aware-
ness of the need for SEL has been propelled to the forefront of education. This will be
followed by an investigation into past events, primarily within the United States, from
which SEL has emerged, to illustrate how it has evolved over several decades. Through
this systematic review, we can reflect on the impact of SEL and subsequently analyze
how it might guide our efforts forward to help influence positive outcomes for our
students. The goal of the review is not to memorize a bombardment of facts or to
confirm and admire existing problems, but to use the information constructively to
help us conceptualize a best approach for moving forward and advancing our efforts.
RECENT EVENTS
COVID‐19 Pandemic 2020
The pandemic of 2020 drove concerns about emotional functioning into the spot-
light for people of all ages, but especially for children and youth on whom the
impact of social distancing and social isolation had the most debilitating effects. As
29
the virus worsened and spread, the prolonged isolation from being quarantined led
to growing concerns for how it was impacting young people’s social and emotional
well‐being. These concerns became far more worrisome as the quarantine extended
into months. Interestingly, while there also were concerns for the physical health of
children and youth, these were perhaps tempered by early reports in which it was
originally believed that younger people were less susceptible to contracting the virus.
Consequently, worries over their physical safety were less concerning, that is, until
the quarantine progressed. As the virus grew and spread, reports of younger people
contracting the virus began to emerge and the medical community began to further
explore these cases. What they soon discovered was that the virus manifested differ-
ently in young people than it did in the older population. Thus, health concerns for
children and youth began to rise, and the virus soon became linked to a new inflam-
matory syndrome with serious implications for young people’s health. Additional
information about this syndrome can be explored in detail in Rapid Reference 2.1.
Rapid Reference 2.1

Inflammatory Syndrome in Young People Linked to COVID-19
Although adults (especially older adults) were thought to be at greater risk for
contracting the virus, it quickly became evident that children and youth were not
immune. Clusters of children began to emerge with a COVID‐19‐linked illness called
pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome (PMIS).This syndrome resembled a rare
inflammatory illness very similar to Kawasaki disease, but manifested differently
because children and youth exhibited a higher degree of physical shock, akin to toxic
shock syndrome. While the COVID‐19 virus was primarily a respiratory disease in
adults, PMIS was known to affect the organs and blood vessels in children and youth.
Medical experts were not sure that PMIS was caused by the virus, but they were
sure that there was a relationship between the two. Many of the children and youth
who were diagnosed with PMIS were found to also carry the COVID‐19 virus, and
a significant number of these children and youth had been exposed to a person
infected by COVID‐19. The first U.S. cases of PMIS emerged in New York, about a
month after a surge of COVID‐19 infections were reported in that region, but cases
were also reported in England, one of which resulted in death (MacMillan, 2020).
Of the total number of COVID‐19 cases reported in the United States, only
2 percent of those cases were reported in children and youth, and they ranged in
age from infants to teenagers (Melillo, 2020). Thus, as more cases of PMIS began
to emerge, concerns for children’s and youth’s physical health increased among
parents and healthcare providers and added to the challenges of returning
children to school and childcare facilities.
HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON THE EMERGENCE OF SEL 31
The growing concerns for the physical safety of children and youth further
compounded the existing worries over their social, emotional, and mental well‐
being, leaving parents and experts to grapple over how to maintain physical safety
without sacrificing their need for social and emotional development and their
mental health. This dilemma was the basis behind every decision being faced by
parents, educators, schools, and childcare providers as recovery efforts began. The
discussion that follows will focus on that perspective and the resulting outgrowth
of SEL as awareness grew.
As the disastrous effects of the pandemic grew clearer, so did the long‐term
implications. One of the most significant concerns, as noted, was the lasting
impact it might have on children and youth in relation to their social, emotional,
and mental well‐being. Parents and children alike struggled to cope with the
pandemic’s upheaval on their lives, but for many, the effects of sheltering in place
and social isolation left them with feelings of emotional despair. Parents and
educators grappled with distance learning, and for some students, educational
experiences were grossly inequitable. For many families, the economic devasta-
tion caused by the pandemic meant the loss of jobs and an accompanying loss of
income, which worsened the distress caused by the situation. For those who were
already without jobs and a source of income, or living at a poverty level, the
impact was completely devastating.
Though the COVID‐19 pandemic was felt by generations of people, history
has shown that disasters typically have a greater psychological impact on children
than they do on adults. However, the impact can vary by age, environmental
conditions, exposure to the disaster, and levels of support from parents and other
adults. If parents or adult caretakers of children also suffer from distress or a
mental illness, the psychological impact is greater for these children (Fothergill,
2017). Indeed, studies have shown that parental distress is sometimes the strong-
est predictor of their children’s distress (Norris, Friedman, & Watson, 2002,
p. 237). So, while there is a widespread assumption that children have great resil-
iency and will simply bounce back from a disaster, this is true only if they receive
proper care and supports.
The children and youth of the COVID‐19 pandemic, like other children and
youth who have experienced disasters, were trauma impacted. As they became
more and more isolated from one another, they struggled to cope, both emotion-
ally and behaviorally, and a corresponding need for supports grew. At the outset
of the quarantine, there was an unprecedented demand for information on social
and emotional development, and it was unlike anything SEL advocates had
witnessed prior to the pandemic. A plethora of resources began to surface on the
internet and through social media, and although most of these were made avail-
able to the general public at no cost, accessibility was a barrier for many. As the
awareness and need for SEL grew and became more distinct, so did concerns and
questions. School leaders and educators voiced growing concerns for how these
trauma‐impacted children would be supported when they returned to schools.
They began advocating for SEL as a viable approach, and discussions about how
to effectively support these students became part of the critical debate on school
re‐openings. In addition, it became increasingly clear that school staff would
need training in trauma‐informed practices so they could better meet the needs
of the children when they returned. More interestingly, school leaders were con-
cerned with how staff would adjust to school re‐entry and what supports they
might need, having been trauma impacted themselves.
After several months of quarantine and in the weeks leading up to a lifting of
the quarantine, communities began examining the re‐opening of schools. This
became an enormous undertaking because there was still so much that was
unknown about the virus (primarily because of a limited amount of scientific
data). Consequently, plans had to include multiple options and various require-
ments, such as allowing physical distance among and between staff and students,
equipping schools to maintain safe and sanitized environments, and equipping
school health staff with appropriate healthcare supplies and personal protective
equipment. As schools began exploring these options, they also recognized that
there might be accompanying ripple effects. For example, the limitations of the
physical‐distancing requirement might mean that not all students could return to
a full school schedule, which might subsequently mean inequitable opportunities
for some students. There were various consequences for each potential scenario,
and each was of concern.
Despite these issues and given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the virus
(e.g., potential for a second outbreak), there remained a significant amount of
doubt and hesitation regarding how and when students should return to school.
One thing was certain, however: Whenever they returned, the need for staff and
student supports would be immediate and intense. Concurrent concerns about
academic growth were equally disturbing, and the debate over which would take
precedence ensued, as illustrated in Rapid Reference 2.2.
Influence of Exclusionary Discipline Practices on School Safety

Prior to the pandemic of 2020, school shootings, bullying, and other school
safety issues had risen to the forefront of concerns by parents, educators, com-
munity members, and policy makers. With the onset of the pandemic and the
subsequent closings of schools, concerns naturally shifted away from these issues.
However, this shift was likely only temporary. This section will explore how
Rapid Reference 2.2

The following blog was posted on May 7, 2020, as pandemic recovery efforts were just
beginning. The blog provides an example of how fears for students’ academic regression
might take precedence over their need for SEL supports when addressing policy and
funding for schools. The fear that SEL might become the sacrificial lamb to the budget
was a very real and pervasive concern.
Social and Emotional Learning—Why We Must Act Now
Since the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic, experts have predicted that the
impact of the virus on human heath will reach far beyond that of physical safety. In
the wake of social distancing and sheltering in place, the need for mental health
services will rise sharply and swiftly, according to the experts. The healthcare
landscape that has been embattled by efforts to keep infected people alive while
keeping healthcare workers safe will quickly transform into a different type of
battlefield—one beleaguered by the effects of mental illness.
Unfortunately, if history has taught us anything, it has taught us that economic
recovery efforts have always sacrificed mental health and social services first,
accompanied by decreased funding to departments of education. If this historical
trend continues, and there’s no reason to suspect it will not, the services that will
be needed the most will once again become the sacrificial lambs of the economy.
The impact of economic recovery efforts on mental health services no doubt
will be distressing, but the impact it will have on education and on our young
people’s social and emotional development will be even more devastating, unless
we start now to prove the benefits of social and emotional learning (SEL) as a
deterrent to mental illness. We must act now to advocate for the adoption of
educational standards in social and emotional development in every state
legislature and with every state department of education across America. Social
and emotional development must take equal, if not greater, priority as children
return to school in the wake of the pandemic.
In homes across the country and indeed around the world, we are just beginning
to witness the effects of social isolation and there is increasing concern for the
long‐term impact this will have on our children. For months now, these children
have been isolated from their peers and have been forced to continue their
education in a virtual learning environment. Equitable access to educational
opportunities and the developmental appropriateness for this type of learning
format for some children have generated increasing concerns, along with a host of
questions about how this will impact future educational decisions for these students.
Consider, for example, the story of seven‐year‐old Kelsi. As a very young
second‐grade student, her teacher describes her as eager to learn, willing to
participate in school activities, and developmentally appropriate in her skill
development. She enjoys coming to school and particularly enjoys learning

alongside her peers. Like most children her age, she is intrigued by technology and
is allowed by her parents to play a limited number of educational games or to
watch a few children’s movies on their mobile devices. Kelsi’s interest in technol-
ogy might be described as “typical” for her developmental age and her enthusiasm
is like any typical seven‐year‐old’s, that is, until distance learning became a way of
life. Now her parents describe Kelsi as having daily meltdowns and refusing to
engage in any schoolwork that requires the use of technology. Kelsi has no desire
to use a computer or tablet. She even refuses to “attend” virtual class meetings.
She speaks daily of how she misses her teacher and her friends and how the
virtual meetings are boring. While her parents are concerned about how this will
impact her educational placement for the coming year, they are more concerned
for her emotional well‐being.
Now consider 10‐year‐old Aiden whose life circumstances are vastly different
from Kelsi’s. As a fourth‐grade student, he and his two younger siblings, a brother
age five and a sister age seven, attend a school that receives Title I grant funding.
Due to their family’s low‐income status, Aiden and his siblings are eligible for free
and reduced lunches, so they receive breakfast and lunch at school. As for
technology, they do not have access to a home computer because the family
cannot afford one. Even if they could, they would not be able to afford the
internet service. A federal technology grant, however, has allowed the school to
purchase Chromebooks for every student on campus, so this is the only technol-
ogy that is available to Aiden and his siblings.
Aiden’s mother is the sole caretaker for Aiden and his siblings. They live in a small
apartment in a low‐income neighborhood. Aiden’s mother has limited proficiency
in the English language, so she struggles to communicate with school staff unless
there is a translator available. She works full time as a housekeeper at a local hotel
and supplements her income as a part‐time cashier for a local restaurant. Following
the government’s shelter‐in‐place order, Aiden’s mother lost access to both sources
of income and was forced to file for unemployment. It was four weeks before she
received her first payment. Meanwhile, Aiden and his two siblings no longer have
access to the meals provided by their school and without an income, the family is
now dependent upon food provided by the local food pantry.
Aiden and his siblings have been unable to participate in the virtual classroom
meetings with their teachers, despite being issued a Chromebook by the school,
because they do not have internet service. Their mother has been able to access
their weekly lessons through emails she receives on her cell phone, but her
language limitations, as well as her limitations in technology skills, make working
with her children extremely challenging. She uses her phone to let the children
view recorded lessons and other digital resources for their assignments, but her
lack of technology skills and the limitations of her cell phone capabilities prohibit
what her children are able to view, let alone accomplish. Another complication is
the fact that the youngest sibling has been identified by the school as a child with
a learning disability and has been receiving special education services at school. All
three children are struggling with the challenges of distance learning and Aiden’s
mother reports daily conflicts with getting them to cooperate with her. She also
reports increased fighting between the children and daily episodes of emotional
outbursts from all three children. Aiden’s mother is concerned for her children’s
lack of educational opportunities, as well as their emotional well‐being.
There are many different scenarios in which children across the country are
struggling with the challenges of distance learning, along with the effects of social
isolation brought on by the pandemic. In each case the life circumstances will vary,
as will the access to resources and the availability of a support network. When
factors such as homelessness, foster care placement, involvement with juvenile
justice, or cultural differences are factored into the mix, the risks for negative
impact increase exponentially. Regardless of these different circumstances, however,
the effects will be observed and manifested in how these children respond socially,
emotionally, and behaviorally. The longer the isolation, the greater the likelihood of
significant problems. The degree of difficulty will vary. Some will have minimal, if any,
problems, while others will react more severely. One thing is for certain, however:
They will return to school, and when they do, schools must be prepared.
The adverse impact of the pandemic on the social and emotional development
of these children should be of paramount concern to everyone, not just parents
and educators, but community members and policy makers, as well. How we
respond now will determine how these children learn to adapt and cope with
life’s future challenges, thus preventing any long‐term mental health problems. The
social and emotional development of our children must take precedence in all
plans for school reunification. We must begin preparing for these challenges by
advocating for the adoption of educational standards in the area of social and
emotional learning. Only then will children’s social and emotional well‐being
become as important as their academic development. After all, if their emotions
are churning, they can’t be learning!
Source: Black, D. (2020, May 7). Social and emotional learning: Why we must act now. Western
Psychological Services. https://www.wpspublish.com/social‐and‐emotional‐learning‐why‐
we‐must‐act‐now. Reprinted with permission from Western Psychological Services,
www.wpspublish.com.
school discipline practices influenced school safety and how this, in turn, led to
an increased awareness of the need for SEL.
Throughout history, educational institutions have generally been regarded
as sanctuaries for learning, and reports of school‐related violence were almost
unheard‐of until the latter part of the twentieth century. Then, in the late
1990s and early 2000s, public perceptions of an alarming rise in school vio-
lence and bullying led to a growing concern that schools were no longer safe
environments for students. The sociopolitical climate of those times was

increasingly punitive, largely due to people’s fear, so what ensued was an era of
exclusionary discipline practices. These included the adoption of zero‐tolerance
discipline policies and the hiring of police officers in schools. These policies
and practices led to a national trend in which schools began outsourcing disci-
pline to the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Essentially, children of all
ages were being punished through the legal system for committing minor
infractions. Behavior that for many child development experts would be con-
sidered typical developmental behavior was being criminalized, and children
were being funneled out of the public schools and into the courts system. The
more frequent contact between schools and the justice system gave rise to a
disproportionate number of students, often from disadvantaged backgrounds,
being incarcerated.
These exclusionary discipline practices have now been directly linked to
adverse and disturbing outcomes for certain subgroups of students (e.g., stu-
dents of color and students with disabilities), and have become known as the
school‐to‐prison pipeline (for more information, see Rapid Reference 2.3).
A briefing report published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2019)
stated that the use of exclusionary school discipline policies “for all levels of
student infractions, regardless of severity, is often ineffective; and these prac-
tices may even increase the likelihood of future criminality and lower overall
student academic performance in schools” (p. 5). In addition, a report issued
by Texas Appleseed suggests there may have been no clear basis for the zero‐
tolerance policies. As stated in the report, “The lack of reliable, accurate data
measuring school crime makes it clear that the public policy changes that led
to ‘zero tolerance’ and law enforcement in schools were not rooted in clear
knowledge surrounding need, but instead were driven by fears stoked by
media coverage of juvenile crime and ‘out of control’ youth” (Texas Appleseed,
2010, p. 195).
While some schools continue to employ these exclusionary discipline prac-
tices, many are turning to alternative solutions to re‐engage students, such as
improving school climate and culture and implementing SEL strategies. In the
wake of numerous and horrific school shootings, schools have begun to recognize
the need for such approaches to address the rising worries over school safety from
parents, educators, community members, policy makers, and particularly stu-
dents. According to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) conducted by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 8.7% of students in
grades 9 through 12 did not feel safe at school during the 2019 school year. In
addition, 2.8% of these students carried a weapon on school property during the
Rapid Reference 2.3

The School‐to‐Prison Pipeline
What It Is
The school‐to‐prison pipeline is an outcome of schools’ overreliance on the juvenile
and criminal courts systems to handle minor, discretionary discipline infractions. The
adoption of exclusionary discipline practices, such as zero‐tolerance policies, have
disproportionately impacted minority students and students with disabilities,
resulting in them being funneled into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.
When It Began
The school‐to‐prison pipeline emerged as a result of zero‐tolerance discipline
policies being adopted by schools, along with an increased reliance on school
police officers for handling minor discipline infractions, such as dress code
violations, being late to school or class, or use of inappropriate language, among
others. These practices resulted in students being removed from the school
environment through suspensions or expulsions, or being issued tickets, thus
increasing the probability that they would come into contact with the incarceration
system (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). These zero‐tolerance policies and
practices began in the 1990s and were reflective of a sociopolitical climate that was
largely punitive and increasingly intolerant. It has been hypothesized that increased
media focus on school crime during those times was largely responsible for fueling
the public’s concerns for school safety (Texas Appleseed, 2010).
The Impact
Suspensions and expulsions disproportionately impact students of color and
students with disabilities. Higher rates of suspensions and expulsions lead to an
increased risk of dropping out of school, further exacerbating the achievement gap
for these students. Furthermore, school failure has been linked to later contact
with the criminal justice system, especially for minorities. The racial disparities
recorded in school suspension data are not unlike the disproportionate disparities
observed in juvenile court referrals. Black students represent 31% of school‐related
arrests and are suspended or expelled at a rate of three times more than White
students (American Civil Liberties Union, 2019). In addition, a recent study of
national data on suspensions and expulsions collected during the 2015–2016
school year by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights found
huge disparities in days of lost instruction for Black students when compared to
Whites. The study found that Black students lost 66 days of instruction from
suspensions and expulsions, compared to just 14 days for White students. This
difference of 52 additional days of lost instruction for Blacks was nearly five times
the rate of lost instruction for Whites (Civil Rights Project at UCLA, 2018). The
risks associated with this degree of lost instruction (e.g., dropping out of school)
can have far‐reaching impact, including serious economic costs to society.
30 days prior to the survey, and 7.4% were threatened or injured with a weapon
on school property during the 12 months preceding the survey. Furthermore,
analysis of data trends showed increases in the percentage of students threatened
or injured with a weapon on school property and in the percentage of students
who did not go to school because they did not feel safe. All other behaviors con-
tributing to violence did not change from what was previously reported during
the 2017 school year (CDC, 2020).
Clearly, safe school environments are an area of critical need. Ask any school
leader what she believes to be an administrator’s biggest responsibility, and she is
likely to list student and staff safety, both physical and emotional, as a top prior-
ity. Given these concerns, school leaders are recognizing that school culture and
climate are fundamental to establishing a safe and supportive learning environ-
ment. Advocates for school reform have long touted the importance of a positive
school culture and climate in helping students feel safe and accepted. A review of
the school climate research shows that school climate reform can effectively miti-
gate violence and bullying behaviors in schools and can promote the develop-
ment of pro‐social behaviors. Unfortunately, many responses to school violence
focus only on the physical aspects of school safety and fail to recognize and
address the role of school climate in mitigating these behaviors. As a result, many
school safety policies fall short of addressing the conditions that promote safe and
supportive school environments. In general, there are five key components of
school climate: safety, relationships, teaching and learning, institutional environ-
ment, and the school improvement process (Thapa, 2013). Practices such as SEL,
which address these conditions and promote the development of positive school
climates, can go a long way in preventing school violence and promoting school
safety. As states consider ways in which to improve school safety, they would be
wise to develop comprehensive approaches that include these interconnected and
key components of school climate. Whether these methods are mandated through
policy or through other school reform efforts, the benefits of taking a proactive
approach not only can help improve school outcomes, but also can save lives.
For some states, policy development has been necessitated by a devastating act
of school violence in the state. Unfortunately, the incidents of school violence,
particularly school shootings, have been an increasing concern throughout the
United States and have forced several states to take responsive action. In each
instance, states have taken very different approaches to addressing the problem,
although school mental health has been recognized by each state as a critical area in
which intervention was needed. How each state has approached this concern, along
with school climate concerns, has been markedly different and has been inter-
twined with the sociopolitical issue of gun control. While it is recognized that this
issue has complicated school safety policy efforts, the purpose of this writing is not
to examine the sociopolitical issue. Rather, it is to examine how, or if, state policy
initiatives have incorporated efforts to address school mental health and the condi-
tions that create safer, more supportive school environments. In recent years, two
school shootings in two different states occurred just months apart, resulting in
each state initiating policy development for school safety. Rapid Reference 2.4 illus-
trates how Florida addressed school safety, and Rapid Reference 2.5 illustrates the
approach taken by Texas. These examples illustrate not just how differently each
state approached the issue, but also how differently the issues were viewed.
Rapid Reference 2.4

Florida School Safety Policy: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School Public Safety Act
In response to the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High

School in Parkland, Florida, Senate Bill 7026 was adopted by the Florida legislature
and signed into law by the governor of Florida in March 2018. Known as the
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act of 2018, this $400
million legislation contained provisions for mental health assistance allocations to
schools, firearm safety measures, and school safety requirements. It required
Florida schools to implement increased security efforts that included, among
other things, hardening school properties, implementing a mobile device reporting
tool, hiring school law officers, developing and implementing a behavioral threat
assessment instrument, and developing and implementing a statewide threat
assessment database. The legislation also authorized county sheriffs to voluntarily
establish controversial guardian programs in schools. According to the Florida
Department of Education (2020), guardians are “armed personnel who aid in the
prevention or abatement of active assailant incidents on school premises. They are
either school employees who volunteer to serve in addition to official job duties
or personnel hired for the specific purpose of serving as a school guardian.
Guardians must pass psychological and drug screenings, and successfully complete
a minimum of 144 hours of training.”
The legislation also established the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
Public Safety Commission, whose purpose was to investigate system failures in
the Parkland school shooting and in previous mass violence incidents, then
develop recommendations for system improvements. These recommendations
were later brought to the Florida legislature in 2019 and led to the passage of
Senate Bill 7030, which was designed to build on the original school safety act
passed in 2018 and provide strengthening of accountability and compliance
with the law. The bill included a mendments to 17 sections of the original bill
and expanded on the requirements for access to mental health supports in
schools. It also included provisions for protecting school climate through
restorative strategies and increased the involvement of school counselors in
discipline policies and procedures. Other provisions in the law, however,
continued to support the controversial guardian program, as well as the
presence of law enforcement on campuses, further posing a risk for increased
student arrests.
Following the enactment of these two school safety measures, most Florida
schools complied, but some did not, prompting Florida’s governor to call for a grand
jury to investigate noncompliance with the state laws. Following its investigation, it
was determined there were numerous systemic issues preventing compliance, as
well as funding issues. The grand jury also indicated there were some inefficiencies
created by the law, specifically regarding the controversial guardian program, and
recommended further clarification by the legislature. Another important
recommendation was that the Florida Department of Education be authorized to
monitor school districts and enforce compliance with school safety laws passed by
the legislature.
Following the recommendations of the grand jury, a third school safety bill,
Senate Bill 7065, was proposed to the legislature, but it failed to pass (Florida
Senate, 2020).
Rapid Reference 2.5

Texas School Safety Policy: Texas School Safety Act,
Senate Bill 11, 2019
In May 2018, just two and a half months after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School in Florida, another school shooting occurred at Santa Fe
High School in Santa Fe, Texas. In response to this devastating act of violence,
Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions to
investigate possible solutions for improving school safety (State of Texas, 2018).
Following the roundtable discussions, the governor released a school safety action
plan (Abbott, 2018) that laid the foundation for school safety legislation.
Like the Florida legislation discussed in Rapid Reference 2.4, the Texas legislation
contained some similarities. For example, Texas’ schools were required to implement
hardening of school properties and hiring of school law officers. However, the Texas
legislation differed in several aspects. Not only did it incorporate many of the
components identified in the school climate research, but also it included SEL
language. It required schools to implement a systemic and coordinated multi‐tiered

system that addressed school climate and the social, emotional, behavioral, and
mental health needs of students. It also required schools in Texas to develop and
implement threat assessment teams and to refer students for mental assessment
when threat assessment indicated a need. In addition, teachers in Texas were
required to receive continuing education each year in recognizing how grief and
trauma affect student learning and behavior and how trauma‐informed strategies
can support the academic success of students impacted by trauma or grief. The
policy also required Texas’ schools to offer, as part of the physical health curriculum,
instruction in mental health conditions, substance abuse, suicide prevention, and
social‐emotional skills such as managing emotions, responsible decision making, and
establishing and maintaining positive relationships. Lastly, the policy required schools
to incorporate instruction in digital citizenship, including information regarding
potential criminal consequences of cyberbullying (Texas School Safety Act, SB 11,
2019). The legislation also directed the Texas commissioner of education to develop
rules for implementing many of these provisions.
In response to these school safety policies, or perhaps in preparation for the
pending requirements, many schools and districts in the state subsequently
created district‐level SEL leadership positions and began developing
comprehensive SEL programs and supports. As a result, excitement for SEL
increased, and SEL implementation efforts began emerging in schools and districts
across the state. Although the Texas legislation fell short of requiring the state
education agency to develop instructional standards for social and emotional
learning, advocates for SEL believed the bill provided the m omentum that would
be needed for advancing SEL in the state.
Given the school safety concerns, school leaders are recognizing that school
culture and climate are fundamental to implementing sustainable SEL. In addi-
tion, there is widespread agreement on the importance of defragmenting the
traditional approach to educating young people. Using a multi‐tiered systems of
support (MTSS) framework, schools are beginning to employ a “whole child”
approach for identifying student supports, including supports for social,
emotional, and character development.
Impact of Trauma and Adversity

In addition to the public’s growing concerns for school safety, the rising impact of
trauma and adversity on a growing number of children and youth is considered
another significant force underlying the surge of interest in SEL. As discussed in
this chapter, the trauma experienced around the world during the COVID‐19
pandemic of 2020 led experts to predict a long‐term toll on mental health for
people of all ages. In fact, a report published by the Well Being Trust and the
Robert Graham Center (Petterson et al., 2020) predicted that an additional
75,000 Americans would die from “deaths of despair” (i.e., deaths due to drugs,
alcohol, and suicide) as a result of the pandemic, and that was in addition to the
more than 240,000 deaths already caused by the virus, as recorded at the time of
this writing. Essentially, this would amount to an epidemic within the pandemic.
In circumstances such as this, children and youth are not immune to these out-
comes. In fact, the suicide rate for persons aged 14–18 increased 61.7% from
2009 to 2018. (Ivey-Stephenson, et al, 2020). Other data on children’s and youth’s
mental health were reported in the 2019 YRBS study issued by the CDC in 2020,
indicating a rising concern for mental health problems with this population.
The repercussions of any traumatic event can undermine a child’s sense of
safety, stability, and well‐being, and those with a history of abuse, neglect, or
exposure to negative environmental conditions are most vulnerable. Other
vulnerabilities include, but are not limited to, foster care placement, the presence
of a disability, or living with caretakers already suffering from mental health
problems, as noted in the study by Fothergill (2017). Young adults who are just
entering the workforce and beginning to experience the struggles of learning to
live independently also are vulnerable to the long‐term impacts of trauma, par-
ticularly under the economic distress caused by the pandemic. Prior to the onset
of the pandemic, numerous studies had already reported that schools, communi-
ties, and families were “feeling the impact of adversity and trauma on a scale of
massive proportions” (Wycoff & Franzese, 2019, p. 3). More than half of the
school‐age children in the United States had experienced at least one adverse
childhood experience (ACE) prior to the pandemic. In 2014, the National Survey
of Children’s Exposure to Violence indicated that 67.5% of children (ages 17 and
younger) were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly as victims
or indirectly as witnesses. More than one‐third of all youth (37.3%) were physi-
cally assaulted in the prior year, and 51% had been assaulted d uring their lifetime
(Finkelhor et al., 2015). While not all children experience the same degree of
distress from e xposure to adverse experiences, those with the vulnerabilities previ-
ously discussed are at higher risk for harmful and lasting effects.
ACEs not only place children at risk for long‐term mental health problems,
but also can alter their brain development, therefore altering their social and
emotional functioning. Over the past 10 years, research on the brain has demon-
strated how environmental factors influence and shape the brain and how they
play a central role in shaping the circuits of the brain, especially in early life.
Although these brain circuits can persist throughout the adult lifespan, they are
malleable and thus are adaptable to change. This insight into the brain and its
influence on emotional maturation will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3,
along with some highlights of recent research on the brain. What is important to
recognize about the brain’s influence on emotional development is that the parts
of the brain devoted to understanding emotions are as important, if not more
important, to learning as are the parts of the brain devoted to learning how to
read, write, and perform math calculations.
Stress and emotional distress play significant roles in the brain’s overall learn-
ing process, including how it learns to manage and regulate emotions. When
individuals become stressed or frazzled, they become disengaged from this learn-
ing process because the part of the brain that controls comprehension and focus
is essentially disabled. This part of the brain is known as the prefrontal cortex,
and it controls what are referred to as executive functions. The effects of persis-
tently high levels of stress on these functions can be debilitating and long‐lasting.
In schools and classrooms, this may be observed as problems with sustained
attention, memory, planning, impulse control, decision making, and social
behavior, among others. These difficulties also may manifest as one or more clini-
cal disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression, attachment, and conduct or behavior).
Furthermore, prolonged exposure to stress may result in these students being
unable to differentiate between real threats and perceived threats. As a result, they
may react adversely in circumstances in which there is no genuine threat. The
impact of this “learned fear” is often observed in how they act and interact with
others, thus providing strong support for trauma‐sensitive practices in schools.
SEL is a trauma‐sensitive practice, and staff who are well‐trained in SEL and
possess strong social and emotional skills themselves are better able to recognize
the emotional “triggers” with these students; thus, they are better able to respond
calmly and quickly. Consequently, staff who are trained in trauma‐sensitive
practices are more likely to foster relationship building between adults and

students, promote empathy and understanding, and encourage the development
of supportive environments where these students feel they belong and are safe.
As a result, trauma‐impacted students can learn to manage and cope with envi-
ronmental threats and reduce their levels of anxiety by developing and improving
their social and emotional competencies.
It’s important to note that the effects of trauma and adversity will manifest
differently across the age span and to different degrees. Not all trauma‐impacted
students will experience the same degree of impact and for the same length of
time. Individuals servicing these students will need to understand typical child
development and the vulnerabilities associated with high‐risk impact for these
students in order to understand these manifestations. The areas in which
functioning is likely to be impacted more significantly, however, include cogni-

tion, language, learning, memory, self‐regulation, self‐concept, social skills, social
relationships, and decision making, among others. Therefore, it will be impor-
tant for schools and practitioners to assess those areas in which functional perfor-
mance is most impacted in order to provide successful supports and interventions.
There are challenges, however, in assessing trauma‐impacted youth, and those
serving these individuals will need to be well informed of these challenges, par-
ticularly as they relate to school functioning.
Evidence for SEL
Given this review of recent events, it stands to reason that SEL will continue to
gain momentum and, perhaps, lead to a fundamental shift in our line of attack on
education. Indeed, since 2011, five separate meta‐analyses have been conducted to
examine the benefits of SEL (Durlak et al., 2011; Sklad et al., 2012; Taylor et al.,
2017; Wiglesworth et al., 2016; and Mahoney et al., 2018). Despite these studies
confirming the short‐ and long‐term benefits of SEL, there remain varied levels of
resistance to SEL. This resistance exists among different groups, including school
and district leaders, school staff, parents, community members, and policy mak-
ers. The reasons for this vary but are likely due to misunderstandings about what
SEL is and why it is a necessary component of education. These misconceptions
clearly illuminate the importance of having a firm knowledge and understanding
of the underpinnings of SEL. By doing so, advocates and supporters are better
equipped to communicate what SEL means and the revolutionary possibilities it
offers for education. The theory upon which SEL is based, therefore, is best
explained from a historical perspective. The next section of this chapter will
explore the influences of historical events on the emergence of SEL.
HISTORICAL INFLUENCE
Research on Emotional Intelligence
The concept of social‐emotional learning has been around for centuries, dating back
to Ancient Greek times when Plato wrote The Republic. Plato believed that people’s
minds weren’t the only thing needing to be educated, but also their character. He
wrote that all learning had an emotional base and the education of an individual
began with educating her or his soul, beginning in infancy and early childhood
(Myungjood, 1994). Since his writings, the concept of emotional intelligence has
been the focus of a growing body of research, which perhaps was triggered by the
1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can

Matter More Than IQ. Although the book focused primarily on the role of emo-
tional intelligence in society, there was one chapter that specifically focused on emo-
tional intelligence in schools. This chapter drew attention to the neuropsychological
research showing the influence of emotional processes on cognition and learning,
which was what many educators and psychologists had been asserting for years. The
book shed light on the role and impact of emotions on the process of learning, and
this, in turn, led to a movement in education devoted to the applications of emo-
tional intelligence to teaching and learning. Goleman’s subsequent publication in
2006 was titled The Educator’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic
Achievement: Social‐Emotional Learning in the Classroom and was devoted specifically
to the applications of emotional intelligence to social‐emotional leaning and charac-
ter education in schools.
Emergence of CASEL
Prior to Goleman’s 1995 publication, James Comer, a professor of child psychia-
try at the Yale Child Study Center, led a pilot program from which modern SEL
originated. His work in the early 1960s, known as the New Haven Intervention
Project, led to the piloting of the Comer School Development Program with
findings that showed higher than average positive outcomes for students when
compared to national norms. For a detailed description of the project and its
findings, please refer to Rapid Reference 2.6.
Rapid Reference 2.6

Comer School Development Program
The Comer School Development Program (SDP) was founded in 1968 by child
psychiatrist James Comer and his colleagues at the Yale Child Study Center. The
program began as a collaboration between the Yale Child Study Center and the
New Haven Public Schools and was originally named the New Haven Intervention
Project. Its purpose was to improve the educational experiences for students
attending the two poorest performing schools in New Haven, Connecticut
(Panjwani, 2011).
Comer and his colleagues from Yale began exploring critical issues that might
explain why these schools were failing, and during the process, they soon
discovered that the primary reason for the failures was because the schools were
focusing on the teaching of academic material and not on teaching the whole
child. Comer and his team believed that the schools’ educational model was more
of a business model with a primary goal of teaching students the academic
material so they could graduate from school, rather than on developing the skills
the students would need for life. A new model was introduced for the schools in
which it was hypothesized that changing the learning environment would
positively influence outcomes for students and for the schools. In short, Comer
and his colleagues theorized that implementation of the School Development
Program would transform the schools into learning environments that built
positive interpersonal relationships, promoted teacher efficacy, fostered positive
student attitudes, increased students’ pro‐social behaviors, and improved student
academic achievement (Lunenburg, 2011).
The model was implemented with the formation of a school government and
management team consisting of the school’s principal, elected teacher and parent
representatives, and a mental health worker from the Yale Child Study Center. The
function of the management team was not only to make decisions about the
school’s academic program, but also to make decisions about the school’s social
and extracurricular programs.
This principal‐led, shared‐management framework became the fundamental
basis for the program and encouraged teacher and parent involvement in the
decision‐making processes of the school. Higher academic achievement was an
emphasis of the program, as was students’ psychosocial development. Key
concepts in the program included expectations for caring and sensitive relation-
ships between staff and students, high expectations for achievement, no excuses
for poor performance or bad behavior (e.g., no blame on poverty or neglect), and
the development of a wholesome school climate or learning environment that
included preserving the building’s physical appearance. Teachers were encouraged
to be involved in the collaborative decision‐making process, were shown respect
and appreciation, and were discouraged from placing blame on others. Students
were to be given fair and equal treatment and equal access to resources, including
supports from psychologists, social workers, and counselors. Guiding principles for
students included expectations for order and discipline, as well as for treating one
another with kindness, respect, and trust. Social skills were taught to students and
modeled by staff. Parental involvement was encouraged and expected, and classes
for parents focused on teaching about how their children learned and how to be
involved in their child’s education.
Comer and the Yale Child Study Center remained a part of the New Haven
elementary schools until 1980, at which time the original problems had become a
thing of the past. After many years of implementing Comer’s SDP, the perfor-
mance of the two elementary schools rivaled that of the highest income schools
and had better attendance, better grades, and fewer behavior problems. While the
program was originally designed for implementation in elementary schools, it
quickly was adapted to meet the needs of middle and high schools as well.
Since its development in 1968, the Comer SDP has been implemented in more
than 1,000 schools in the United States and other countries, including South
Africa, England, and Ireland. It has been used as a framework for system‐wide
reform and has had a profound effect on thousands of students, with
improvements demonstrated in both academic and social performance.
James Comer’s work on improving the scholastic performance of children from
lower income and minority backgrounds has earned him much recognition, and
the program he developed continues to be recognized as a research‐based,
comprehensive reform program for K–12 schools.
Source: Adapted from Wikipedia. (2020). James P. Comer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.

php?title=James_P._Comer&oldid=938362178. Licensed under CC BY‐SA 3.0.
Later, in the 1980s, two new figures emerged in the field—Yale psychology
professor Roger Weissberg and his student Timothy Shriver. Together they imple-
mented a social development program in the New Haven Public Schools. At
about that same time, Weissberg joined with another psychology professor at
Rutgers University, Maurice Elias, to develop a framework for incorporating SEL
into schools. Elias’s leadership and research in this area had provided a greater
understanding of the importance of SEL in educating the whole child, and as
director of the Social Emotional Learning Lab at Rutgers University, Elias had
become a prominent leader in the field. Then in 1994, Elias and Weissberg joined
with other prominent researchers in the field to help form CASEL, the
Collaborative for Advancing Social Emotional Learning, which was later changed
in 2001 to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Elias and Weissberg later collaborated with seven other authors to coauthor
Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators. The publica-
tion of this book by the ASCD in 1997 established and defined the field of SEL.
However, it wasn’t until the release of Daniel Goleman’s previously mentioned
book on emotional intelligence that the concept of SEL became prominent in
popular culture.
Formation of the Aspen Institute’s National Commission on Social,

Emotional, and Academic Development
More recently, in November 2016, the Aspen Institute launched the National
Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development to explore how
schools can fully integrate SEL into policies and instructional practices that have
traditionally emphasized academics. During the two years after it was formed,
the Commission met and talked with young people, parents, teachers, school and
district leaders, community leaders, and other experts to investigate how students
learn. The Commission also reviewed more than two decades of research across
the fields of psychology, social science, and brain science. The Commission pub-
lished four reports and related resources, with the fourth and final report acknowl-
edging how learning is deeply linked across the social, emotional, and cognitive
dimensions. This final report emphasized that schools must rethink how they
teach and educate students and must focus on educating the whole child.
According to the executive summary of the report, “The promotion of social,
emotional, and academic learning is not a shifting fad; it is the substance of edu-
cation itself ” (National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic
Development, 2019, p. 1). A set of recommendations across six broad categories
was included in the full report and identified, among others, such things as trans-
forming the learning environment to ensure safety and support for all students,
embedding social and emotional teaching with academics and schoolwide prac-
tices, and building adult expertise in child development (National Commission
on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, 2019). A full list of the rec-
ommendations can be found in Rapid Reference 2.7.
Rapid Reference 2.7

Recommendations from the Aspen Institute’s National
Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development,
From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope (January 2019)
The Commission’s recommendations were provided for the purpose of accelerat-

ing efforts in state and local communities across the six broad categories listed
here. The recommendations were not intended to be sequential, and it was not
assumed that communities would pursue every strategy.
1. Set a clear vision that broadens the definition of student success to prioritize
the whole child.
2. Transform learning settings so they are safe and supportive for all young people.
3. Change instruction to teach students social, emotional, and cognitive skills;
embed these skills in academics and schoolwide practices.
4. Build adult expertise in child development.
5. Align resources and leverage partners in the community to address the whole child.
6. Forge closer connections between research and practice by shifting the
paradigm for how research gets done.
Since Plato first introduced the concept of SEL more than 2,000 years ago,
modern education has evolved into an immensely complex system of programs,
policies, curriculums, and funding formulas. In addition, student populations
are increasingly more diverse, leaving school systems to struggle with meeting
the needs of all students. In his writings, Plato wrote about education as a
means to achieve justice, both individual and social justice. He believed that all
people could exist in harmony if society provided them with an equal educa-
tional opportunity. Without this, society would be unjust because he believed
it would be run by unqualified people, resulting in tyranny. While modern
education somewhat mirrors Plato’s beliefs, it continues to struggle with issues
of educational equity and social justice. However, an increased focus on the
need to prepare children for a global workforce has shifted these priorities to
the forefront.
Preparation for a Global Workforce: World Economic Forum’s

Emphasis on SEL
Prior to and since the publication of the report from the National Commission
on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, interest in and demand
for SEL in schools have surged dramatically. This surge has been due, in part,
to a strong recognition that students are not being prepared for the workforce
of the future. It is projected that 65% of children entering grade school will
work in jobs that do not currently exist (Davison, 2013). It is further pro-
jected that this emerging labor market will require workers to have skills that
have not been the traditional focus in the past. Skills in social and emotional
proficiency will be the skills most demanded by these jobs of the future
(Levy & Murnane, 2013). According to the World Economic Forum, there
are 16 critical skills that young people will need for the future workforce, and
these skills extend well beyond the literacy skills that are the primary focus of
most schools today. In fact, only six of these necessary skills are considered
literacy skills. The remaining 10 skills are related to character qualities and
competencies needed for dealing with complex challenges (World Economic
Forum, 2016). A description of these 16 skills can be found in Rapid
Reference 2.8. While these skills are important for workforce success, they are
equally important in preparing students for success in life. In fact, the
Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) reports
that today’s children will need a balanced set of social, emotional, and cogni-
tive skills in order to face the challenges of the twenty‐first century and achieve
positive life outcomes (OECD, 2015).
Rapid Reference 2.8

Critical Skills for the Twenty‐First Century
21st-Century Skills
Foundational Literacies Foundational Literacies Character Qualities

How students apply core skills How students apply core skills How students approach
to everyday tasks to everyday tasks their changing environment
1. Literacy 7. Critical thinking/ 11. Curiosity

problem-solving
2. Numeracy 8. Creativity 12. Initiative
3. Scientific
9. Communication 13. Persistence/
literacy grit
4. ICT literacy
10. Collaboration 14. Adaptability
5. Financial
literacy 15. Leadership
6. Cultural and
16. Social and cultural
civic literacy
awareness
Lifelong Learning
Source: World Economic Forum, New Vision for Education: Fostering Social and
Emotional Learning Through Technology, March 2016. Reprinted with permission.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of historical events demonstrates the importance of social and emotional

development in educating young people, and how important this area of develop-
ment is in guiding future educational efforts. Awareness of SEL’s importance has
gained widespread recognition and it is now valued as being of equal importance in
educating young people as cognitive development and academic achievement.
Recent societal events confirm this importance, as do studies on future workforce
needs. Unfortunately, policy efforts have been slow to adapt to the mounting evi-
dence for SEL, although recent events suggest this may be evolving more positively.
As school systems struggle to prepare young people for success in life and to meet the
demands of a changing society, they should not ignore what history has demon-
strated. In the case of SEL, history clearly has demonstrated that social and emo-
tional development is a critical domain in the learning process and should be viewed
as a natural and necessary component of learning.
TEST YOURSELF
1. The knowledge we gain from the history of SEL helps us

(a) confirm existing problems.
(b) advance and promote SEL in schools.
(c) memorize important facts about SEL.
2. The recent event that was most responsible for propelling SEL into
the spotlight was
(a) the COVID‐19 pandemic of 2020.
(b) school safety concerns.
(c) trauma and adversity.
3. During the COVID‐19 pandemic of 2020, advocates for SEL were most
concerned that funding for SEL in schools would be lost because of
greater access to free SEL resources.
(a) True
(b) False
4. National and state policy changes that lead to “zero‐tolerance” policies
in schools were not rooted in clear knowledge surrounding need, but
instead was fueled by media coverage of out‐of‐control youth.
(a) True
(b) False
5. From the late 1990s and into the 2000s, exclusionary discipline practices
based on zero‐tolerance policies resulted in schools deferring to the
juvenile and criminal courts systems to handle minor, discretionary
discipline infractions in schools.This became known as the school‐to‐
prison pipeline, a phenomenon that was fueled by which of the following?
(a) Reliable, accurate data measuring school crime
(b) Media coverage of juvenile crime and out‐of‐control youth
(c) The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
6. The impact of trauma and adversity on children has contributed to a
sudden surge of interest in SEL. Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic of
2020, how many children were reported to have experienced at least
one adverse childhood experience (ACE)?
(a) 25%
(b) 30%
(c) 50%
7. Despite the numerous studies that have been conducted to confirm

the short‐ and long‐term benefits of SEL, there continues to be
resistance from different groups, including school and district leaders,
school staff, parents, community members, and policy makers.This
resistance is likely due to
(a) a misunderstanding of what SEL is and what makes it an essential
component of education.
(b) a lack of funding to support SEL implementation.
(c) a fragmented educational system in which the various components
must compete for sparse resources.
8. Although the beginnings of SEL date back to Ancient Greek times,
SEL was not well defined until the late 1990s.The event that estab-
lished and defined the field of SEL was
(a) the formation of the Collaborative for Advancing Social Emotional
Learning, now known as CASEL.
(b) the emergence of the Comer School Development Program.
(c) the 1997 ASCD publication entitled Promoting Social and Emotional
Learning: Guidelines for Educators, coauthored by Maurice Elias and
Roger Weissberg.
9. In January 2019, the Aspen Institute’s National Commission on Social,
Emotional, and Academic Development issued its final report that
provided recommendations for implementing SEL in schools and
communities.The report was entitled
(a) From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope.
(b) From Schools at Risk to Schools of Hope.
(c) From a Nation Broken to a Nation Repaired.
10. According to the World Economic Forum, there are 16 critical skills
that young people will need for the future workforce, and these skills
extend well beyond the literacy skills that are the primary focus of
most schools today. Of these skills, how many are related to character
qualities and competencies needed for dealing with complex
challenges?
(a) 6
(b) 10
(c) 16
Answers: 1, b; 2, a; 3, b; 4, a; 5, b; 6, c; 7, a; 8, c; 9, a; 10, b.
REFERENCES
Abbott, G. (2018). School and firearm safety action plan. State of Texas, Office of
the Governor. https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor‐abbott‐unveils‐plan‐
to‐address‐school‐safety‐in‐texas
American Civil Liberties Union. (2019). School‐to‐prison pipeline [Infographic].
https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile‐justice/school‐prison‐pipeline/school‐
prison‐pipeline‐infographic
Black, D. (2020, May 7). Social and emotional learning: Why we must act now.
Western Psychological Services. https://www.wpspublish.com/social‐and‐
emotional‐learning‐why‐we‐must‐act‐now
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance—United States, 2019. MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Reports. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2017/ss6708.pdf
Civil Rights Project at UCLA. (2018). Race, discipline, and safety at U.S. public
schools: Part 1: A joint report by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies of UCLA’s
Civil rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
California. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/final_11‐
million‐days_ucla_aclu.pdf
Curtin, S., & Heron, M. (2019). i StartDeath rates due to suicide and homi-
cide among persons age 10–24: United States, 2000–2017i End (NCHS
Data Brief, No. 352). National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.
cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db352-h.pdf.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B.
(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A
meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82,
405–432.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes,
N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab‐Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting
social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. ASCD.
Finkelhor, D., Turner H. A., Shattuck A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Prevalence
of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the
National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. JAMA Pediatrics,
169(8), 746–754. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676
Florida Department of Education. (2020). Guardian program. Office of Safe
Schools. http://www.fldoe.org/safe‐schools/guardian‐program.stml
Florida Senate. (2020). CS/HB 7065: School safety. https://www.flsenate.gov/
Session/Bill/2020/7065/ByVersion
Fothergill, A. (2011). Children, youth, and disaster. In Oxford research encyclo-

pedia of natural hazard science. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1093/
acrefore/9780199389407.013.23
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.
Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2006). The educator’s guide to emotional intelligence and academic
achievement: Social‐emotional learning in the classroom. Corwin Press.
Ivey-Stephenson, A., Demissie, Z., Crosby, A., Stone, D.,Gaylor, E., Wilkins, N.,
Lowry, R., & Brown, M. (2020). Suicidal ideation and behaviors among high
school students: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States 2019. [MMWR,
69(1)]. Division of Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/
healthyyouth/data/yrbs/reports_factsheet_publications.htm#anchor_1596725930
Lee, M. (1994). Plato’s philosophy of education: Its implication for current education.
Dissertations (1962–2010) Access via Proquest Digital Dissertations (No.
AAI9517932). https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations/AAI9517932
Lunenburg, F. (2011). The Comer School Development Program: Improving
education for low‐income students. National Forum of Multicultural Issues
Journal, 8(1), 1–14.
Macmillan, C. (2020, May 15). PMIS: Rare inflammatory syndrome affecting
kids may be related to COVID‐19. Yale Medicine. https://www.yalemedicine.
org/stories/pmis‐covid‐kids/
Mahoney, J. L., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2018). An update on social
and emotional learning outcome research. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(4), 18–23.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, Fla. Chapter 2018‐3.
(2018). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/7026/BillText/er/PDF
Melillo, G. (2020, May 13). Study details severity of rare inflammatory disease
afflicting children in COVID‐19 pandemic. American Journal of Managed
Care. https://www.ajmc.com/focus‐of‐the‐week/study‐details‐severity‐of‐rare‐
inflammatory‐disease‐afflicting‐children‐in‐covid19‐pandemic
National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. (2019).
From a nation at risk to a nation at hope. Aspen Institute. http://nationathope.
org/wp‐content/uploads/2018_aspen_final‐report_full_webversion.pdf
Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (2002). 60,000 disaster victims
speak: Part II. Summary and implications of the disaster mental health
research. Psychiatry, 65(3), 240–260.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2015).
Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159‐en
Panjwani, N. (2011). Saving our future: James Comer and the School
Development Program. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84(2),
139–143.
Petterson, S., Westfall, J. M., & Miller, B. F. (2020). Projected deaths of despair
during the coronavirus recession. Well Being Trust. https://wellbeingtrust.org/
wp‐content/uploads/2020/05/WBT_Deaths‐of‐Despair_COVID‐19‐
FINAL‐FINAL.pdf
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., De Ritter, M., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012).
Effectiveness of school‐based universal social, emotional, and behavioral
programs. Do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill,
behavior, and adjustment? Psychology and Schools, (49), 892–909.
State of Texas. (2018). Governor Abbott set to host series of roundtable events to
discuss school safety. Office of the Texas Governor: Greg Abbott. https://gov.
texas.gov/news/post/governor‐abbott‐set‐to‐host‐series‐of‐roundtable‐events‐
to‐discuss‐school‐safety
Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting
positive youth development through school‐based social and emotional
learning interventions: A meta‐analysis of follow‐up effects. Child
Development, (88), 1156–1171.
Texas Appleseed. (2010). Texas’ school‐to‐prison pipeline: Ticketing, arrests, and
use of force in schools: How the myth of the “Blackboard Jungle” reshaped school
disciplinary policy. https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/03‐
STPPTicketingandArrests.pdf
Texas School Safety Act SB11. (2019). TEC § 37. https://capitol.texas.gov/
tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/SB00011F.htm
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffy, S., & Higgins‐D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review
of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2019). Beyond suspensions: Examining school
discipline policies and connections to the school‐to‐prison pipeline for students of
color with disabilities. https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/07‐23‐Beyond‐
Suspensions.pdf
Wiglesworth, M., Lendrum, A., Oldfield, J., Scott, A., ten Bokkel, I., Tate, K.,
& Emery, C. (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and
international transferability on universal social and emotional learning
programme outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education,
(46), 347–376.
Wikipedia. (2020, January 30). James P. Comer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.
php?title=James_P._Comer&oldid=938362178
World Economic Forum. (2016, March). New vision for education: Fostering
social and emotional learning through technology. http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf
Wycoff, K., & Franzese, B. (2019). Essentials of trauma‐informed assessment and
intervention in school and community settings. Wiley.
Three
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
AND ITS ROLE IN SEL
INTRODUCTION
Traditional perspectives on education have long stressed the importance of cogni-

tive ability and academic skill development. While there are few, if any, who
would argue that academic competence is not critically important, there is a
growing concern that this prioritized focus has been costly, perhaps at the peril of
developing equally important competence in other salient areas. An expanded
focus in education to include the constructs of social and emotional learning
should be equal to, if not concurrent with, academic learning as a well‐rounded
approach to education. The rise in emotional and behavioral challenges in
classrooms around the world provides evidence of this need. In fact, the intercon-
nections between learning, emotions, and behavior are undoubtedly the most
poorly understood aspects of education and may well explain the mounting
disengagement of students from schools, not to mention the rising exodus of
teachers who are choosing to leave the profession.
Consider, for example, the traditional attempts used in schools to address
emotional and behavioral challenges. These attempts typically have focused on
managing behaviors, rather than on addressing the social and emotional contexts
in which behavior and learning occur. The established belief is that students with
emotional and behavioral problems either lack a moral foundation, have little
incentive to comply with societal demands, or are byproducts of an unstable
environment (Feifer & Rattan, 2009). Thus, school’s efforts to improve these
behaviors generally focus on attempts to change the behaviors by applying basic
behavior strategies like reinforcers and consequences. Unfortunately, the selected
reinforcers usually are not relevant, meaningful, or administered consistently and
57
frequently, and the consequences generally are punitive. Furthermore, the com-
plexity of behaviors that some students display requires a high level of behavioral
expertise, so it would be unrealistic to expect teachers to have the skillset for
handling these behaviors, given the limited training they receive in their teacher
preparation programs. Predictably, school efforts to alter or change student
behaviors have been too simplistic to lead to any lasting improvements. As a
result, schools have turned to alternative, external forces for managing behavior,
which has led to an escalating overreliance on police or juvenile authorities. These
efforts have resulted in a staggering recognition of disproportionate disparities for
certain subgroups of students, primarily students with disabilities and students of
color. The disparities exist not only in the area of student discipline but also in
achievement.
Given the lack of understanding and the inadequate training in the role of
emotions and behavior in the process of learning, it is no wonder that the number
of emotional and behavioral challenges in schools have multiplied in recent years.
Add to this the intensified rigor of the academic curricula, and the outcome being
witnessed in education is nothing less than the perfect storm. The job of educating
students has become progressively more demanding, inadequately compensated,
and less satisfying for many teachers. These factors, along with the increase in the
number of student mental health problems, the upswing in violent and aggressive
behaviors, and the escalations in incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bully-
ing, have all begun to culminate in higher dropout rates, fewer college admissions,
and lower employability skills for students. Consequently, educators, parents,
child development experts, and even policy makers are beginning to understand
the importance of educating the whole child. Contributions from research on
learning and brain development have confirmed the significance of educating not
just the cognitive domain of intelligence, but also the social and emotional
domains. To better understand the intersection of these domains, it’s important to
understand the neuroscience behind brain development and its relationship to
thinking and behavior.
WHAT IS EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE?
The term emotional intelligence (EI) first appeared in a paper written by Michael
Beldoch in 1964, but the concept of EI was not defined until a 1990 article
appeared in the journal Imagination, Cognition, and Personality. Written by two
psychologists, Peter Salovey and John Mayer, the principal claim of the article
was that individuals possess certain mental abilities that allow them to pay
attention to and understand emotions, and then use the information to better
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ITS ROLE IN SEL 59
facilitate thinking and reasoning. EI was originally defined as “the ability to mon-
itor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them
and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey &
Mayer, 1990, p. 189). The concept of EI has since gained the recognition and
interests of psychologists, test publishers, educators, journalists, and other scien-
tists, but it’s important to note that this was not the first time in which traditional
views of intelligence had come into question. There were two noteworthy publi-
cations that occurred prior to the one published by Salovey and Mayer.
In 1983, Howard Gardner proposed a theory of multiple intelligences, in which he
asserted that traditional views on intelligence were too limiting and did not fully
explain the many abilities that humans possess. Gardner’s theory proposed eight dif-
ferent types of intelligences rather than one intellectual capability, but his theory has
since been criticized for being too broad, lacking empirical research, and being based
on talents and attributes rather than on true mental abilities.
In 1985, following Gardner’s introduction of the concept of multiple intelli-
gences, an Israeli psychologist named Reuven Bar‐On introduced the concept of
an emotional quotient, or EQ, for measuring emotional and social competence.
In his doctoral dissertation, Bar‐On proposed a quantitative approach to creating
“an EQ analogous to an IQ score” (Wikipedia, 2020b). Bar‐On’s work on creat-
ing an emotional quotient eventually led to the development of a self‐report
measure of emotional intelligence. Although he was the first person to coin the
term EQ, this term is commonly used interchangeably with EI.
Since the introduction of the concept of EI, it has not been without debate
and division. In many ways, the interpretation and understanding of EI have
been fraught with challenges not unlike those witnessed in the field of SEL.
Critics argue that EI is not a true form of intelligence and that it is difficult to
measure because of the subjective qualities it represents. This may be due, in part,
to a broadened application of Salovey’s and Mayer’s original definition. Some
have proposed that EI includes a variety of traits, dispositions, and concepts that
were not the original assertion of the authors. This, in turn, has led to increased
disagreement and division over what EI is, how it is defined, and how it is meas-
ured. Coupled with an inadequate amount of valid research on EI, some have
argued that the concept is too vague and, therefore, is invalid (Locke, 2005).
Mayer and Salovey have responded to many of the criticisms of EI by acknowl-
edging that their original model may have been overly broad. They also have
argued that the model of EI they proposed was never based on traits or disposi-
tions such as self‐confidence or extraversion. Rather, it was based on the concept
of mental abilities, such as recognizing and monitoring emotions, and there have
been misinterpretations by others who have confused the expression of EI with
actual abilities. They also assert

that the misinterpretation of DON’T FORGET
the original EI model has been Misinterpretations of the original EI model
further complicated by the led to confusion between the expression
journalistic view provided by of EI and actual abilities. In other words,
Daniel Goleman in his book the original model was never based on
Emotional Intelligence that was traits or dispositions like self‐confidence
published in 1995. Goleman’s or extraversion. Rather, it was based on
the concept of mental abilities such as
popular view of EI as a compos-
recognizing and monitoring emotions.
ite of attributes and abilities led
others to expand the model,
resulting in “mixed models of EI”
according to Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2008). These authors further argue that
the concept of EI and the terms used to describe it refer to the intersection of emo-
tions and intelligence and should be distinguished from personality variables.
While the debate over EI continues, it’s important to note that the terms EI,
EQ, and SEL are often used interchangeably. While there is some overlap in the
ideas each represents, they are separate and distinct concepts and should be rec-
ognized as such. Rapid Reference 3.1 provides additional information on each of
these concepts. To further complicate the issue of terminology, however, other
related concepts about intelligence have entered the discussion. These include the
ideas of social intelligence, described as a social intelligence quotient (SQ), and
cultural intelligence, described as a cultural intelligence quotient (CQ). Although
these concepts are related to EI, they are separate and distinct views about intel-
ligence, as differentiated in Rapid Reference 3.2.
Rapid Reference 3.1

EI, EQ, and SEL: What’s the Difference?
Increased interest and excitement about emotional intelligence (EI), emotional

quotient (EQ), and social‐emotional learning (SEL) has led to challenges in
understanding what each of these concepts represents and how each term is used.
Terminology is important because it adds meaning and understanding to ideas and
concepts, but when terminology is unclear or contains variations it adds confusion.
These three terms are frequently used interchangeably and are often believed
to have the same meaning, but, while there are commonalities among the terms,
they also represent very different concepts or ideas. Failure to recognize and
u nderstand these differences can lead to costly outcomes. Although each term
may not have the same meaning, they do play an important role in bringing
people together to find common ground. In the interest of transparency, however,
it should be noted that these are not the only terms used in reference to
social‐emotional development. While there are many others, these are the three
used most frequently. Each term is differentiated as follows:
• EI refers to a model of intelligence in which it is believed that humans possess
emotional capabilities analogous to general intelligence but more focused on
the emotional aspects of thinking than on the cognitive aspects. This conceptu-
alization of intelligence places emphasis on the role of emotions in guiding
intelligent thinking. Currently, there are three main models of EI: (a) the ability
model in which individuals vary in their ability to process emotional information
and in their ability to relate it in the broader concept of cognition; (b) the trait
model in which EI is conceptualized as personality traits and there are variances
in an individual’s self‐perceptions of their emotional abilities; and (c) the mixed
model in which it is believed individuals are born with general EI but have the
ability to develop emotional competencies (Wikipedia, 2020a).
• EQ refers to an emotional quotient, which is a means of quantifying emotional
intelligence so that it has an assigned value. An EQ score represents a meas-
ured value assigned to an individual’s EI and is often measured using a test
developed and validated specifically for this purpose.
• SEL refers to a framework that can be used to help guide the process of
social‐emotional development. The framework provides a basic structure from
which key elements can be identified, categorized, and expanded to provide a
visual guide aligned with a process for building and developing social‐emotional
skills and competencies. There are a growing number of SEL frameworks in the
field of education.
Rapid Reference 3.2

Social Intelligence and Cultural Intelligence: How Do They
Differ From Emotional Intelligence?
Social Intelligence: Unlike emotional intelligence, which is based on mental

abilities, social intelligence is learned through social experiences. It is commonly
referred to as street smarts or common sense. Proponents of social intelligence
believe this is what enriches the quality of an individual’s life and is what makes
people who they are. The richer an individual’s social intelligence, the better their
quality of life. A key aspect of social intelligence is good communication skills,
so language plays a critical role in developing social intelligence. Individuals with

high social intelligence often make good leaders because of their ability to
communicate effectively.
Social intelligence has been equated to what Howard Gardner referred to in
his theory of multiple intelligences (1983) as interpersonal intelligence. He
described this as the ability to see things from another person’s perspective
(closely related to theory of mind), to be sensitive to their beliefs and values, and
to exhibit empathy. Social intelligence, while closely related to emotional intel-
ligence, is believed to be a separate concept made up of social awareness and
social facility, and has been postulated to have a direct influence on an individual’s
physical health (Goleman, 2006).
Cultural Intelligence: The concept of cultural intelligence is a rather new
concept that is used to define how well an individual works and interacts
effectively across different cultures. While cultural intelligence requires an indi-
vidual to have emotional intelligence, multicultural capabilities are viewed as a
separate form of intelligence that can be developed and quantified. Cultural
intelligence is closely related to cross‐cultural competence, but with a broader
perspective, and it is a term that is used more frequently in business, government,
and military settings than it is in educational settings. However, it is important for
educators to have knowledge of cultural intelligence since they are involved in the
preparation of students for the workforce.
Individuals with higher cultural intelligence are believed to be better able to
blend into any environment and to use more effective business practices than
those with lower cultural intelligence. Research and measurement of cultural
intelligence have become an extremely profitable industry for market research
firms. By gathering data and information on cultural intelligence, these firms help
companies understand and apply cultural competence for everyday business
decisions, which can range from making employment choices to using data for
turning cultural trends into commercial advantages.
THE NEUROSCIENCE OF EMOTIONS
As the research on EI has progressed, more information has been uncovered about
its intersection with brain development and brain functioning. For example, cur-
rent brain science confirms that the brain is not hardwired by adulthood, as was
previously believed, but is malleable throughout life. This neuroplasticity accounts
for the brain’s ability to change its structures and functions as it responds to experi-
ences, but this ability lessens over time (hence, the importance of early experiences
and opportunities). Neuroplasticity is also how the brain repairs itself and makes
organizational changes in its neural networks when damaged. Ultimately, it’s how
we improve our ability to think, feel, perceive, act, and remember.
Prior to the late twentieth century, it was believed that brain development was
best accounted for by a person’s genes. What is now known about brain develop-
ment is that genes are only part of the story. They may form the beginning struc-
tures, but the interactions of environmental experiences (i.e., social, emotional,
and physical experiences) provide significant influences and opportunities for
shaping the brain as it develops. This epigenetic process was summarized nicely by
Immordino‐Yang, Darling‐Hammond, and Krone (2018) as follows:
Our genes appear to underspecify our development, and that information

deficit makes possible (and in fact n
ecessary) our unparalleled proclivity for
socially mediated learning. For our genes to grow a fully functioning
human, we must have adequate opportunity to interact with others and to
learn. This learning extends across the settings a person lives in: family,
community, and school.
The brain and nervous system

underlie all thoughts, actions, DON’T FORGET
emotions, and communications. Brain development is only partly accounted
All learning and behavior depend for by genes. The interaction of social,
on the brain. It is the most com- emotional, and physical e xperiences can
plex organ in the universe, and it influence and shape the brain significantly.
contains dozens of neurotrans-
mitters, billions of neurons, and
trillions of neural connections. These connections are highly influenced by the envi-
ronment and by personal experiences, allowing people to change and adapt to their
world. Cognitive, emotional, and social capacities are inextricably intertwined
throughout the life course (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University,
n.d.). The brain’s sculpting process involves complex neurochemical functions that
have been described extensively in the scientific literature on the brain and are beyond
the purpose of this chapter. Therefore, this section will be limited to a broad overview
of the brain’s design and the structures that influence emotional development, rather
than detailing the neurochemical aspects of the brain. A description of the major
structures of the brain will be provided first, along with the various regions that
develop over time and contribute to emotional processing. This will be followed by a
discussion of how emotional intelligence and the neuroscience of emotions intersect
with SEL.
Brain Structures
Brain development begins early in gestation and continues into adulthood. It is a
bottom‐up process, with simpler neural connections and skills forming at the
bottom first. Over time, more complex connections and skills are formed toward
the top of the brain. Although the brain isn’t fully developed until around 25 years
of age, it is fully formed by birth. The process in which the brain and all its struc-
tures are shaped prior to birth occurs in a series of elaborate and complex stages.
While it may seem that these stages occur in a sequential, step‐by‐step order, that
is not the case. Rather, the stages overlap with one another in time. Describing
the intricate processes of brain development with the detailed complexities
involved in each stage is a daunting task that, as previously stated, is beyond the
purpose of this volume. Therefore, a simplified description of this process is rep-
resented in Rapid Reference 3.3.
Rapid Reference 3.3

Shaping the Brain
Stage One: Formation of the Neural Tube

The neural tube is a hollow structure from which the brain and spinal cord are
formed. This very complicated process is called neurulation, and it starts during
the embryonic stage, at around the third or fourth week of gestation. This is when
certain embryonic tissue begins to thicken and flatten to form a neural plate. The
neural plate is the structure from which the entire nervous system originates. As
the plate begins to fold inward, it forms a tube and continues to grow. The top
part of the tube grows to eventually form the brain, and the bottom part grows
to form the spinal cord. Neural tube defects have been known to occur at this
stage, with the most common types being spina bifida and anencephaly (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019).
Stage Two: Neurogenesis (Cell Proliferation)
Cell proliferation begins as soon as the closing of the neural tube is completed.
During this stage, undifferentiated stem cells begin to divide and subdivide,
eventually multiplying and differentiating into a proliferation of about 100 billion
cells, all that will be needed for life. These cells are called neurons and glial cells.
Neurons are designed to transmit information between cells using electrical
impulses, allowing the brain to talk to other parts of the body. Glial cells, however,
do not transmit electrical impulses, but support and protect the neurons by
maintaining homeostasis and forming myelin. The number of neurons created
during this stage is approximately 40–50% more than what is needed for a
functionally mature brain (stage five describes how unneeded neurons are
eventually eliminated). Until recently, it was believed that the number of neurons
formed during proliferation is forever fixed and that the central nervous system,
including the brain, is incapable of neurogenesis. Recent research, however, has
shown that this is not the case, and that neurogenesis can occur in a healthy adult
brain, as well (Gould, 2007). Another well‐accepted fact in brain science that was
recently refuted is the long‐held belief that glial cells outnumber neurons by as
much as a 10:1 ratio. The latest research indicates this ratio is more accurately
represented as approximately 1:1 (von Bartheld, Bahney, & Herculano‐Houzel,
2016), although there remains some disagreement among neuroscientists in the
field (Yuhas & Jabr, 2012).
Stage Three: Migration of Cells
The human brain forms from its center outward and involves a massive migration
of cells that culminate in the formation of the cerebral cortex. The migration
process begins once cell proliferation has completed. The cortex develops in
layers and is composed of six horizontal layers to which the cells migrate,
beginning with the innermost layer and progressing toward the outermost layer.
Glial cells guide the migration of the neurons along a set pathway until each
reaches its designated layer, after which some will degenerate while others will
divide and help form the white matter of the brain (the tissue that helps
coordinate communication between the different regions of the brain). Ultimately,
this complex migration process leads the cells to the various regions of the brain,
where they will differentiate and form the cortex as well as other higher brain
structures (Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences, 1992). During
this stage, problems can result in dysmigration, resulting in different types of
damage. For example, exposure to high doses of alcohol can result in the
dysmigration syndrome known as fetal alcohol syndrome. Likewise, exposure to
high doses of radiation can cause other dysmigration effects such as birth defects,
malformations, and cognitive disabilities (Gilkerson & Klein, 2008).
Stage Four: Cell Differentiation
During this stage of brain development, the destiny of all cells is decided. As they
take their final positions, they begin to take on specific functions. This entire process
is controlled by regulatory genes that determine how genes will be expressed. Gene
expression is regulated by factors that are both intrinsic and extrinsic to the cell, so
this helps guide cell differentiation. Intrinsic factors are things contained within each
cell that allow it to activate and deactivate genes, such as proteins. Extrinsic factors
are things external to the cell but present in the cell’s environment, like temperature
and oxygen. During cell differentiation, the neurons continue to multiply and migrate
to their final locations. Some cells will differentiate to form the familiar bumps and
grooves of the brain called convolutions. These “hills and valleys” help increase the
surface area of the cerebrum so the large number of neurons contained here can fit
within the skull. Another group of cells will differentiate to form the corpus callosum,
which is the structure that connects the two hemispheres of the brain, allowing
communication to occur between the two. Other cells will differentiate to form the
higher structures of the brain. Cell differentiation concludes with every cell having its
required biochemical properties and features that will be needed for its specific
region and layer (LaRossa & Carter, n.d.).
Stage Five: Establishment of Neural Networks
The formation of neural networks is what allows neurons to connect and
communicate with one another so the brain can process thoughts, sensations,
feelings, and actions. These neural networks form through a highly organized and
complex process, which has been simplified for purposes of this chapter. The
process begins with neurons of the same type aggregating together to form
clusters. These neuron clusters will determine the form and function of the
various parts of the brain. The main job of every cell at this stage is to develop
connections for transmitting information. To do this, the cells form two highly
specialized extensions called axons and dendrites. Each neuron body grows longer
to form an axon, which is designed to connect and send messages to other
neurons. Each neuron also forms branches, called dendrites, which allow the
neuron to receive information sent by the axon and transmit it back to the cell’s
body. Axons take information away from a cell body, and dendrites bring
information to a cell body (Lodish et al., 2000). The point at which communication
occurs is called the synapse, which is an area between two neurons where they
come close to one another but don’t really touch. There are two types of synapse:
electrical, which are rare, and chemical, which are more common. It is in this
synapse that chemicals called neurotransmitters are released and picked up by
specific receptors, then transferred to the intended neuron to complete the
communication process. Once the message is received by the dendrites, it is then
delivered to that cell’s body. During the prenatal period and early infancy, the
brain produces many more neurons and synaptic connections than will be
needed. These unused neurons and connections will be eliminated by a process
known as pruning, leaving only the ones that are needed for growing stronger and
allowing brain circuits to become more efficient (LaRossa & Carter, n.d.).
A fully developed, mature brain weighs approximately 3 pounds and is made

mostly of water, proteins, and fats. There are two connected hemispheres of the
brain, and while they look similar, each has different specializations. Both hemi-
spheres always remain active and are in communication with one another; thus,
each half influences the other. There are four major structures of the brain that
form the hierarchy of learning: the brain stem, the limbic system, the cortex, and
the cerebellum. As these structures develop, they become more interconnected,
working cooperatively to integrate the process of learning.
Brain Stem
The brain stem is a lower level structure and is the first to develop. It is located at
the base of the brain and connects to the spinal cord. It is the central axis of the
brain and is considered essential to survival because it controls the flow of infor-
mation between the brain and the body. The brain stem regulates almost all the
daily activities of the body, such as heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, swallow-
ing, digestion, and consciousness, among others. It communicates with other
vital parts of the body through the nervous system; thus, it represents the inter-
section between the mind and the body. Damage to the brain stem can result in
impairment of various major functions, such as speech, breathing, sleeping, eat-
ing, memory, or personality. In severe cases, it can cause death. Some neurode-
generative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, are known
to cause degeneration of the neurons in the brainstem, leading to impairments in
other body functions.
Limbic System
The next structure to develop is the limbic system, which is a collection of struc-
tures located above the brain stem and at the middle of the brain. Although not
mature at birth, this system develops more quickly than the outermost layer, or
cortex. The limbic system is considered the seat of emotion in the human brain,
but it also plays a key role in motivation and memory, which are essential to the
learning process. In the hierarchy of learning, the limbic system is responsible for
basic emotional functions. If a child does not develop these lower level skills, this
may result in emotional immaturity, and the child will have difficulty functioning
at higher levels of learning that require more mature emotional responses.
The limbic system is composed of four main parts: the amygdala, the hypothala-
mus, the hippocampus, and the thalamus. Each of these structures plays an integral
role in the learning process, including managing emotional reactions, regulating
physiological responses, and
creating neural pathways for
memory. These emotional parts DON’T FORGET
of the brain are richly intercon-
The limbic system is composed of these
nected with each other, while four main structures, each of which plays an
also being intricately linked to integral role in the learning process:
the cortex that controls think- • Amygdala
ing and the brain stem that con- • Hypothalamus
trols basic physiology. • Hippocampus
Although the amygdala is • Thalamus
often referred to as a single
structure, there really are two, one in each hemisphere of the brain. This structure
is best known for its vigilance in monitoring emotional stimuli and alerting the
brain when something emotionally significant happens, such as when there is a
perceived threat. The amygdala triggers the “fight‐or‐flight” response when danger
is present, but it also processes positive emotions. It helps the brain understand and
process emotions by sending signals to the prefrontal cortex, where rational think-
ing and learning occur. When emotions are excessive or intense, this process can be
disrupted and is often referred to as a hijacking of the prefrontal cortex; thus, atten-
tion, learning, and memory are
disrupted.
Another one of the amyg- DON’T FORGET
dala’s functions is in the forma- Too much stress can result in elevated
tion and storage of memories, levels of the stress hormone known as
especially those that have a cortisol, which can cause the amygdala to
strong emotional component. remain in a constant state of fight or flight.
Exposure to chronic stress can
affect the hardwire pathways
between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, thus impairing attention, learn-
ing, and memory. When this occurs frequently or over a long period, it can
damage the amygdala. Stress triggers the adrenal glands to produce the stress
hormone known as cortisol, which helps the brain control mood, motivation,
and fear. Too much stress or prolonged exposure to stress can create elevated
levels of cortisol, which in turn can predispose the amygdala to be in a constant
state of fight or flight, thus impairing the brain’s ability to process new learning
or memories. Children experiencing chronic trauma may have abnormalities in
regulating cortisol levels and may have impaired stress responses as a result. For
these children, reactions to minor stresses may be overblown or extreme (Wycoff
& Franzese, 2019). Damage to the amygdala can also impair one’s ability to rec-
ognize emotions in others, which can impact interpersonal relationships and the
ability to develop empathy.
The hypothalamus plays an
important role in the production DON’T FORGET
and regulation of hormones. It also The primary role of the hippocampus
helps stimulate other important is to store conscious memories, but its
processes in the body and helps connection to the amygdala helps link
regulate physiological responses by those memories to feelings and sensations.
This is probably why humans are more
working in coordination with the
likely to remember positive e motions over
amygdala. When emotions are acti- those that are not.
vated, the amygdala sends signals
to the hypothalamus, thus triggering physiological responses such as heart rate, body
temperature, blood pressure, and respiration rate, among others. The main function of
the hypothalamus is to keep the body in a balanced state; therefore, it plays a role in many
essential functions in addition to regulating hormones. It helps control stress, modulate
energy levels, and perform other functions that help regulate a person’s behavior. When
the hypothalamus is damaged or diseased, it’s often hard to pinpoint because of the many
roles it plays in keeping things regulated.
The hippocampus is the brain’s center for memory. It is primarily associated
with long‐term storage of conscious memories, but it also plays a vital role in
emotions. Its role in storing memories involves consolidating and encoding
information from short‐term memory into long‐term memory. If the hippocam-
pus is damaged, this process may become impaired, depending on where the
damage is. Severe damage may result in an inability to form new memories. In
diseases such as Alzheimer’s, the hippocampus is usually the first structure
impacted by the disease. The hippocampus also is connected to the amygdala and
plays a key role in connecting feelings and sensations to memories. This might
explain why humans are more likely to remember positive emotional experiences
over those that are not. While the hippocampus has many important roles, the
single most important one is its role in storing conscious memories.
The thalamus is made up of two oval structures of gray matter located just
above the brain stem and deep within the brain. One structure is in each of the
cerebral hemispheres. The thalamus is often described as the relay station of
the brain because it plays a central role in the flow of information to and from the
cerebral cortex. Signals from the spinal cord and brainstem first stop in the thalamus
before being transmitted to the cortex. The thalamus also communicates directly
with many other regions of the brain through 50 distinct nuclei. Thus, it plays a
role in many different functions, including emotion regulation and memory. It also
plays a central role in sleep‐wake regulation and arousal. The connections between
the thalamus and the sensory organs are contralateral (i.e., on opposite sides of the
brain), while the connections between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex are
ipsilateral (i.e., on the same side of the brain). Pathologically, the thalamus may be
implicated when there are disorders of consciousness, such as during comas
(Blumenfeld & Gummadavelli, 2018).
Cortex
The cortex is the largest of the brain structures and is the most highly developed.
It is the outermost layer of the brain and is covered by membranes of connective
tissue called gray matter. There are many neurons present in gray matter because
it processes information from all parts of the brain; thus, it plays a significant role
in all aspects of human life. For this reason, 94% of the oxygen sent to the brain
goes to the gray matter (Moritz‐Saladino, 2017). Directly beneath the gray mat-
ter is a layer of cells called white matter. These cells function like an information
highway by distributing and delivering the processed information to the appro-
priate regions of the brain.
The surface of the cortex is folded extensively, allowing more space for the gray
matter and for the processing of information. The cortex is responsible for many
higher order brain functions such as thought, speech, reasoning, memory, associa-
tion, sensation, movement, and personality. It is extensively connected to subcorti-
cal areas and is involved in a multitude of brain functions. The cortex is divided
into four lobes in each hemisphere: the occipital lobe, the temporal lobe, the pari-
etal lobe, and the frontal lobe. Each lobe is responsible for different functions and
different areas of learning.
The occipital lobes are the major visual processing center of the brain. They
are located at the back of the brain and involved in receiving information from
the eyes and interpreting visual stimuli. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause
visual problems such as difficulty recognizing objects, an inability to identify
colors, and trouble learning and recognizing letters or words, among other things.
The temporal lobes are situated immediately behind and below the frontal lobe.
They contain the primary auditory cortex, which is important for interpreting sounds
and comprehending speech. The hippocampus (part of the limbic system) is also
located in the temporal lobes and is heavily involved in memory formation. Damage
to the temporal lobes can lead to problems with short‐ and long‐term memory, emo-
tions and behavior, auditory processing, speech perception, and language skills.
The parietal lobes are located behind the frontal lobes and above the temporal
lobes. They integrate sensory information, including spatial sense, and one of
their main functions is to process how parts of the body are oriented in space
(known as proprioception). Another main function of the parietal lobes is to
process other sensations such as touch, pressure, pain, taste, and temperature.
Located within the parietal lobes are the thalamus. As previously stated, the thal-
amus functions like a relay center for the brain, so the parietal lobes are also
involved in the process of interpreting signals received from many different areas
of the brain.
The frontal lobes represent the DON’T FORGET
final frontier in brain develop-
ment and are the last parts of the The frontal lobes are the final part of the
brain to mature, occurring around the
brain to mature. This maturation
age of 25. These structures represent the
process begins early in life, start- highest levels of learning in the brain.
ing from the back of the brain and
finally culminating with the frontal lobes at around 25 years of age (Feifer & Rattan,
2009). The frontal lobes represent the highest levels of learning and are involved in
processing many higher brain functions such as planning, organizing, attention, con-
centration, abstract thinking, sense of identity, empathy, moral reasoning, and prob-
lem solving. These lobes are perhaps the most critical for SEL, so a closer examination
is warranted.
Given that the frontal lobes
are not fully matured until about DON’T FORGET
age 25, schools, parents, and car- The frontal lobes are responsible for a
egivers have a unique and multitude of critical functions, but they are
“golden” opportunity to influ- best known for their control of executive
ence this maturational process functions.
and help build the SEL skills that
young people need. Not only are
these skills important for social, emotional, and behavioral development, but they
are equally important for academic learning and memory formation. There are a
multitude of critical functions for which the frontal lobes are responsible, but they
are best known for their control of executive functions. Before examining these func-
tions and exploring their relationship with higher level thought processes, it’s impor-
tant to first have a clear conceptualization of how the frontal lobes are structured.
Located at the very front of each hemisphere, these are the largest lobes of the
brain and make up about a third of the surface area of each hemisphere. All mam-
mals have frontal lobes, but they are larger and more developed in highly social
mammals, such as dolphins and primates. They are proportionately much larger
and more developed in humans than in any other animal, suggesting that social
interactions play a key role in the development of the brain and intelligence. At
the very front of the frontal lobes is the prefrontal cortex, which is the most
evolved part of the human brain. This is the region where thoughts and actions
are orchestrated, and personality is expressed.
The prefrontal cortex is involved in many critical functions of the brain,
including the convergence of affect and cognition. It is often classified as the
association cortex because of its profuse connections with so many parts of
the brain, including the limbic system. Its most general function, however, is the
temporal organization of behavior, speech, and reasoning and the development
of executive functions, as stated. Although the prefrontal cortex plays a critical
role in these abilities, it’s important to understand that it isn’t the only part of the
brain involved. The interlinking and sophisticated connections between the pre-
frontal cortex and other parts of the brain remain an area where there is still
much that is unknown.
The prefrontal cortex is subdivided into several common subregions. Although

there is no consensus on what these subregions should be, these are the ones most
commonly identified: (a) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, (b) dorsomedial prefron-
tal cortex, (c) ventromedial prefrontal cortex, (d) ventrolateral prefrontal cortex,
and (e) orbitofrontal cortex. The interactions of these subregions with other parts
of the brain external to the prefrontal cortex are how executive functions are
processed. For additional information on how each of these regions is involved
with specific executive functions, see Rapid Reference 3.4, and for a visual repre-
sentation of the overlapping regions of the prefrontal cortex involved in the
development of executive functions, see Rapid Reference 3.5.
Rapid Reference 3.4

Executive Functions Associated With Areas of the Prefrontal Cortex
Area of prefrontal cortex Executive function

• Left prefrontal cortex • Regulates positive emotions
• Right prefrontal cortex • Regulates negative emotions
• Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex • Working memory
• Cognitive flexibility
• Planning
• Dorsomedial prefrontal cortex • Theory of mind
• Empathy
• Decision making
• Emotion regulation (voluntary and
involuntary)
• Social cognition
• Ventromedial prefrontal cortex • Decision making
• Behavioral control
• Response inhibition
• Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex • Decision making
• Goal‐directed behavior
• Orbitofrontal cortex • Emotional judgment
• Self‐regulation of behavior
• Response inhibition
• Assigns value to stimuli such as
rewards and consequences
Rapid Reference 3.5
Lateral (side) view of select brain regions relevant to executive functions

Dorsolateral
Prefrontal
Cortex
Orbitofrontal
Cortex
Anterior
Cingulate
Cortex
Medial view of select brain regions relevant to executive function
Prefrontal
Cortex
Anterior Cingulate
Cortex
Orbital Frontal
Cortex
Ventormedial
Frontal Cortex
Amygdala
Hippocampus
Source: Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M.T. (2016). Executive function: Implications for educa-
tion (NCER 2017‐2000). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education.This report is available on the Institute website at http://ies.ed.gov
and is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.
As the social‐emotional components of the frontal lobes mature, the ability to

identify, express, and manage emotions improves, all of which are elements of the
broader construct of emotional intelligence (Rosso et al., 2004). Mature develop-
ment of these abilities is contingent upon the growth and maturity of specialized
regions in the frontal lobes. Brain research indicates there is still much to be dis-
covered about this maturational process, but evidence suggests that these regions
gradually become more specialized over time. As they mature, they take over the
basic emotional processes generated at the subcortical levels in the brain (Yeates
et al., 2007), allowing for higher level functioning. This explains why an adult’s
brain can process information more rationally than a teenager’s brain. The frontal
lobes of an adult brain are fully matured, while a teenager’s brain is still process-
ing much of its information from lower brain regions, primarily the amygdala, or
emotional center of the brain. In the teenager’s brain, the connections between
the amygdala and the frontal lobe are still developing; thus, the brain is receiving
greater input from this lower brain region. Therefore, much of the thought pro-
cesses in the teenage brain are based on feelings rather than on rational thinking.
Most studies on frontal lobe development don’t extend beyond the prepubertal
years, so there still is a great deal to be discovered about how the components of
frontal lobe functioning change or progress in adolescence and which ones are
already developed (Rosso et al., 2004).
As stated in this chapter, the frontal lobes are best known for their control
of executive functions, which are the mental processes that help regulate behav-
ior, attention, motivation, and memory. As indicated, these processes develop
as the brain matures and are highly susceptible to environmental influences. In
other words, they can be taught, and doing so can help young people develop
the social‐emotional competencies they need for success in school and in life.
In short, executive functions are a set of thinking skills that help us organize
our behaviors over time and accomplish our long‐term goals. These thinking
skills include the ability to plan, organize, sustain attention, and persist in the
completion of tasks or activities. The application of executive functions to
higher level cognitive thinking and problem‐solving abilities involves the use of
some of these thinking skills. Understanding the specialized regions of the
frontal lobes and the maturation process of these regions is fundamental to
appreciating the critical role that executive functions play in coordinating cog-
nitive and emotional thinking. In fact, recent advances in neuroscience suggest
there are three primary and interrelated brain functions that are critical for the
successful application of executive skills. They are (a) cognitive flexibility, (b)
working memory, and (c) inhibitory control. A description of these processes is
provided in Rapid Reference 3.6.
Rapid Reference 3.6

Application of Executive Function Skills Involves Three Primary
Brain Functions
There are three primary cognitive processes that underlie and ensure successful
application of the executive skills. These processes are interrelated and necessary
for successful presentation of the skills, and are described as follows:
• Cognitive flexibility is a process that allows the brain to switch thinking and
adapt to the changing demands of different situations. The ability to sustain or
shift attention or to apply different rules in different settings allows the brain to
send signals so that behavior can be adapted to these different demands.
Cognitive flexibility works in concert with other executive functions like attention,
working memory, and behavioral inhibition. Individuals with good cognitive
flexibility tend to learn more quickly, respond to new tasks more effectively, and
solve problems more spontaneously and creatively.
• Working memory is the ability to hold and manipulate information in one’s
mind for a brief period, before either encoding it into long‐term memory for
storage or losing the information. It includes the ability to draw upon past
learning or experience and to apply that information to a current or future
task or situation. The amount of information that can be held in working
memory gradually increases as the frontal lobes develop and mature. Thus, a
three‐year‐old might only have the capacity to hold two pieces of information
in working memory, while a teenager might be able to hold between five and
nine pieces of information in working memory (Sousa, 2017, p. 91). Working
memory is a function of short‐term, conscious memory and is instrumental in
the reasoning and decision‐making processes.
• Inhibitory control is a process that involves the inhibition of impulses in
order to regulate emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. It’s the process through
which individuals develop the ability to remain focused, think before acting, and
respond as needed to complete desired tasks, activities, or goals. Individuals
with good inhibitory control tend to have greater self‐awareness, which means
they are better able to identify their own emotions and regulate their own
emotional impulses. Thus, they are less likely to experience chronic stress and
more likely to be emotionally well‐adjusted.
The interplay between the frontal lobe structures, the three primary brain func-
tions, and executive skill development provides a deeper understanding of the
crucial role these coordinated processes play in learning, in developing higher level
thinking skills, and in the development of social competence. It’s important to
note, however, that social competence goes beyond the ability to behave appropri-
ately and exhibit appropriate social skills. The underpinning of social competence
is the complex formation of empathy skills (Feifer & Rattan, 2009). This ability to
understand the emotions and feelings of others and distinguish one’s own needs
from the needs of others is a remarkably complex process that begins early in life
and is associated with the development of executive functions. The opportunity to
positively influence frontal lobe maturity and the development of these critical
skills is one reason why SEL should be embedded in every learning program.
Executive functions develop across the ages, and there are many developmen-
tal tasks that require these skills. Of particular interest in the development of
social‐emotional competencies are the preschool years. According to Zelazo et al.
(2016),
[T]here are reasons to believe that the preschool years may be a period of rela-
tively high plasticity in the prefrontal cortex. Although the prefrontal cortex
connects with many regions throughout the brain, the interconnectivity of the
prefrontal cortex with brain areas associated with emotion and stress is par-
ticularly relevant from an educational standpoint. High levels of stress, par-
ticularly early in development, for example, influence brain development in
ways that can limit executive functions. However, the prefrontal cortex and
executive functions are highly malleable and continue to develop across the
lifespan. Consequently, high‐quality educational experiences as well as direct
and indirect training of executive functions can positively influence brain
development and the development of executive functions. (p 18)
Numerous programs have been developed for fostering the development of

executive functions, as well as the three primary brain functions interrelated with
these skills (i.e., cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control). A
review of these programs and the relevant research on executive functions is
beyond the scope of this chapter, but the National Center for Education Research
has published a report on executive functions (Zelazo et al., 2016) that is in the
public domain and available online.
Cerebellum
The final part of the brain to be examined is the cerebellum, which is located at
the lower back part of the brain, underlying the occipital and temporal lobes of
the cerebral cortex. It has many functions but is most often associated with motor
control and motor learning. It is also responsible for much of the proprioceptive
system (movement, position of body in space), and while it does not generate
motor activity, it is responsible for coordinating it. It also is important for main-
taining balance and posture and for controlling voluntary movements. Although
it accounts for only 10% of the brain’s volume, it contains over 50% of the total
number of neurons in the brain. It is believed to be necessary for organizing the
functions of other parts of the brain and is sometimes known as the “little brain.”
It is one of the most important contributors to children’s learning and develop-
ment because, in addition to motor control, it also is involved in other cognitive
functions such as language and attention. There also is increasing recognition
that the cerebellum contributes to emotional control, such as in the regulation of
fear and pleasure responses. In addition, there are reciprocal connections between
the cerebellum and hypothalamus, suggesting more involvement with emotions
than historically was believed. The cerebellum is one of the most important
structures in the brain and develops over a long period. While it is one of the first
structures in the brain to begin to differentiate, it is one of the last to mature.
THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS

FOR SEL
Brain development and its relationship with cognitive and emotional processes
have significant implications for the support of SEL in educating young people.
Recent advances in the neuroscience of emotions emphasize that connections
between cognitive and emotional functions “have the potential to revolutionize
our understanding of learning in the context of schools” (Immordino‐Yang &
Damasio, 2007). These insights not only help to shed light on the connections
between emotion, cognition, decision making, and social functioning, but also
provide a new perspective on the role of emotion in education. Some of the most
important implications include the following:
1. Relationships matter. The cognitive processes involved in learning
depend highly on human interaction. Children do not learn in a
vacuum, and learning is an interactive process. Positive relationships
lead to improvements in attention, motivation, and memory and help
increase students’ sense of safety, security, and support. Strong teacher–
student relationships are associated with short‐ and long‐term
improvements in academic performance and contribute to increased
teacher satisfaction and job performance (Sparks, 2019).
2. Education provides an opportunity to strengthen and develop
executive function skills. The latest research on executive functions
underscores their importance in developing problem‐solving skills and
other higher level thinking abilities. Embedding these skills in the

context of instruction can help improve attention, concentration,
planning, organizing, and persistence. Implementing instructional
strategies designed to develop working memory, cognitive flexibility,
and inhibitory control can influence the development and maturation
of the prefrontal cortex, thus increasing higher level thinking skills.
3. Empathy is the underpinning of social competence. The keystone
for developing social competence lies in the ability to develop the
complex emotional skill of empathy. This involves the abilities to share
and experience emotions through the perspectives of others, to
distinguish between one’s own feelings and intents and those of others,
and to view and understand things from another person’s perspective
(also known as theory of mind). The notion of empathy as a process of
brain functioning is a rather new concept in brain science, but recent
advances in the neuroscience of emotions indicates it is, indeed,
related to brain functioning. In fact, a meta‐analysis of the relationship
between empathy and executive functions had significant findings.
The study examined the two dimensions of empathy, cognitive empathy
and affective empathy, and found cognitive empathy to be closely
related to cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory
control, while affective empathy is closely related only to inhibitory
control (Yan et al., 2019).
4. Emotions and affective processes have enormous implications for
how students learn, how they access knowledge, and how they
apply knowledge beyond the classroom. Educators have long
recognized that it isn’t enough for students to master factual knowl-
edge. They also must be able to access higher level thinking processes
and apply the knowledge they’ve learned to real‐life situations and
circumstances. The overlap between cognition and emotion improves
higher level reasoning and rational thinking, but also contributes to
improved social and emotional decision making. Emotions and
affective processes should be a central component in every classroom,
not only to help students develop emotional literacy, but also to help
them apply these skills in a diversity of situations and circumstances.
Strategies that promote communication, cooperation, and problem
solving within the context of interpersonal learning can promote
students’ emotional development, as well as their cognitive
development.
TEST YOURSELF
1. This type of intelligence is learned through social experiences and is

similar to Gardner’s “interpersonal intelligence.”
(a) Emotional intelligence
(b) Social intelligence
(c) Cultural intelligence
2. The process in which the brain and all its structures are shaped prior to
birth occurs in a series of elaborate and complex stages that occur in a
sequential, step‐by‐step order.
(a) True
(b) False
3. The entire nervous system originates from this structure.
(a) Spinal cord
(b) Neural tube
(c) Neural plate
4. During the prenatal period and early infancy, the brain produces many
more neurons and synaptic connections than will be needed.These
unused neurons and connections will be eliminated by a process known
as what?
(a) Pruning
(b) Twining
(c) Consolidation
5. What is the brain’s center for memory?
(a) Hypothalamus
(b) Hippocampus
(c) Amygdala
6. The frontal lobes of the brain are best known for their role in control-
ling what?
(a) Inhibitory responses
(b) Memory
(c) Executive functions
7. Much of the thought processes in a teenager’s brain are based on
feelings rather than on rational thinking.
(a) True
(b) False
8. The application of executive functions involves three primary brain

functions.These are:
(a) Cognitive flexibility, working memory, inhibitory control
(b) Attentional control, long‐term memory, self‐regulation
(c) Cognitive restructuring, facilitated memory, inhibitory functioning
9. The underpinning of social competence involves the development of
this complex emotional skill. What is it?
(a) Self‐awareness
(b) Empathy
(c) Affective regulation
10. Brain development and its relationship with cognitive and emotional
processes have significant implications for the support of SEL in
educating young people. Which of these is an important implication?
(a) Emotional intelligence is more important than cognitive intelligence.
(b) Emotional development is more dependent upon genetics than it is on
environmental influences.
(c) Emotions and affective processes have enormous implications for how
students learn, how they access knowledge, and how they apply
knowledge beyond the classroom.
Answers: 1, b; 2, b; 3, c; 4, a; 5, b; 6, c; 7, a; 8, a; 9, b; 10, c.
REFERENCES
Beldoch, M. (1964). Sensitivity to expression of emotional meaning in three

modes of communication. In J. R. Davitz & M. Beldoch, The communica-
tion of emotional meaning (pp. 31–42). McGraw‐Hill.
Blumenfeld, H., & Gummadavelli, A. (2018). Thalamus. In Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/thalamus
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (n.d.). Brain architec-
ture. Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key‐
concepts/brain‐architecture/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Facts about neural tube
defects. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/facts‐about‐neural‐tube‐
defects.html
Feifer, S., & Rattan, G. (2009). Emotional disorders: A neuropsychological,
psychopharmacological, and educational perspective. School Neuropsych Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. Basic Books.
Gilkerson, L., & Klein, R. (2008). Early development and the brain: Teaching
resources for educators. Zero to Three.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.
Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships.
Bantam.
Gould, E. (2007). How widespread is adult neurogenesis in mammals? Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 8(6), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2147
Immordino‐Yang, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel therefore we learn: The
relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and
Education, 1(1).
Immordino‐Yang, M., Darling‐Hammond, L., & Krone, C. (2018). The brain
basis for integrated social, emotional, and academic development: How emotions
and social relationships drive learning. Aspen Institute National Commission on
Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. https://www.aspeninstitute.
org/publications/the‐brain‐basis‐for‐integrated‐social‐emotional‐and‐academic‐
development/
Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences. (1992). Discovering
the brain. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1785
LaRossa, M., & Carter, S. (n.d.). Understanding how the brain develops. Emory
University School of Medicine. https://med.emory.edu/departments/
pediatrics/divisions/neonatology/dpc/brain.html
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425–431.
Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, S., Matsudaira, P., Baltimore, D., & Darnell, J.
(2000). Molecular cell biology (4th ed.). W. H. Freeman. https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21535/
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability
or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63(6), 503–517.
Moritz‐Saladina, A. (2017, January 20). 25 facts about your gray matter you
should know. Brainscape.
https://www.brainscape.com/blog/2012/03/facts‐about‐your‐gray‐matter/
Rosso, I., Young, A., Femia, L., & Yurgelun‐Todd, D. (2004). Cognitive and
emotional components of frontal lobe functioning in childhood and
adolescence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 355–362.
https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1308.045
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Sousa, D. (2017). How the brain learns (5th ed.). Corwin Press.
Sparks, S. (2019). Why teacher‐student relationships matter: New findings shed

light on best approaches. Education Week, 38(25), 8. https://www.edweek.
org/ew/articles/2019/03/13/why‐teacher‐student‐relationships‐matter.html
von Bartheld, C., Bahney, J., & Herculano‐Houzel, S. (2016). The search for
true numbers of neurons and glial cells in the human brain: A review of 150
years of cell counting. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 524(18), 3865–3895.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.24040
Wikipedia. (2020a, July 24). Emotional intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Wikipedia. (2020b, July 5). Reuven Bar‐On. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Reuven_Bar‐On
Wycoff, K., & Franzese, B. (2019). Essentials of trauma‐informed assessment and
intervention in school and community settings. Wiley.
Yan, Z., Hong, S., Liu, F., & Su, Y. (2020). A meta‐analysis of the relationship
between empathy and executive function. PsyCh Journal, 9(1), 34–43.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.311
Yeates, K. O., Bigler, E. D., Dennis, M., Gerhardt, C. A., Rubin, K. H.,
Stancin, T., Taylor, H. G., & Vannatta, K. (2007). Social outcomes in
childhood brain disorder: A heuristic integration of social neuroscience and
developmental psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 535–556. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.133.3.535
Yuhas, D., & Jabr, F. (2012, June 13). Know your neurons: What is the
ratio of glia to neurons in the brain? Scientific American. https://blogs.
scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/know‐your‐neurons‐what‐is‐the‐ratio‐of‐
glia‐to‐neurons‐in‐the‐brain/
Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2016). Executive function:
Implications for education (NCER 2017‐2000). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov
SECTION II
SEL – THE MISSING LINK IN

EDUCATION
Four
CURRENT CHALLENGES
IN EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
Societies have long recognized the role education plays in the welfare of a nation and
its people. Education drives economic growth, prosperity, and progress, while reduc-
ing poverty and deprivation within a society. Despite understanding the critical
importance of education, the development and provision of quality educational
opportunities for all children remain a challenge for many countries and have
reached crisis levels in many parts of the world. The severity of the crisis isn’t con-
fined to developing or low-income countries, or even countries where conflict exists,
although it is greatest in these countries. The crisis has penetrated even the wealthiest
of nations. As will be explored further in this chapter, the root problem underlying
this global education crisis doesn’t
appear to be due to a lack of recog-
CAUTION
nition or effort. Rather, it appears
to be because students aren’t learn- The global education crisis is not due to a
ing, despite enormous efforts to lack of effort. Rather, it is due to a lack of
learning, and at its very core is a teaching
build education systems and pro-
crisis.
vide educational opportunities. As
85
stated in a report from the World Bank (2019), “While countries have significantly
increased access to education, being in school isn’t the same thing as learning.”
The education crisis is so central to global development that the World Bank
Group, for the first time in its history, devoted its entire 2018 World Development
Report to the subject of education. Overall, there are three main messages pre-
sented in the report: (a) Schooling is not the same as learning; (b) schooling
without learning is not just a wasted opportunity, but a great injustice; and (c)
there is nothing inevitable about low learning in low-and middle-income coun-
tries (World Bank, 2018b).
The report offers an intense examination of the learning crisis and concludes
that at its very core is a teaching crisis. It is reasoned that, given the essential role
teachers play in the learning process, education systems must recognize the impor-
tance of training, supporting, and equipping teachers to do their jobs. Yet, there
often are many issues that interfere with teaching and learning or that prevent them
from happening, thus contributing to the learning crisis. These issues have been
categorized along three dimensions and are summarized in Rapid Reference 4.1.
Rapid Reference 4.1

Three Dimensions of the Learning Crisis
The global crisis in education isn’t because countries have failed to develop educa-
tional opportunities. In the last several decades, more low-income countries and
developing nations have been investing in education systems than ever before.The
crisis isn’t about lacking the opportunity for an education. Rather, it is a learning crisis.
Too many students in too many countries are not learning, despite being provided an
education.The crisis can be categorized along the following three dimensions:
Learning outcomes
In the past several decades, education has expanded in countries around the
world, and more students are enrolled in schools and completing more years of
schooling than ever before. However, the skills and knowledge they have learned
have been insufficient. In developing countries, for example, students in the
education system learn very little before completing primary school, and their
learning deficits are further magnified throughout the later school years. In
these countries, average students perform worse than 95% of all students in
high-income countries. For disadvantaged students in these developing countries,
the crisis is further amplified. Even when these students remain in school, they
show very little progress from year to year.
Although some progress has been shown, the progress has been slow. The same
is true for middle-income countries, where significant gains have been recorded
CURRENT CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION 87
over the past 10–15 years. Despite these gains, students in these countries continue
to fall behind the performance of students in high-income countries. Perhaps the
most distressing news, however, is the performance of students in all countries (low-,
middle-, and high-income) who have participated in the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) since 2003 (OECD, 2018b). Performance
on this measure shows that the median gain in the national average score from one
round to the next was zero.
While progress has been slow, it is still better than no schooling at all, which is the
primary problem in many low-and lower-middle-income countries. In 2016, about
61 million children of primary school age in these countries were not enrolled in
school, along with about 202 million children of secondary school age. A dispropor-
tionate share of these students (over a third) were from fragile countries or
countries where conflict existed. Poverty and conflict were not the only reasons
these students were not in school. The learning crisis itself was cited as part of the
problem. Parents who perceived schooling to be of low quality were less likely to
send their children to school. Although other factors were noted, such as the
physical condition of the school or teacher punctuality, student learning outcomes
were the primary reasons cited by these parents.
Immediate causes
There are four leading factors with which many education systems struggle. These
are prepared learners, effective teaching, learning-focused inputs, and the skilled
management and governance that pull everything together. These four factors are
inextricably linked and must be judiciously coordinated to prevent links from
breaking. Typically, the causes for low learning are more pronounced in marginalized
communities, but all systems struggle with one or more of these key ingredients.
They are described as follows:
a. Prepared learners: Children are not being prepared to learn. Causes may vary,
but generally they include low parental involvement, illness, malnutrition, and poor
environmental conditions resulting from poverty. Children affected by these
circumstances lack the foundational readiness needed to fully benefit from education,
even in good schools.These disadvantages lead to lower levels of learning, and it
becomes harder to break out of this trajectory as the children get older.
b. Effective teaching: Teachers are the most critical factor in learning, but most
education systems struggle to provide effective instruction. Recruitment and
maintenance of effective instructional staff are primary factors. Applicants with
strong backgrounds are not attracted to the education system. There are various
reasons for this, some of which include low pay, poor job satisfaction, and
insufficient support from management. As a result, education systems struggle to
maintain high-quality staff who have the knowledge and pedagogical skills
needed for high-quality instruction. The impact of this is significant. In the United
States, for example, students with high-quality teachers advance 1.5 grade levels
or more over a single school year, compared with just a half grade level for
those with ineffective teachers.
c. Learning-focused inputs: Although this is only a small part of the learning

crisis, it is a contributing factor. Lack of resources or inequitable access to
resources impacts the quality of education students receive. This, in turn, affects
the learning outcomes for these students. In many circumstances, bureaucratic
issues lead to delays in receiving resources, Often, even when resources are
available, they may be outdated, especially technology resources. In some
situations, teachers may not be adept at using the resources, so they remain
unused in the classroom.
d. Skilled management and governance: While effective school leadership
does not directly raise learning outcomes, it has an indirect impact on teaching
quality and the effective use of resources. School leadership that is not actively
involved in supporting teachers, providing instructional advice, or setting goals
that prioritize learning frequently results in lower learning outcomes for
students. Furthermore, the lack of meaningful school governance, poor
oversight, and insufficient involvement of community stakeholders impact what
happens in the classroom.
Systemic causes
Deeper causes of poor student learning, as viewed from a systems perspective, suggest that
the complexities of education systems and the limited management capabilities of these
systems underlie many of the poor outcomes observed. Inadequate coordination of efforts
and the lack of reliable and valid metrics fail to provide the necessary feedback for effective
improvement. Furthermore, technicalities and political forces frequently pull education systems
out of alignment with learning.
Source: World Bank. (2018b). World development report 2018: Learning to realize educa-
tion’s promise. World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1. License: Creative Commons
Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. (This is an adaptation of an original work by the World Bank.
Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author of
the adaptation and are not endorsed by the World Bank.)
The threat posed by the learning crisis is not only a threat to education but
also, more importantly, a threat to all future global development. History has
long proven that an investment in education is an investment in the future
because it is an investment in something called human capital. Economists refer
to human capital as the knowledge, skills, and health that humans accumulate
over a lifetime, which influence their earnings potential and productive capacity.
It isn’t something that can be quantified on a company’s balance sheet. Without
human capital, social cohesiveness is not sustainable. A society’s economy is deter-
mined by its human capital, which is driven by an investment in its education. In
order to obtain a high return on that investment, however, learning must occur.
In other words, simply providing an education is insufficient. Acquisition of
knowledge and skills also must be ensured; otherwise, it undermines and weakens
the human capital needed to grow and sustain world economies.
To measure human capital, the World Bank launched the Human Capital
Index in 2018. The index can be used to project the amount of human capital a
child might expect to attain by age 18 when calculated at birth. The index is
based on risks of poor health and educational opportunities that prevail in a
child’s country at the time of her or his birth. Using the index, for example, it was
calculated that for children born throughout the world on October 11, 2018,
about 56% would lose half their potential lifetime earnings because governments
were not effectively investing in their learning and in the skills needed for the
future workplace (World Bank, 2018a).
The learning crisis is not
hopeless, however, and change is DON’T FORGET
possible, but systems must take Human capital can’t be quantified on a
learning seriously and must com- company’s balance sheet. It consists of the
mit to the kind of change that knowledge, skills, and health that humans
will promote learning. Processes, accumulate over a lifetime, and it is what
resources, and shared responsi- drives a society’s economy. Although invest-
bilities will need to be aligned to ing in education increases human capital,
prioritize learning. An invest- learning is what ensures a high return on
that investment.
ment in teachers will be an abso-
lute necessity, as they are the
backbone of education. Not only
will teachers need to be properly equipped to teach, they also will need to be better
trained and provided with opportunities for ongoing professional development.
Management will need to support teachers with instructional advice, problem
solving, and a prioritized focus on learning for all students. Technology is rapidly
driving changes in the workplace, so students will need to be prepared for these
changes, and systems will need to commit to the resources that will be needed. In
addition, a well-rounded approach to education that incorporates SEL and focuses
on the whole child can help address many of the identified barriers to learning.
The diversity of each system will dictate the changes that are needed, and, inevi-
tably, each will present a unique set of challenges. Some of these will cut across all
countries, populations, and income levels, while others will be specific to each sys-
tem. While there is no one solution for all, there are common issues confronting
every education system. These issues are interconnected and often interwoven into
the fabric of the education system. Thus, they must be viewed from a systems per-
spective. Although the issues identified in this chapter are not an exhaustive list, they
are the ones posing the greatest challenges for global, national, and local education
systems. Thus, they will be the focus of the remainder of this chapter.
CURRENT ISSUES IN EDUCATION

Mental Health and Trauma
Schools around the world have long struggled to manage students with mental
health problems. Worldwide, approximately 10–20% of children and adolescents
experience a mental health disorder, with half of these beginning by the age of 14
and three quarters beginning by the mid-20s (World Health Organization, n.d.-b).
Mental health problems among adolescents are a global concern. Suicide and
accidental death from self-harm were the third leading cause of adolescent mor-
tality in 2015. Globally, it is the second leading cause of death for older adoles-
cent girls and is the leading or second cause of adolescent death in Europe and
Southeast Asia (World Health Organization, 2017). Although these estimates are
alarming, there’s a very good probability that the prevalence rate is even higher
because the availability of global data for mental disorders is scarce. Only two
thirds of countries in the world collect any data on mental disorders, and those
that do fail to collect data (or disaggregate data) for children and adolescents.
Currently, adolescents aged 10–19 years are the largest adolescent population
in human history, representing more than 16% of the world’s population.
Investing in their well-being is of critical importance for the global future, but
collecting quality data to inform and prioritize needs has been plagued by inef-
ficiencies and duplicated efforts (Guthold et al., 2019). To help address these
problems, the World Health Organization (n.d.-b) collaborated with the United
Nations Global Health Partnership H6 (UN H6) to establish the Global Action
for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) Advisory Group (Guthold
et al., 2019). The goal of this group was to bring together existing data collection
efforts and identify a process for collecting and reporting quality indicators of
adolescent health that can help track the progress of health improvement. To
assist with the data collection and reporting issue, the United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF) collaborated with a group of experts to develop and validate an
instrument known as the Measurement of Mental Health Among Adolescents at
the Population Level (MMAP). An eight-step cross-cultural validation process
for the instrument began in June 2019, and field testing was underway in South
Africa and Kenya at the time of this writing (UNICEF, 2019, 2020). It is believed
that the instrument will be useful in assessing the global prevalence of mental
illness among children ages 10 to 19 years and provide standardized data for
specific areas of concern, such as anxiety and depression, functional impairment
due to mental health conditions, and suicide ideation and attempt. The MMAP
is intended for use in household surveys; thus, it may prove useful in collecting
the much-needed population-level data on adolescent mental health.
Access to mental health data

for children and adolescents, DON’T FORGET
while it may only exist for spe- Currently, adolescents from 10 to 19 years
cific subgroups of the popula- of age represent 16% of the total world
tion, is less challenging in population, which is the largest adolescent
high-income countries than it is population in history.
in low-and middle- income
countries. This is primarily
because the education and healthcare systems in high-income countries are more
apt to have mechanisms in place for the systematic collection of data. In these
countries, data collection is often policy driven, but also may be collected in
conjunction with studies or research, which are likely to be funded by the govern-
ment or through private grants. Even in these circumstances, however, there may
be variances in how the data are collected, what methods and tools are used to
collect the data, and what specific populations are being measured. Thus, the
data that are collected and analyzed may not be useful for comparative purposes
and frequently are extrapolated for other purposes and circumstances.
The prevalence of childhood mental health disorders has been a growing
global concern for several decades. In the United States, for example, a public
crisis in mental healthcare for children and adolescents was reported by the U.S.
Public Health Service in 2000, more than 20 years ago. Yet, there’s been very little
progress toward containing it, and the crisis has silently grown as witnessed in the
ever-increasing prevalence of anxiety and depression in young people. A recent
analysis of data obtained from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health
was conducted by Ghandour et al. (2019). The purpose of the analysis was to
determine an estimate of national prevalence rates for anxiety and depression
among children ages 3 to 17 years old. Based on parent reports of healthcare
provider diagnoses, the study found that among this age group, 7.1% (approxi-
mately 4.4 million) had been diagnosed with anxiety and 3.2% (approximately
1.9 million) had been diagnosed with depression (p. 258). The study further
indicated that the estimated prevalence was higher than previously reported from
other surveys (p. 265). In terms of treatment for the mental health of young
people, another study analyzed the same data from the 2016 National Survey of
Children’s Health, and it was estimated that about 7.7 million children in the
United States were diagnosed with a treatable mental health disorder, but only
about half of these children received any type of mental health treatment
(Whitney & Peterson, 2019).
Perhaps the most troubling statistic on mental health in the United States is
the alarming increase in the rate of adolescent deaths by suicide. For young
eople ages 10 to 24 years, the suicide rate climbed 56% between 2007 and
p
2017, as illustrated in Figure 4.1 (Curtin & Heron, 2019). The greatest increase,
however, was seen among those ages 15 to 24 years, with the rate rising by 76%
(p. 3). Suicide was the second leading cause of death among this age group during
that 10-year period (p. 5). The increase in numbers of suicide deaths for all young
people ages 10 to 24 years is shown in Figure 4.2.
A closer examination of the suicide rate among young people in the United
States reveals a disturbing pattern of concern for specific subgroups. Suicide
deaths are highest among Alaska Natives and American Indian populations. It is
the second leading cause of death and 2.5 times the national rate for youth in
the 15-to 24-year-old age group for these populations. Between one in nine
American Indian youth and one in five Alaska Native youth report attempting
suicide each year (Aspen Institute, 2016). A regional analysis of suicide among
Alaska Natives was conducted from 1999 to 2009, and results showed that
17.0%
16.1%
15.1%
14.2%
13.7%
13.7%
13.6%
13.6%
12.7%
12.6%
12.6%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.4%
12.3%
12.1%
11.9%
2011
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Figure 4.1 Percentages of Suicides for Ages 10–24 From 2000 to 2017. Note: Rates are
per 100,000 population enumerated as of April 1 for 2000 and 2010 and estimated as of
July 1 for all other years. Source: Data from Curtin, S.C., & Heron, M. (2019). Death
rates due to suicide and homicide among persons aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2017
[Data table for Figure 1. Suicide and homicide death rates among persons aged 10–24:
United States, 2000–2017] (Data Brief No. 352). Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
products/databriefs/db352.htm.
4,000
3,500
3,000
Numbers 2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Year
Figure 4.2 Number of Suicides for Ages 10–24 From 2000 to 2017. Note: Rates are
per 100,000 population enumerated as of April 1 for 2000 and 2010 and estimated as of
July 1 for all other years. Source: Data from Curtin, S.C., & Heron, M. (2019). Death
rates due to suicide and homicide among persons aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2017
[Data table for Figure 1. Suicide and homicide death rates among persons aged 10–24:
United States, 2000–2017] (Data Brief No. 352). Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
products/databriefs/db352.htm.
people younger than 44 years

old had a suicide rate that was DON’T FORGET
five times higher than that of In the United States, deaths from suicide
White Americans (Ordóñez & are highest among Alaska Natives and
Collins, 2015). American Indian populations (ages 15–24).
Since 1991, data on risk- It is 2.5 times the national rate and is the
taking behaviors for adolescents second leading cause of death for these
in the United States have been groups of young people.
collected by the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). These behaviors are monitored every 2 years through the Youth Risk
Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), which uses school-based surveys that
are administered to a representative sample of ninth through 12th grade stu-
dents during the spring semester of the school year. Results are compiled and
released in the year following the survey administration and include national,
state, territorial, tribal government, and local data. Among the behaviors moni-
tored during each survey year are suicide-related behaviors. A comparison of
results from the past two survey periods, 2017 and 2019, indicates an increase
in suicide- related behaviors among high school students (see Figure 4.3).
Furthermore, the most recent results from 2019 confirm a growing trend in the
prevalence of suicide-related behaviors among this age group since 2009, as
illustrated in Figure 4.4 (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020).
The public health crisis in children’s and adolescent’s mental health has con-
tinued to fester since it was first recognized by the U.S. Public Health Service in
2000 and, at the time of this writing, anxiety, depression, and suicide were at an
all-time high among youth. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is projected to
have an exponential impact on this crisis, further increasing and exacerbating
2017* (%) 2019* (%)

Behavior Male Female Total Male Female Total
• Felt sad or hopeless (almost every

day for 2 or more weeks in a row
so they stopped doing some usual 21.4 41.1 31.5 26.8 46.6 36.7
activities during the 12 months
prior to the survey)
• Seriously considered attempting

suicide (during the 12 months 11.9 22.1 17.2 13.3 24.1 18.8
before the survey)
• Had a plan about how they would

9.7 17.1 13.6 11.3 19.9 15.7
attempt suicide
• Actually attempted suicide 5.1 9.3 7.4 6.6 11.0 8.9
• Suicide attempt resulted in an

injury, poisoning, or overdose that
had to be treated by a doctor or 1.5 3.1 2.4 1.7 3.3 2.5
nurse(during the 12 months before
the survey)
Figure 4.3 Summary of Results for Suicide-Related Behaviors for the Years 2017 and
2019 From Data Collected Through the CDC’s National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys.
*Surveys were administered to a representative sample of students in grades 9 through 12
during the spring semesters of 2017 and 2019. Source: Data from Ivey-Stephenson, A.,
Demissie, Z., Crosby, A., Stone, D., Gaylor, E., Wilkins, N., Lowry, R., & Brown, M.
(2020). Suicidal ideation and behaviors among high school students: Youth Risk Behavior
Survey, United States 2019. MMWR, 69(1). Division of Injury Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted
without permission.)
10
9
8 8.9
8.6
7 8.0
7.8 7.4
6
6.3
5
%
4
3
2
1
0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
Figure 4.4 Percentage of High School Students Who Attempted Suicide From 2009 to
2019*. *One or more times during the 12 months before the survey. Source: Data from
Ivey-Stephenson, A., Demissie, Z., Crosby, A., Stone, D., Gaylor, E., Wilkins, N., Lowry,
R., & Brown, M. (2020). Suicidal ideation and behaviors among high school students:
Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States 2019. MMWR, 69(1). Division of Injury
Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. (All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and
may be used and reprinted without permission.)
mental illness among children and adolescents. The profound effect of economic
devastation and social isolation on children’s mental health will be of utmost
concern throughout the world. Disturbing projections about increased domestic
violence, parental mental illness, and child abuse will further intensify the impact.
The effects of the pandemic are unprecedented and are expected to deliver the
most significant blow to vulnerable subgroups of children, including disadvan-
taged youth, youth with disabilities, and youth of color, among others. For youth
with a history of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), for example, there’s a
higher probability that the impact will be more devastating, and the potential for
long-term negative effects on these youngsters is extremely high.
As was discussed in Chapter 2, ACEs represent a range of traumatic events that
can have harmful consequences on later physical development and mental health in
adulthood. Likewise, they can impact an individual’s day-to-day functioning and
ability to learn. Therefore, it is critical for educators to have a better understanding
of the powerful influence that adversity and stress can have on the lives of children,
adolescents, and their families.

The more adversities experienced, CAUTION
the greater the influence on devel- The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to
opment and functioning. The have the most significant and long-term
demand for trauma- informed negative impact on certain subgroups of
teaching practices is now greater children, including disadvantaged youth,
than it has ever been and can help youth with disabilities, and youth of color.
mitigate the negative effects
resulting from these traumas.
While all youth will experience some degree of trauma from the COVID-19
pandemic, not all will experience the same level of distress. There are various
factors that can influence this experience, among them being the home envi-
ronment and the amount of adult support provided. Children and adolescents
living in a stable and supportive environment and having access to resources,
technology, and supports are less likely to experience as high a degree of
trauma from the event. In the absence of these factors, however, and in the
presence of negative, distressing circumstances such as poverty, family discord,
and lack of adult supports, there is a much higher risk that the experience will
be more traumatizing.
Although the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children
and adolescents is yet to be known, clearly there will be an increased need
for social and emotional supports in schools and communities. As young
people return to school, the likelihood of increased behavior problems and
difficulties managing emotions will be substantial. Students will need to be
re-engaged with the learning environment and the learning process before
re-learning of academics can occur. Creating school climates that are posi-
tive, nurturing, and supportive and embedding SEL strategies in the instruc-
tional program can help mitigate the long-term impact of this crisis on
students and staff.
School Safety
Maintaining safe school environments for students and staff has been a key con-
cern for parents, educators, policy makers, and community members for the past
several decades. The p revalence of violence among young people between the
ages of 10 and 24 years has become excessive, making it a leading cause of death
and nonfatal injuries in the United States. Young people in this age group die
from external causes more than from any other cause (see Figure 4.5). In 2017,
homicide was the third leading cause of death for persons aged 10–24 years, the
Stroke 0.6
Influenza and pneumonia 0.7
CLRD 0.7 Other
Diabetes 0.8 13.4
Congenital
malformations 1.5 2.9
Unintentional
Heart disease Cancer
injuries
5.1
40.6
Homicide
14.4
Suicide
19.2
Figure 4.5 Percentage Distribution of the 10 Leading Causes of Death for Ages 10–24:
United States, 2017. Source: Heron, M. (2019). Deaths: Leading causes for 2017.
National Vital Statistics Reports, 68(6), 10. National Center for Health Statistics.
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/79488. (This material is in the public domain and may
be reproduced or copied without permission.)
fourth leading cause for ages 1–9 years, and the fifth leading cause for persons
aged 25–44 years (Heron, 2019).
School safety issues and causes of school violence in the United States have
been studied and examined for many years, but federal action to address these
concerns didn’t emerge until the
1970s. During these earlier
years, causes were primarily DON’T FORGET
linked to youth crime and drug SEL and a positive school climate can help
use, and the federal response was mitigate the long-term impact of crises on
to pass legislation addressing students and staff.
juvenile delinquency and the use
of drugs and alcohol. These fed-
eral efforts intensified in the 1980s as drug and alcohol abuse increased and the
need to combat a national cocaine epidemic became an urgent concern. It wasn’t
until the 1990s, however, that weapons and gangs in schools rose to the forefront
of school safety concerns. With the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994,
federal assistance was made available to local education agencies, but only if they
adopted “zero tolerance” discipline policies (Brock et al., 2018). It was during
this same year that Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 and renamed it. The newly named legislation included a
new school safety program known as the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities (Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994).
Although data collected in the late 1990s suggested schools were becoming safer,
school shootings began to increase in number and frequency, which prompted more
concerns but still little understanding about the underlying causes of such violence.
Then in 1999, a shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, resulted
in the deaths of 14 students, including the two assailants, and one teacher (Columbine
High School massacre, 2020). This pressured the federal government to take a closer
look at school shooters and examine their patterns of thoughts and behaviors. A study
led by the U.S. Secret Service culminated in the publication of a threat assessment
guide to help schools manage threats and create safe school climates (Vossekuil et al.,
2004). Although the report identified early warning signs and prevention efforts, it
did little to improve access to mental health services in schools. Instead, it stimulated
legislation that led to increased funding for school resource officers. While school
shootings continued to be a growing concern, national statistics on school safety and
youth violence were steadily trending downward. As more school shootings occurred,
the vulnerability of school buildings was highlighted, as was the need for schools to
have emergency management plans. It wasn’t until December 2012, however, when
20 first graders and six staff members were killed in a school shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut (Sandy Hook Elementary School
shooting, 2020), that the need for mental health services in schools was recognized as
a possible deterrent to school violence.
The number of school shootings in the United States have continued to esca-
late, and the associated unease has led many states to implement policy changes
related to school safety. At least 43 states and the District of Columbia require a
school safety plan in statute or regulation, and at least 29 states and the District
of Columbia require law enforcement agencies to be involved in the creation of
the school safety plan. In addition, at least 42 states require schools to conduct
safety or security drills in state statute or regulation, while the remaining states
may require drills through handbooks, guides, or other rules (Macdonald &
Perez, 2019). Many policy changes also have included funding to address school
building vulnerabilities, the hiring of school resource officers, and the implemen-
tation of crisis response teams. In addition, some state policies have required
schools to conduct threat assessments to identify potential risks and/or underly-
ing mental health threats that can stimulate violent behavior.
In addition to concerns about school shootings, bullying rates have continued
to rise in schools throughout the United States. Despite years of guidance from the
U.S. Department of Education and implementation of programs directed at bul-
lying prevention, rates have increased by 35% from 2016 to 2019. Over half the
students surveyed said they had been bullied at school during the 30 days prior to
the survey (Patchin, 2019). Prevention efforts have fallen grossly short in curtail-
ing this epidemic, largely due to a failure to address school climate and culture,
where the social dynamics of bullying are typically embedded. Schools that have
recognized these dynamics and have taken on the hard work to reform their school
climate and culture have found it to be an effective prosocial effort for violence
prevention. According to Thapa (2013), school climate reform supports effective
violence prevention in general and bullying prevention efforts in particular. A
positive climate and culture are the foundations for a quality learning environ-
ment, and schools throughout the world are recognizing and appreciating these as
viable strategies for promoting safer, more supportive schools. Understanding the
distinctions between the two, however, is necessary for effecting change.
School culture generally refers to the message sent to students through words,
actions, and beliefs. This message influences every aspect of how a school functions.
A school’s culture is shaped by its customs and practices, its traditions, its sense of
community, and its history, and is reflective of the values of the school community.
These values are observed in how people treat one another, in how engaged stu-
dents and families are with the school, in whether there are equitable opportunities
for all students, and in the unwritten rules and expectations of the school. They also
are reflected in the policies and procedures of the school. In short, school culture is
the personality of a school.
School climate is how a school looks and feels. It is the “temperature” of a
school, and it reflects the norms,
attitudes, spirit, and morale of a
school. Visitors to schools that DON’T FORGET
have a positive school climate The U.S. Department of Education has
report feeling genuinely welcome provided years of guidance and resources
and all stakeholders (staff, stu- to schools to help combat bullying. Despite
dents, parents, families, and these efforts, the rate of bullying increased
community members) share a by 35% from 2016 to 2019.
common vision for the school.
Research on school climate indicates there are five critical areas of focus shown to
be effective in promoting a positive school climate. These are (a) safety (social,
emotional, intellectual, and physical), (b) relationships, (c) teaching and learning,
(d) institutional environment, and (e) school climate, the processes of school
improvement (Thapa et al., 2012). It’s also important to understand that school
climate is determined by a school’s culture, and while both can be shaped and
changed, it is easier to change a school’s climate than it is to change a school’s
culture. Both, however, are crucial for creating optimal learning conditions where
staff and students feel accepted, supported, and safe.
The positive impact of school climate and culture has been clearly demonstrated
in the research conducted by the National School Climate Center (Thapa et al.,
2012), but sustaining these efforts will remain a critical priority for schools in the
coming years. Considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children’s

mental health and emotional functioning, the concern for school safety will take on
an inconceivably new meaning. In this new era of education, there will be an added
dimension to the concept of physical safety. It will be critical and necessary for
schools to make environmental and behavioral adjustments. School administrators
will need to seek guidance on how schools can protect the health, safety, and well-
being of their students, staff, and families (CDC, 2020a, 2020b). Some of the safety
measures, among others, will need to include wearing cloth face coverings (every-
one), using proper hand hygiene, social distancing, frequent cleaning and disinfect-
ing of often-touched surfaces, monitoring for fever and upper respiratory symptoms,
repurposing areas of the school building to increase space and facilitate social dis-
tancing, having a proactive plan for when a student or staff member tests positive for
the virus, and developing a plan with the state and local health department to con-
duct contact tracing in the event of a positive case. In addition to these physical and
behavioral adjustments, schools also will play a critical role in supporting the social
and emotional needs of their students, many of whom will have experienced varying
degrees of distress from traumatic experiences related to the pandemic.
Equitable Educational Opportunities

The success of every society is inextricably linked to the educational opportuni-
ties afforded its citizens, but when there are inequities in those opportunities,
the results can be costly, both socially and economically. This section will explore
some of the underlying issues that contribute to and sustain educational inequi-
ties. These issues will be examined from a pre-pandemic perspective since the
impact of COVID-19 on educational inequities has yet to be fully determined.
Before examining issues impacting educational inequity, however, it’s important
to distinguish the term equity from equality. While these two terms are often
used interchangeably, they are different in meaning. The UNESCO Institute for
Statistics (UIS) defines equality as “the state of being equal in terms of quantity,
rank, status, value or degree,” while equity is defined as “considers the social
justice ramifications of educa-
tion in relation to the fairness,
DON’T FORGET
justness and impartiality of its
distribution at all levels or edu- The COVID-19 pandemic will require
cational sub- sectors” (2018). schools to look at physical safety through
a different lens. Additional safety measures
According to these definitions,
will need to be addressed by school
educational equity does not administrators and/or school safety teams.
mean the same as educational
equality. Therefore, for this writing, the term equity will be used in a manner
that is consistent with the UIS definition. In other words, equity will be used to
refer to a distribution that is fair or justified, but how people make that judg-
ment will vary (p. 17).
One of the strongest predic-
tors of educational equity and
educational attainment is socio- CAUTION
economic status, yet for students
A distinction between equity and equality
living in poverty, it is the greatest is very important when discussing educa-
barrier and the most significant tional inequities. Equality means that things
contributor to the marginaliza- are distributed equally, while equity means
tion of these students. In a report that things are distributed fairly, justly, and
issued by the Organization for impartially.
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD, 2018a),
it was found that across its 37 member countries (which include the United
States), educational attainment has increased over the past decade, but educa-
tional inequities have persisted and even worsened. In the United States, for
example, billions of dollars have been spent over the past 20 years to address the
achievement gap associated with the socioeconomic disparities in the country.
The efforts to reform education, however, have done little to close the gap, as
demonstrated by the latest results from PISA (Schleicher, 2019). These results
show that student performance in the United States has remained about the same
since 2012 (p. 11). While there has been some improvement, it was only wit-
nessed in the top quarter of students. The bottom 10th percentile lost ground, so
the aggregate performance for all students kept the country’s ranking stagnant
and with a widening achievement gap. These results are consistent with the dis-
tribution of wealth and opportunity in the United States. In other words, the
educational divide is beginning to mirror the economic divide, suggesting that
policy reforms have been largely ineffective and have served to enhance opportu-
nities for the best students while doing little to help struggling students.
An examination of national
wealth and how much is spent
DON’T FORGET
on education reveals large vari-
ances in what the wealthiest Despite spending billions of dollars on edu-
countries in the world spend to cational reform, the achievement gap has
only widened in the United States, and the
support their education systems.
educational divide is beginning to mirror
The OECD uses two measures the economic divide.
to compare how much countries
spend on education. One measure examines the country’s expenditures on edu-

cational institutions as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product
(GDP), which is how a country’s wealth is measured. This allows for a compari-
son of all countries’ expenditures relevant to each country’s ability to finance
education. The other measure examines a country’s expenditures on public and
private education institutions per full-time equivalent (FTE) student. This meas-
ure allows for a comparison of how many dollars are spent per FTE student in
each country (based on constant 2018 U.S. dollars).
Using the GDP method to compare expenditures among all 37 member
countries of the OECD, it was found that the average amount spent by all coun-
tries in 2015 was about 5% of their GDP (OECD, 2018a). Wide differences in
spending were noted between the countries, and the United States was shown to
be spending slightly more than the average amount (p. 260). Using the FTE
method to compare expenditures among countries, it was found that in 2016 the
average amount spent by all countries on elementary and secondary education was
$9,800 per FTE student, and at the postsecondary level it was $16,200 per FTE
student (Hussar et al., 2020). The United States spent $13,600 per FTE student
at the elementary and secondary level, which was 39% higher than the average of
the OECD member countries. At the postsecondary level, the United States
spent $31,600 per FTE student, which was 95% higher than the average of
OECD countries (p. 268).
While funding is critical for sustaining education, it does not guarantee
educational equality. In another study conducted by the Office of Research for
the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF, 2018), an examination of
educational inequalities in 41 of the richest countries in the world found
degrees of inequality across three stages of education: preschool, primary
school, and secondary school. Each country was ranked by equality at each
stage, then grouped into one of three groups at each stage (see Figure 4.6).
Based on these rankings, three countries ranked in the top third for all three
stages: Finland, Latvia, and Portugal. There also were three countries that
ranked in the bottom third for all three stages. These were Australia, New
Zealand, and Slovakia. The United States ranked in the bottom third for two
of the stages (preschool and primary school) and in the middle third for the
other stage (secondary school). Overall, the results showed there was no sys-
tematic relationship between a country’s wealth and any of the indicators of
equality in education, so some of the richer countries are faring worse than
some that are not as wealthy (UNICEF, 2018, p. 10).
As the study demonstrated, educational inequity isn’t always rooted in a
country’s wealth. An alternative suggestion is that it is more likely traced to
Preschool Primary School Secondary School
Rank Country
(rank) (rank) (rank)
1 Latvia 4= 2 1
2 Ireland 33 16 2
3 Spain 22 4 3
4 Denmark 17= 12 4
5 Estonia 31 5
6 Poland 4= 15 6
7 Croatia 24= 7
8 Japan 34 8
9 Canada 27 18 9
10 Slovenia 28 17 10
11 Finland 14 3 11
12 Portugal 8 8 12
13 Italy 15 6 13
14 Romania 39 14
15 Lithuania 1 13 15
16 United Kingdom 20 23 16
17 Republic of Korea 35 17
18 Switzerland 4= 18
19 Hungary 32 19 19
20 Norway 17= 7 20
21 Greece 29 21
22 Iceland 2= 22
23 Germany 23 20 23
24 United States 40 22 24
25 Sweden 16 11 25
26 Netherlands 10= 1 26
27 Czech Republic 38 10 27
28 Belgium 10= 9 28
29 Austria 10= 5 29
30 Australia 36 25 30
31 Cyprus 26 31
32 Slovakia 37 21 32
33 New Zealand 30 28 33
34 Luxembourg 13 34
35 France 2= 14 35
36 Israel 4= 27 36
37 Bulgaria 24= 26 37
38 Malta 17= 29 38
39 Chile 21 24
40 Mexico 9
41 Turkey 41
Figure 4.6 Inequality Across Three Stages of Education in 41 of the World’s Richest

Countries. Note: Light gray shading indicates a place in the top third of the ranking,
medium gray denotes the middle third, and dark gray the bottom third. The blank cells
indicate no data are available. Source: UNICEF Office of Research (2018). An unfair
start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card 15).
UNICEF Office of Research. (The UNICEF Office of Research allows any part of this
report to be freely reproduced.)
how resources are allocated. The United States is one example of how billions
of dollars have been spent on educational reform, with little resulting improve-
ment. There have been, and continue to be, large disparities between how
resources are allocated to high-poverty and low-poverty school districts. Schools
in affluent communities sometimes spend thousands more dollars per pupil
than those in poorer communities. School performance measures suggest a
clear connection between these inequitable resources and the performance out-
comes for these schools.
Other educational inequities
in the United States can be CAUTION
linked to changes in education
Educational inequity may not be due to a
policy. One example is that of
lack of resources as much as it is due to
school choice. While many how those resources are allocated.
states in the United States have
adopted education policies
allowing parents to make choices in where their children attend school, there
are many that have not. Growing concerns in the United States surrounding
this controversial issue have propelled it into the political arena, placing the
issue beyond the intent and scope of this writing. Therefore, it will be explored
only in the context of its role with educational inequity. Although there are
both pros and cons regarding school choice, perhaps the greatest criticism has
been about how these policies have forced schools to compete for much-needed
funds. As charter schools and voucher programs have expanded, traditional
public schools have had to reduce services, including enrichment programs and
sports. They’ve also had to raise local taxes. This negatively impacts the com-
munity at large and has a negative effect on home values as well. Proponents of
school choice argue that the funds lost by a public school when a student
chooses to leave that school are offset by the loss of expenses needed to educate
the student. However, data do not support this argument. Local public schools
in Van Wert County, Ohio, for example, have lost millions of dollars to local
charter schools. The funds have been taken from the public schools where the
largest percentage of students attend and have been sent to local charter schools,
amounting to an enormous loss to the public schools. As a result, the burden
for financing charter schools has shifted to local taxpayers, resulting in steep
increases in taxes. To make things worse, data on student performance indicate
that students in these charter schools performed worse than the students in the
public schools (Dyer, 2017).
While the intent of school choice policies is to provide choices for parents
and to encourage competition among schools, an unintended consequence is
that it has driven schools to compete for the best students, thus leaving dis-
proportionate numbers of struggling students attending low-income public
schools. Opponents of school choice programs argue that they use the admis-
sions process as a mechanism for selectively choosing which students they
will accept, thus selecting only those who are the easiest to educate. To
explore this possibility, Bergman and McFarlin conducted a field study of
charter schools and traditional public schools with intra- district school
choice (2020). The purpose of the study was to determine the schools’
response rates when parents inquired about potential student enrollment and
to see if certain student characteristics influenced responses. The researchers
conducting the study sent email messages to the schools from “fictitious”
parents inquiring about potential enrollment. Some of the emails indicated
students had disabilities or behavior needs, and some indicated students had
achievement needs. In addition, some of the emails implied race, gender, and
household structure. Results of the study showed a baseline response rate of
53%, with lower response rates for students with special needs, behavior
problems, or low achievement (p. 14). Response rates for traditional public
schools and charter schools were about the same, but charter schools were 7%
less likely to respond to messages that suggested a child had a significant spe-
cial need, while traditional public schools showed no difference in response
rate for these students. Furthermore, responses did not always indicate an
encouragement to apply. In fact, some responses from charter schools dis-
couraged parents from applying (p. 12).
Other reform efforts that
have increased competition CAUTION
among schools are those that
have tied teacher evaluations to One of the unintended consequences of
school choice policies is that they have
student test scores. In schools
driven schools to compete for the best
having disproportionately high students.
numbers of struggling students,
these efforts have encouraged
competition for the best performing students, such as through competing for
advanced placement classes where students are more likely to perform well on
state tests. Likewise, these policies discourage the most highly qualified teachers
from teaching in high-poverty districts and encourage them to seek employment
in high-income schools where better performing students tend to reside and
where salaries are higher. These education policies are also believed to be a con-
tributing factor in teacher retention, which will be discussed in more detail in the
next section of this chapter.
These are just some of the reform efforts that have led to educational ineq-
uities in the United States. Poverty is another area in which inequities exist,
and the inequities begin early. Only 41% of 4-year-olds from low-income
families attend preschool, compared with 54% from those in families living
above the poverty level (Koball & Jiang, 2018). In 2018, the percentage of
Black children under the age of 18 in families living in poverty was 32%, and
for Hispanic children it was 26% (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2020). The
percentages for both groups were higher than for White and Asian children,
which were 11% each (p. 8). Overall, Black children were significantly more
likely to live in single-parent families and high-poverty neighborhoods. In
addition, American Indian children were almost three times more likely than
the average child to lack health insurance and live in resource-limited neigh-
borhoods. Furthermore, Latino children were the most likely to live with a
head of household who lacked a high school diploma and to not be in school
when they were young (p. 7).
With a poverty rate that is twice the rate of other member countries of the
OECD, the United States faces a bleak future for its education system unless the
inequity issues are resolved. In its report to the U.S. Congress, the Equity and
Excellence Commission stated, “No other developed nation has inequities nearly
as deep or systemic; no other developed nation has, despite some efforts to the
contrary, so thoroughly stacked the odds against so many of its children. Sadly,
what feels so very un-American turns out to be distinctly American” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013, p. 15).
The ripple effects of these
inequities can penetrate and tax
a society’s resources, resulting in
DON’T FORGET
a costly burden to that society. The Equity and Excellence Committee
Take, for example, the inequities reported in 2013 that deep and systemic
caused by school discipline poli- educational inequities have stacked the
odds against so many children in the
cies in schools throughout the
United States, where the poverty rate is
United States beginning in the twice the rate of other member countries
latter part of the twentieth cen- of the OECD.
tury. Decades of research on
these policies has shown unfair
targeting and persistent disparities in discipline rates for students of color and
students with disabilities. The racial disparities noted in the data are compelling
and call for a critical examination of how discipline policies are promoting social
injustices for these students. As was previously discussed in Chapter 2, these poli-
cies have encouraged the outsourcing of school discipline to the juvenile and
criminal justice systems, and have taxed these systems’ resources beyond measure
by pushing these students into what has become known as the school-to-prison
pipeline. In a report by Rumberger and Losen (2016), it was estimated that high
school suspensions were costing taxpayers more than $35 billion each year, and
these were conservative estimates. These suspensions also translate into increased
high school dropouts and, over a lifetime, an increased cost to society through a
reduction in tax revenue and higher costs for crime, welfare, and healthcare. The
systemic inequities of the U.S. education system are simply a manifestation of the
everyday inequities in the larger society. Given the gravity of these issues and how
deeply rooted they are within the education system, the long-term implications
are likely to be far-reaching and devastating unless these inequities are rectified.
Teacher Preparation
and Retention
DON’T FORGET
Teachers are the most critical
In 2016, it was estimated that high school
resources schools possess. They suspensions were costing taxpayers more
are the link to student learning. than $35 billion each year.
As stated in the introduction to
this chapter, simply being in school will not guarantee learning. Without highly
trained teachers, learning is in jeopardy. For many schools, especially low-income
schools or those with low-performing students, it can be a challenge to attract the
best teachers. Teaching positions in these schools are often filled with underquali-
fied teachers or even unqualified teachers. They also are more likely to be filled
by teachers with less experience. The turnover rate in these schools is usually
quite high and is often attributed to poor student motivation, lower salaries,
insufficient support from school leaders, poor working conditions, fewer
resources, and less-than-adequate facilities, among others. Thus, the impact on
learning for students in these schools can be significant.
While training standards play a huge role in preparing teachers for the work-
force, the changing demands of the workforce require teachers to do more and be
better prepared than ever before. According to a consensus study report from the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
There are more explicit demands placed upon K–12 teachers today. There
continues to be an increase in the level of content and pedagogical knowl-
edge expected of teachers to implement curriculum and instruction aligned
to newer content standards and deeper learning goals. Teachers are called
on to educate an increasingly diverse student body, to enact culturally
responsive pedagogies, and to have a deeper understanding of their stu-

dents’ socioemotional growth. Integrating these various, layered expecta-
tions places substantially new demands on teachers. (2020, p. 3)
Given these demands, it is not surprising that many teachers are unprepared
when they enter the workforce. It’s also not surprising that experienced teachers
are reporting an increase in stress and burnout. In a 2017 survey of teachers about
their quality of life at work, 23% reported that work was “always stressful,” while
38% said it was “often” stressful (American Federation of Teachers, 2017, p. 2).
They also reported that the biggest cause of stress was not from students, but
from things they had little control over, such as district bureaucracy, changing
state mandates, and testing requirements (p. 3). In terms of their own health and
well-being, 58% said that in the 30 days prior to the survey, their mental health
was not good for 7 or more days. In comparison, for other U.S. working adults,
the majority reported zero days (p. 4).
Teachers’ well-being is associated with their social-emotional competence.
When they experience mastery over these skills, teaching becomes more enjoy-
able, they feel more effective, and student performance improves (Aldrup et al.,
2020). Teachers with inadequate social-emotional competence find it challeng-
ing to meet the social-emotional needs of their students, and they face situations
that can lead to a “cascading” of problems leading to burnout. They may have
difficulty managing their classroom, their classroom climate may be suboptimal,
and they may experience frequent and ongoing emotional exhaustion (Jennings
& Greenberg, 2009). Given these findings, it is surprising that most teacher
prep programs do not include comprehensive training standards to address
social-emotional issues in the classroom (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017) or how
teachers should develop social-emotional competence to satisfactorily handle
these issues.
To better prepare teachers, pre-service programs will need to adapt accord-
ingly. Training standards will need to address the rapid changes being driven by
technology, as well as those driven by changing demographics, policy initiatives,
and workforce expectations. Incorporating standards for culturally responsive
pedagogical strategies and social-emotional learning into all teacher pre-service
programs is essential. With the addition of these standards, teachers might be
better prepared to teach in this changing workforce, but these alone will not suf-
ficiently develop high-quality teachers. Ongoing support, mentoring, and profes-
sional development will be indispensable components for building and sustaining
the high-quality teacher workforce needed for today’s classrooms, as well as the
classrooms of the future. With more highly qualified teachers, there is greater
likelihood for improved job satisfaction, which may translate into a higher
teacher retention rate for schools.
The growing shortage of teachers is perhaps one of the biggest threats that
education faces, and problems associated with training, recruiting, and retaining
teachers are impacting the ability to eliminate the shortage. While there has
been disagreement on whether a true shortage exists, García and Weiss (2019)
contend that the shortage is real and is growing. According to their analysis, the
gap between teacher supply and the demand for new hires has grown sharply in
recent years. At the start of the 2012–2013 school year, there was an estimated
shortage of 20,000 teachers, and within a few years this grew to a shortage of
64,000 teachers for the 2015–2016 school year (p. 2). In a later report from
Sutcher et al. (2019), a review of teacher workforce reports for 2017 indicated
there were 109,000 individuals who were uncertified for their teaching posi-
tions, thus confirming a critical shortage of teachers that year. The report fur-
ther pointed out that there has been little academic research on the current
problem, and it is further compounded by confusion over what constitutes a
shortage (p. 3).
Simplistically, the shortage
could be defined as an insuffi- DON’T FORGET
cient number of teachers in the Workforce reports from 2017 indicated
labor market, but the issue is far there were 109,000 individuals who were
more complicated than sheer uncertified for their teaching positions.
numbers. Shortages can be
defined by a variety of factors, all
of which are intertwined. Factors such as geographic location, specific area of
instruction, or level of qualification, among others, contribute to the teacher
shortage. In other words, there may be shortages in certain geographic areas, but
not all. There also may be shortages of teachers for specific content areas or for
teachers with specific qualifications, but not in all areas. There are a host of vari-
ables that make defining the term shortage a challenge. These include, among
others, increases in student enrollment, changes in staff-to-student ratios, teacher
salaries, and turnover rates.
Determining teacher turnover rates can be equally as challenging, as it is a
rather dynamic issue. Some teachers leave the profession altogether, while others
may simply change schools or districts. Some may resign, and still others may be
transferred within a district. The issue also is complicated by the fact that teachers
who leave the profession may return later. Since the rate of teacher turnover is
factored into how shortages are determined, it can be difficult to quantify. Despite
these challenges, however, there is evidence that teachers are exiting the profes-
sion at a concerning rate. In a longitudinal study conducted by the National

Center for Education Statistics, it was found that among all beginning teachers
in the study, 17.3% had left the profession by the end of the 5-year study (Gray
& Taie, 2015). Figure 4.7 describes the number and percentage distribution of
teachers during each year of the study.
Number of teachers Percentage distribution

Teacher status Teacher status
Year Total Current Former Current Former
2007 – 20081 156,100 156,100 n/a 100.0 n/a
2008 – 2009 156,100 140,600 15,500 90.0 10.0
2009 – 2010 156,100 136,900 19,300 87.7 12.3
2010 – 20112 155,800 132,700 23,100 85.2 14.8
2011 – 20122 155,600 128,700 26,900 82.7 17.3

n/a: Not applicable.
1BTLS teachers began teaching in either 2007 or 2008.
2The estimated total number of teachers for each year 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 is smaller than the estimates for
the earlier years because a small number of sample members (less than 5) were found to be deceased during these
years.
Figure 4.7 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS): Number and Percentage

Distribution of 2007–2008 Beginning Public School Teachers, by Teacher Status:
2007–2008 Through 2011–2012. Note: Current teachers were teaching in the year of
data collection, and former teachers were not teaching in the year of data collection.
Because beginning teachers may leave and later return to teaching, the number and
percentage of former teachers in a given year do not necessarily include all of those
who were former teachers in an earlier year. For each survey year 2008–2009, 2009–
2010, and 2010–2011, these estimates include those who provided data retrospec-
tively during the next year’s survey collection. Estimates are weighted using the
following weights: 2007–2008 data are weighted with the first-wave analysis weight
(W1TFNLWGT), 2008–2009 data are weighted with the second-wave retrospective
analysis weight (W2RAFWT), 2009–2010 data are weighted with the third-wave
retrospective analysis weight (W3RAFWT), 2010–2011 data are weighted with the
fourth-wave retrospective analysis weight (W4RAFWT), and 2011–2012 data are
weighted with the fifth-wave analysis weight (W5AFWT). Detail may not sum to
totals because of rounding. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics. (2007–2008, 2008–2009, 2009–2010, 2010–2011, 2011–
2012). Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS) [first-through fifth-wave data
file]. National Center for Education Statistics. (All information contained in the
report is in the public domain.)
The study also found a correlation between teacher retention and higher pay.
Those who earned a salary of at least $40,000 annually in their first year were
more likely to return the following year compared with those who earned less. In
addition, for each follow-up year, the percentage of beginning teachers who con-
tinued teaching was larger among those who were assigned a first-year mentor
than among those who were not. Lastly, no differences were found in the percent-
age of teachers with bachelor’s degrees who left compared to teachers having
master’s degrees who left (Gray & Taie, 2015).
These findings highlight some of the issues related to teacher retention, but
they don’t address the issue of teacher preparation, which is a critical factor in
teachers’ decisions to remain in the profession. When teachers are well prepared
with high-quality training, they are more likely to remain teaching. Yet, teacher
preparation programs have not been strengthened to meet the changing demands
of education. Likewise, there has been a proliferation of alternative certification
programs that have not proven to be effective in ameliorating the shortage.
According to the Learning Policy Institute, large proportions of teachers from
alternative certification programs leave the profession in the first 3 years before
they’ve had a chance to become effective (Espinoza et al., 2018). Typical issues
with these training programs are that they lack depth in coursework preparation,
and they don’t offer the pedagogical preparation provided through opportunities
for student teaching. Consequently, graduates of these programs are two to three
times more likely to leave the profession than those with more comprehensive
preparation (p. 8).
While many states are taking
steps to stabilize the shortage and
correct the challenges of teacher
DON’T FORGET
preparation and retention, the Many factors contribute to the teacher
urgency of the situation may shortage in the United States, but one
necessitate short-and long-term critical factor has to do with how teacher
preparation programs are not prepar-
policy changes in order to suc-
ing teachers adequately for the changing
cessfully recruit, train, and retain demands of education.
high-quality teachers. As was
stated in the introduction to this
chapter, student learning is in jeopardy, and the longer the shortage of high-quality
teachers exists, the more student learning will suffer. Innovative, nontraditional
approaches to training, guided by research, can help forge a new pathway for
training, but policy incentives may be needed. Strategies might include subsidized
funding for pedagogical training opportunities, residence programs, or mentoring
programs, to name a few. In addition, increased opportunities for scholarships and
loan forgiveness policies may offer some relief. Regardless of the approach, the
goal should always remain focused on improving learning outcomes for students.
Funding Issues
At the heart of education lies funding. Around the world, government funding for
education has been increasing since the mid-twentieth century, and evidence shows
that educational opportunities have improved throughout the world in both devel-
oping and developed countries. A review of data on educational funding for 88
different countries for the years 2000 through 2010 indicated three fourths of these
countries showed increased funding as a percentage of the country’s GDP. The
primary sources of revenue for all countries, however, differed broadly. For lower
income countries, the national government subsidized a greater share of the reve-
nue than was seen in higher income countries (Roser & Ortiz-Ospina, 2016). Take
the United States, for example. For the past 120 years, overall funding for educa-
tion has steadily increased with a sharp growth observed after World War II, fol-
lowed by a slowdown in the 1970s. Throughout this same timeframe, however, the
portion of federal funding remained consistently small, with the main source of
revenue coming from states and local governments (see Figure 4.8).
100%
80% Local
60%
40%
State
20%
Federal/Unassigned
0%
1890 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2010
Figure 4.8 Funding Sources for Public Schools in the United States, 1890–2010:
Revenues for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in the United States, as Share of
GDP, by Source of Funds. Source: Roser, M., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019). Global Rise of
Education. OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/global-rise-of-education.
Data from U.S. Census Bureau and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),
2017. Reprinted under authority granted by CC-BY license.
As illustrated, the largest share of funding for education has fallen on states
and local governments and has primarily come from property taxes. This model
of funding has been criticized widely because of its role in creating educational
inequities, as was discussed in the “Equitable Educational Opportunities” s ection.
Since affluent communities can generate more funds from local property taxes,
schools in these neighborhoods gain more revenue than schools in low-income
communities. Opponents of this decentralized model of funding argue that by
progressively increasing the federal contribution to education revenues, these
inequities can be eliminated. Indeed, this was how France was able to resolve
educational inequity in the late 1800s. By shifting the financial burden from
local entities to the national government, the country reduced the regional ineq-
uities that existed between the north and south regions of France during that
time. It also paved the way for universal access to education (Lindert, 2004).
While this type of funding reform might seem reasonable, it would not be easily
accomplished in countries like the United States. Not only would it require a
complete overhaul of the funding model for education, but a change at this level
would likely trigger a controversial sociopolitical debate.
Despite the increased funding
for education in the past few
decades, there remain broad dif-
DON’T FORGET
ferences in educational out- The U.S. model of educational funding
comes. This raises the question places the largest burden on state and local
of whether increased educational governments, whose property taxes pro-
vide the primary source for funding. This
spending leads to better educa-
model has been criticized widely because
tional outcomes. To help answer of its role in creating education inequi-
this question, it’s important to ties. The proportion of funds provided
know how outcomes are meas- to states from the federal government
ured. Usually, they are deter- has remained low for decades and often
mined by the number of years of includes unfunded mandates that add to
schooling and by student learn- the burdens experienced by state and local
ing, which is typically measured governments.
by performance on a test, such as
the PISA. This international assessment is used to measure learning in reading,
mathematics, and science literacy for 15-year-old students and is administered
every 3 years (OECD, 2018b). For the past two decades, outcomes on this meas-
ure have been examined and studied. Broad results have shown positive correla-
tions between educational expenditures and educational outcomes, but there
have been substantial variations in those outcomes. These variations have been
attributed to several things, including teacher quality, school characteristics,
household characteristics, and student characteristics. What has been determined

to be most effective for improving student learning, however, has been teacher
quality. Countries that prioritize the quality of teachers over smaller classes tend
to show better performance (OECD, 2012). Thus, it appears that spending more
money isn’t as important as how the money is prioritized. Still, adequate funding
is necessary to ensure this priority is met.
In the United States, federal contributions to education have been increasing
gradually since the 1960s, but as illustrated in Figure 4.8, the proportionate share
has remained relatively low. In addition, unfunded, or underfunded, educational
mandates have added to the burden placed on states and local governments. For
example, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was an
underfunded mandate passed by the U.S. Congress in 1975. The Act has been
reauthorized several times since 1975 and has since been renamed the Individuals
with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA). Passage of the Act, and all subsequent
reauthorizations, required states to provide a free and appropriate public educa-
tion (FAPE) to all children with disabilities as a condition of receiving federal
funds (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). At the time the Act was passed,
Congress promised to cover 40% of the average cost to educate children with
disabilities, but later amended the law to say that the federal government would
pay a “maximum” of 40% of per- pupil costs (National Council on
Disability, 2018). To this date, the federal government continues to underfund
EAHCA, or IDEA, by paying less than half of what it originally promised in
1975 (p. 9). This is not the only example of how the federal government has
further burdened states and local governments with the cost of funding educa-
tion. One of the most well-known unfunded mandates to public education is
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This antidiscrimination, civil
rights statute requires schools to accommodate the needs of students with disabil-
ities, even those that may not require special education services, to assist in their
learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). As a result, local school districts
must bear the responsibility for any costs associated with these accommodations,
such as the cost of special transportation, for example. These unfunded and
underfunded mandates from the federal government, along with the increases in
student population over the past two decades, have resulted in more than 90% of
the burden for education funding being placed on state and local governments.
While there are growing concerns for overburdening state and local govern-
ments with the financial responsibility for education, there are greater concerns for
how this model of funding continues to exacerbate the educational inequities
among and between states and local communities. How revenues are generated
and allocated is largely contingent upon socioeconomic status and, as has already
been stated, is creating inequitable distributions in funding. The most recent data
on public school revenues for elementary and secondary schools show that, for the
2016–2017 school year, 8% of revenues was from federal sources, 47% was from
state sources, and 45% was from local sources (Hussar et al., 2020). Since nearly
half of local revenues come from local property taxes, the differences between
revenues generated in high-income communities and those generated in low-
income communities are significant. These economic inequities are hitting schools
the hardest. High-income districts have sometimes spent up to 10 times more
than low-income districts, and the results have been evidenced in their student
performance (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019).
Money will not completely solve the problems in the U.S. education system,
but it certainly can help provide better quality teachers, smaller class sizes, and
expanded early intervention programs, which is a start. A 2016 study found that,
between 1990 and 2011, states that reformed school finance policies in order to
allocate more funding to high-poverty school districts narrowed the achievement
gap by an average of one fifth (LaFortune et al., 2016). Reforming educational
funding in the United States is a critical priority for addressing some of the ineq-
uities that exist in the education system.
Other Issues
Fragmented Efforts
Educational reform efforts, while intended to improve school effectiveness and
student outcomes, contribute significantly to the fragmentation of educational
processes and systems. With each new initiative comes a host of new programs
and resources designed to promote and advance the initiative. Seldom is consid-
eration given to how the new programs and resources might be coordinated with
existing efforts and create greater cohesiveness. Quite the contrary. These new
programs typically result from new state and federal mandates, often without
understanding how they “fit” with existing efforts. Thus, very little planning and
coordination occur, resulting in further fragmentation of an already disjointed
education system. A significant number of these programs target specific popula-
tions of students, thus creating a maze of operations within the education system.
It is not uncommon for these programs to be staffed or managed by individuals
who function in relative isolation from others and work in their own silos.
Furthermore, since many of these programs are redundant, staff may find them-
selves competing against one another for the same limited funding opportunities.
This disjointed process leaves many programs to continue without any formal
process for evaluating outcomes and effectiveness.
d Schoolwide Efforts
rE
a cte Violence
ar
Ch Ed Sex Ed
School
Programs Academic Skills Families
Drug
Without a Prev. g
arnin
Common Health ice Le
Community Involvement Ed Serv
Framework
SECD
Sex Ed Violence
A Common Academic Skills Ed
Health Drug
Framework
Ed Prev.
Provides
Synergy Service Learning Character Ed
SCHOOL FAMILY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 4.9 The Jumbled Schoolhouse. Source: Elias, M. J., Leverett, L., Duffell, J.,
Humphrey, N., Stepney, C.T., & Ferrito, J.J. (2015). Integrating social-emotional learn-
ing with related prevention and youth-development approaches. In J. A. Durlak, C.
Domitrovich, R. P.Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional
learning (SEL): Research and practice (pp. 33-49). New York: Guilford. (Reprinted with
permission.)
Without a systematic and coordinated framework to help “connect the dots,”

the results are a jumbling of disjointed efforts (see Figure 4.9). This not only is
costly to the system, but also directs funds away from areas where other efforts
might prove more beneficial.
SEL offers schools an opportunity to “unjumble” the schoolhouse. It provides
schools with an effective framework for connecting the dots. It is the missing link
between academic, social, emotional, and character development. Not only does
SEL help prepare students for success in school, but it also helps prepare them for
success in the community and in life.
CONCLUSION
The crisis in education cannot be explained solely by insufficient opportunities or

inadequate funding. There are more schools in the world today than there have
been in the history of the world, and this is true in both developing and developed
countries. Billions of dollars have been infused into education systems throughout
the world, but bureaucracy, poor coordination, and lack of collaboration, among
other reasons, have led to disjointed and fragmented processes. Ongoing struggles
with implementing policy mandates, maintaining effective leadership, and provid-
ing quality instruction, among a host of other issues, translate into one thing—
failure for the students served by these education systems. To put it in simpler
terms, students are not learning. Despite countless efforts to improve this outcome,
the logic underlying failed learning is basic and fundamental. Without adequate
and quality instruction, learning simply does not occur. Furthermore, the tradi-
tional perspective on learning has exclusively focused on the cognitive development
and academic achievement of students. This myopic view has resulted in a failure
to educate the “whole” student, which includes the social and emotional domains
of learning as well. This has translated into many students being unprepared for the
challenges they face when they exit these education systems.
SEL offers a transformative opportunity for education. It is the missing link to
learning, but it cannot be viewed as something superfluous. Cognitive develop-
ment and academic achievement, while important, do not occur in isolation.
Likewise, learning does not occur in a vacuum, but is both a social and emotional
process. All three domains of development are interconnected, as illustrated by the
graphic model in Figure 4.10. Each domain is critical to learning, but social and
emotional development must be given the same priorities as cognition and achieve-
ment, and it must be integrated into the instructional program. Furthermore,
teachers must be provided opportunities to develop skills and practice in SEL;
therefore, teacher preparation programs will need to incorporate SEL instruction
into their curriculum. When SEL is no longer viewed as added “fluff” to an educa-
tional program but is assimilated into pedagogy and practice, learning will occur.
Achievement
Social-
emotional
Cognitive
Figure 4.10 The Three Domains of Learning.

TEST YOURSELF
1. Education has reached crisis levels in many parts of the world because
of the following reason:
(a) Lack of schools
(b) Inadequate resources
(c) Lack of student learning
(d) Not enough administrators
2. The three dimensions of the learning crisis are:
(a) Revenues, instruction, outcomes
(b) Learning outcomes, immediate causes, systemic causes
(c) Effective governance, prepared learners, teaching
(d) Government funding, socioeconomic issues, resource allocations
3. What percentage of children and adolescents experience a mental
health disorder?
(a) 15–20%
(b) 10–20%
(c) 20–22%
(d) 18–22%
4. UNICEF is currently developing an instrument known as the
Measurement of Mental Health Among Adolescents at the Population
Level (MMAP). The main purpose of the instrument is to:
(a) Collect data on adolescent mental health in undeveloped countries.
(b) Identify countries with the highest rate of mental health issues among
adolescents.
(c) Inform pharmaceutical companies about medication needs.
(d) Collect global data on adolescent mental health at the population level.
5. In 2017, homicide was the third leading cause of death for persons aged
10–24 years.
(a) True
(b) False
6. Which of the following is a dimension of school climate?
(a) Zero tolerance discipline
(b) School-hardening efforts
(c) Governance and management
(d) Relationships
7. In UNICEF’s study of equality of education among the richest countries,

which three countries ranked in the bottom third across all three stages
of education: preschool, primary school, and secondary school?
(a) Australia, United States, and Portugal
(b) Finland, Latvia, and Portugal
(c) Australia, New Zealand, and Slovakia
(d) Finland, New Zealand, and United States
8. The largest share of funding for education in the United States comes
from the federal government.
(a) True
(b) False
9. A 2016 study found that, between 1990 and 2011, states that reformed
school finance policies in order to allocate more funding to high-poverty
school districts narrowed the achievement gap by an average of how
much?
(a) One fifth
(b) One fourth
(c) One third
(d) One half
10. One of the consequences of fragmented and disjointed programs in
schools is
(a) Redundant programs
(b) Inefficiency
(c) Staff competing for already limited funds
(d) All of the above
Answers: 1. c; 2. b; 3. b; 4. d; 5. a; 6. d; 7. c; 8. b; 9. a; 10. d
REFERENCES
Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., Kŏller, M., & Klusmann, U. (2020). Measuring
teachers’ social-emotional competence: Development and validation of a
situational judgement test. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(892). https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00892
American Federation of Teachers. (2017). 2017 Educator quality of work life
survey. Badass Teachers Association, American Federation of Teachers.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/2017_eqwl_survey_web.pdf
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2020). 2020 Kids count data book: State trends in
child well-being. Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://www.aecf.org/
resources/2020-kids-count-data-book/
Aspen Institute. (2016). Fast facts: Native American youth and Indian country.
Aspen Institute, Center for Native American Youth. https://www.cnay.org/
resource-hub/fast-facts/
Bergman, P., & McFarlin, I. (2020). Education for all? A nationwide audit study
of school choice (NBER Working Paper No. 25396). National Bureau of
Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25396
Brock, M., Kriger, N., & Miro, R. (2018). School safety policies and programs
administered by the U.S. federal government: 1990–2016 (Document No.
251517). U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference
Service. file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/251517-1.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020a). Preparing K–12 school
administrators for a safe return to school in Fall 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/prepare-safe-return.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020b, August 21). Youth
risk behavior surveillance, United States, 2019. MMWR. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/
reports_factsheet_publications.htm#anchor_1596725930
Columbine High School massacre. (2020, August 15). In Wikipedia. https://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbine_High_School_massacre&
oldid=973148713
Curtin, S. C., & Heron, M. (2019). Death rates due to suicide and homicide
among persons aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2017 (Data Brief No. 352).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health
Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db352.htm
Dyer, S. (2017). How school choice has hurt Van Wert. Innovation Ohio. http://
innovationohio.org/front-page/how-school-choice-has-hurt-van-wert/
Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Taking
the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profes-
sion. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
long-view-report
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing,
and worse than we thought. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/
publication/the-teacher-shortage-is-real-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-
we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labor-
market-series/
Ghandour, R., Sherman, L., Vladutiu, C. J., Ali, M. M., Lynch, S. E., Bitsko,
R. H., & Blumberg, S. J. (2019). Prevalence and treatment of depression,
anxiety, and conduct problems in U.S. children. The Journal of Pediatrics,
(206), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.09.021
Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first
five years: Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007–08 beginning
teacher longitudinal study (NCES 2015-337). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Guthold, R., Moller, A., Azzopardi, P., Guèye Ba, M., Fagan, L., Baltag, V., Say, L.,
Banerjee, A., & Diaz, T. (2019). The Global Action for Measurement of
Adolescent Health (GAMA) initiative: Rethinking adolescent metrics. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 64, 697–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2019.03.008
Heron, M. (2019). Deaths: Leading causes for 2017. National Vital Statistics
Reports, 68(6), 10. National Center for Health Statistics. https://stacks.cdc.
gov/view/cdc/79488
Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M.,
Bullock Mann, F., Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education
2020 (NCES 2020-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2020144
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. (1994). Pub. L. No. 103–382, Title
I, Sec. 101, 108 Stat. 3518, 3907–3908. https://www.congress.gov/
bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/6/text
Ivey-Stephenson, A., Demissie, Z., Crosby, A., Stone, D., Gaylor, E., Wilkins,
N., Lowry, R., & Brown, M. (2020). Suicidal ideation and behaviors among
high school students: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States 2019. MMWR,
69(1). Division of Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.
gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/reports_factsheet_publications.
htm#anchor_1596725930
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher
social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom
outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Koball, H., & Jiang, Y. (2018). Basic facts about low-income children: Children
under 9 years, 2016. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia
University Mailman School of Public Health. http://www.nccp.org/
publications/pub_1195.html
LaFortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. (2016). Can school finance
reforms improve student achievement? Washington Center for Equitable
Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/
can-school-finance-reforms-improve-student-achievement/
Lindert, P. (2004). Growing public: Social spending and economic growth since the
eighteenth century (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Macdonald, H., & Perez, Z. (2019). 50-State comparison: K-12 school safety.
Education Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.
org/50-state-comparison-k-12-school-safety
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Changing
expectations for the K–12 teacher workforce: Policies, preservice education,
professional development, and the workplace. National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25603
National Council on Disability. (2018). Broken promises: The underfunding of
IDEA. file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/NCD_
BrokenPromises_508.pdf
OECD. (2012). Does money buy strong performance in PISA? PISA in Focus (No.
13). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9fhmfzc4xx-en
OECD. (2018a). Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en
OECD. (2018b). Programme for international student assessment. Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Ordóñez, A. E., & Collins, P. Y. (2015). Advancing research to action in global
child mental health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America,
24(4), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2015.06.002
Patchin, J. (2019). School bullying rates increase by 35% from 2016 to 2019.
Cyberbullying Research Center. https://cyberbullying.org/
school-bullying-rates-increase-by-35-from-2016-to-2019
Raikes, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019, February 18). Why our education
funding systems are derailing the American dream. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/
why-our-education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream
Roser, M., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2016). Financing education. Our World in
Data. https://ourworldindata.org/financing-education
Rumberger, R., & Losen, D. (2016). The high cost of discipline and its disparate
impact. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies, The Civil Rights Project.
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-
rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/
the-high-cost-of-harsh-discipline-and-its-disparate-impact
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. (2020, August 7). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandy_Hook_Elementary_
School_shooting&oldid=971707706
Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018 insights and interpretations. Programme for
International Student Assessment, Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/

pisa-2018-results.htm
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson-Peterson, J. (2017). To
reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher prepara-
tion and social and emotional learning. A report prepared for the
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL].
University of British Columbia. file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/
Local/Temp/ED582029-1.pdf
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019).
Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand
in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(35). http://dx.doi.
org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696
Thapa, A. (2013). School climate research. National School Climate Center.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/ED573661-1.pdf
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Higgins-D’Alessandro, A., & Guffey, S. (2012). School
climate research summary: August 2012 (Brief No. 3). National School Climate
Center. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0034654313483907
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). Handbook on measuring equity in
education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/
equity-education
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2018). An unfair start: Inequality
in children’s education in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card 15). UNICEF
Office of Research. file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/an-unfair-
start-inequality-children-education_37049-RC15-EN-WEB-1.pdf
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2019). Measurement of mental
health among adolescents at the population level (MMAP): Overview document.
https://data.unicef.org/resources/mmap-august-2019/
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2020). Mental health:
Measurement of mental health among adolescents at the population level
(MMAP). https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/mental-health/mmap/
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). A 25 year history of the IDEA: Twenty-
five years of progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). For each and every child—A strategy for
education equity and excellence. The Equity and Excellence Commission.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/equity-excellence-
commission-report.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Protecting students with disabilities. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

(2007–2008, 2008–2009, 2009–2010, 2010–2011, 2011–2012). Beginning
Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS) [First-through fifth-wave data file].
National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the Surgeon General’s conference on
children’s mental health: A national action agenda (Stock No.
017-024-01659-4, ISBN No. 0-16-050637-9). Department of Health and
Human Services. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44233/
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2004). The
final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the
prevention of school attacks in the United States. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat
Assessment Center. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/
final-report-and-findings-safe-school-initiative-implications-prevention
Whitney, D., & Peterson, M. (2019). US national and state-level prevalence of
mental health disorders and disparities of mental health care use in children.
JAMA Pediatrics, 173(4), 389–391. http://doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5399
World Bank. (2018a, October 11). If countries act now, children born today could
be healthier, wealthier, more productive [Press release]. https://www.
worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/11/if-countries-
act-now-children-born-today-could-be-healthier-wealthier-more-productive
World Bank. (2018b). World development report 2018: Learning to realize
education’s promise. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-
4648-1096-1
World Bank. (2019, January). The education crisis: Being in school is not the same
as learning. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersivestory/2019/01/
22/pass-or-fail-how-can-the-world-do-its-homework
World Health Organization. (2017, May 16). More than 1.2 million adolescents
die every year, nearly all preventable [Press release]. https://www.who.int/
newsroom/detail/16-05-2017-more-than-1-2-million-adolescents-
die-every-year-nearly-all-preventable
World Health Organization. (n.d.-a). About GAMA. https://www.who.int/data/
maternal-newborn-child-adolescent/gama/about-gama
World Health Organization. (n.d.-b). Child and adolescent mental health.
https://www.who.int/mental_health/maternal-child/child_adolescent/en/
Five
EVIDENCED SUPPORT FOR SEL
INTRODUCTION
A great deal has been written about SEL and the benefits it offers, but there also
have been questions raised about its validity and whether it truly provides the
benefits claimed by its advocates. Some believe SEL is simply another fad in edu-
cation and simply will add to teachers’ responsibilities in an already overbur-
dened education system. Concerns also have been raised about the potential costs
associated with the wide-scale systems changes that accompany SEL implementa-
tion, including the costs of preparing the educator workforce. More importantly,
however, are concerns that SEL will not stimulate students’ academic develop-
ment and will not help prepare them for a highly technical workforce of the
future. In fact, there are those who believe that SEL will only detract from
instruction and, as a result, core academic skills will be sacrificed. Despite the
abundance of literature and resources on the topic, there remains much confu-
sion and skepticism about the benefits and validity of SEL.
Some of the confusion can be traced to not fully grasping what SEL is, thereby
causing a limited perspective on the benefits it offers. For example, many educa-
tors and parents think SEL skills are important, but they aren’t aware of the full
value these skills offer. This was evidenced in a survey conducted by the World
125
Economic Forum (March 2016), in which more than 2,000 educators and parents
from five countries participated. Results of the survey indicated parents and teach-
ers in all five countries placed great emphasis on the teaching of SEL skills but had
immensely different perceptions of the benefits it offered. In the United States, for
example, 81% of parents and 78% of teachers believed there should be a high
emphasis on SEL skills. Likewise, in China, 98% of parents and 90% of teachers
placed high emphasis on teaching these skills (p. 21). However, when it came to
the perceived benefits of SEL, the results were vastly different between the coun-
tries (p. 22). In the United States, both teachers and parents considered classroom
discipline as the primary short-term benefit of SEL, while in other countries the
benefits were perceived much differently. There was less awareness in all five coun-
tries regarding how SEL can increase collaboration, enhance communication, and
improve grades and achievement scores. In other words, there was no universal
understanding of the possibilities offered by SEL, how to foster it, how it is linked
to traditional learning, and how it creates long-term positive outcomes. This nar-
row view of SEL most likely stems from limited training and inadequate opportu-
nities for teachers to embed SEL into the instructional process where the benefits
are most likely to be observed.
Another reason for question-
ing the effectiveness of SEL can DON’T FORGET
be traced to current attitudes Understanding the full potential of SEL will
about education. Social and require a better understanding of how it
emotional skills typically are not promotes learning, fosters the develop-
viewed as having the same prior- ment of critical skills for the workforce, and
creates long-term positive outcomes for
ity as educational skills, so less
young people.
emphasis is placed on these
skills. Although academic skills
are critical, SEL skills are equally
important, and future employers are recognizing their importance. In a study con-
ducted by Deming in 2017, it was shown that since 1980, the bulk of job growth
in the United States has been in occupations that require high social skills.
Concurrently, there has been a modest decline in the importance placed on cogni-
tive skills. The study’s author suggested that this shift might be associated with a
growth in technology, which has been accompanied by an increased need for
human interaction skills, since computers and machines are unable to simulate
these skills (p. 1634). The study further indicated that individuals who had higher
social skills were more likely to work in occupations that were more social-skills
intensive, and the wages earned by these workers were relatively higher than for
other workers (p. 1635). Other studies also have confirmed the importance of
Evidenced Support for SEL 127
social-emotional skills in the workforce. In one study, conducted by the global

internet giant Google, it was found that social-emotional skills were not only
important for employment but also essential for effective management (Garvin
et al., 2013). It’s interesting to note, however, that the company never intended to
study management characteristics. Rather, the study was an outcome of a radical
experiment in which Google eliminated all managers to determine if they were
necessary or if they were simply a useless layer in the company’s organization. After
several months, the company found that employees were left with no guidance or
direction, so the company pivoted and began studying the characteristics that make
for good managers. Using employee surveys and examining the performance
reviews of its previous managers, Google determined that effective managers shared
certain social-emotional skills. The most effective managers were those who were
good coaches, took an interest in their employees’ lives, and were skilled at listening
to and sharing information (Harrell & Barbato, 2018). When it came to commu-
nicating company updates, for example, they found that the most effective manag-
ers did more than just relay information. They also explained what that information
meant for their teams. Based on the findings of this study and similar studies, it
appears that traditional attitudes about education have led to restricted views
regarding the importance of SEL and the benefits it offers.
Considering these issues and the limited understanding for all that SEL can
offer, along with the questions that have been raised about its validity and effec-
tiveness, this chapter will offer evidence that supports SEL and its many benefits.
An examination of the relevant research will offer support for the long-term
impact of early social-emotional development and will demonstrate how SEL
improves academic, social- emotional-
behavioral, and cognitive development.
Further evidence will show how SEL promotes skills for life, including problem-
solving abilities, relationship development, and civic responsibility. Lastly, a
review of research will demonstrate the importance of SEL, not just for students
but for parents, teachers, school administrators, and community partners as well.
OUTCOME STUDIES
Evidence of the benefits offered by SEL continues to gain traction around the
globe and, as a result, is garnering more attention and focus from stakeholders,
including researchers. There already exist a number of meta-analytic reviews that
offer support for the effectiveness of SEL, and each of these also have identified
areas in which additional research is needed. Some of these studies have been
referenced in advocacy efforts to support SEL programming, as well as in efforts
to promote policy changes. A review of the major findings from these studies will
be offered in this section, along with evidenced support for early development of
SEL skills. Other studies that examine the effectiveness of SEL from the
perspectives of teachers, principals, and students will be examined as well. As the
field becomes more responsive to the empirically supported outcomes of SEL,
the need for ongoing high-quality research will only continue to grow.
Effectiveness of SEL: Universal Intervention

The effectiveness of SEL programming has been studied extensively over the past
two decades, primarily to determine if the benefits of SEL can be substantiated.
Many of these studies have been conducted through meta-analysis, which is a
commonly used research method that allows researchers to examine multiple
studies (typically, effect studies) to address similar research questions and deter-
mine if the conclusions offered by the studies can be statistically defended. In
short, a meta-analysis is a study of studies. The conclusions from eight different
meta-analytic studies on SEL have been similar, with each supporting the effec-
tiveness of SEL programs. The findings of these studies will be discussed further
in this section. A summary of each study’s features can be found in Table 5.1.
Although meta-analytic studies have provided support for SEL, they also have
raised questions about applicability of the results since the majority of the studies
have been confined to the United States. In other words, can the findings on the
effectiveness of SEL be applied in different contexts and in different countries? To
address this question, Diekstra (2008) conducted a two-part review of the SEL
literature. The first part of the review was aimed simply at identifying the main
outcomes of SEL effectiveness as identified in 19 meta-analytic studies published
between 1997 and 2008. Each of the 19 studies focused exclusively on universal,
school-based SEL programs and reported the following main findings: (a) SEL
significantly enhanced students’ social and emotional development, (b) SEL sig-
nificantly reduced or prevented problem behaviors, (c) SEL enhanced or pro-
moted students’ prosocial behaviors, and (d) SEL significantly enhanced students’
academic performance (p. 255). The second part of the review focused on con-
ducting another meta-analysis of SEL effect studies that were published from
1997 to 2007. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, it was projected that
the study would provide additional evidence of SEL effectiveness; and, second, it
was anticipated that it would offer a comparison of effectiveness between SEL
programs in the United States and SEL programs in other countries. Results of
the study were similar to findings from the previous meta-analyses, mainly that
SEL programs enhance students’ social-emotional development, reduce problem
behaviors, enhance prosocial behaviors, and promote academic achievement. In
addition, the positive overall effects were similar for both the U.S. programs and
the non-U.S. programs (p. 300). Thus, the study provided further evidence that
Table 5.1 Features of Six Meta-Analyses on SEL Program Effectiveness
Author(s) Date Number of Intervention Number of Years covered % U.S. % Non-U.S.
published studies approach students in the study research research
reviewed
Diekstra, R. (Part One) 2008 19 Universal *NR 1997–2008 93.7 6.3
Diekstra, R. (Part Two) 2008 76 Universal *NR 1997–2007 77.6 22.4
Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., 2011 213 Universal 270,034 1955–2007 87 13
Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., &
Schellinger, K.
Weare, K., & Nind, M. 2011 52 Universal *NR 1990–2011 52 48
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., De 2012 75 Universal Average N 1995–2008 79 (approx.) 21
Ritter, M., Ben, J., & = 543
Gravesteijn, C. per study
Wiglesworth, M., Lendrum, 2016 89 Universal *NR 1995–2013 *NR *NR
A., Oldfield, J., Scott, A.,
ten Bokkel, I., Tate, K., &
Emery, C.
Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, 2017 82 Universal 97,406 1981–2014 54% 46%
J., & Weissberg, R.
Goldberg, J., Sklad, M., 2018 45 Whole-school 496,299 1998–2017 44% 56%
Elfrink, T., Schreurs, K.,
Bohlmeijer, E., & Clarke, A.
NR: Not reported.

*
0005172814.INDD 129 9/13/2021 7:26:03 PM

SEL programs enhanced students’ social and emotional development, and the
results were demonstrated regardless of the country in which the SEL program
was implemented.
Since the Diekstra study, other studies of SEL effectiveness have been published.
In the past two decades, one of the most widely cited studies is the one conducted
by Durlak et al. (2011). This meta-analysis examined 213 school-based, universal
SEL programs that involved 270,034 students. Of the studies reviewed, more than
half of the SEL programs (56%) were delivered to elementary students, while less
than a third (31%) involved middle school students and the remainder (13%)
included high school students (p. 412). The researchers conducting the study had
five hypotheses (pp. 407–408). First, they projected that SEL programs would
show significant positive effects on students’ skills, attitudes, behaviors, and aca-
demic performance. Second, they predicted that SEL programs would demonstrate
greater effectiveness if delivered by teachers and other school staff. Third, they pos-
tulated there would be stronger effects if interventions were integrated throughout
the school day. Fourth, they predicted that the SEL program’s success would be
increased if it used four specific practices. These were represented by the acronym
SAFE (Sequenced, Active, Focused, and Explicit), which included (a) a sequenced,
step-by-step training approach; (b) use of active forms of listening; (c) a focus on
sufficient time for skill development; and (d) inclusion of explicit learning goals.
The fifth and last hypothesis of the study was that SEL programs that encountered
problems during implementation would be less successful than those that did not.
Results of the Durlak et al. meta-analysis (pp. 417–420) confirmed that SEL pro-
grams were associated with gains across attitudinal, behavioral, and academic
domains, with a noteworthy gain of 11% in student achievement. This gain in
achievement negates the frequently voiced concerns that time devoted to SEL
instruction takes away valuable time needed for academic instruction. On the con-
trary, the study revealed that SEL instruction enhanced students’ academic perfor-
mance rather than detracted from it. The largest program effect found from the
study, however, was in the area of social-emotional skill performance, which showed
a 25% improvement in skills. The study also found a 10% decrease in classroom
misbehavior, anxiety, and depression, and these effects were reported for at least
6 months following the intervention. In addition to the positive effects on student
performance, the study reported that implementing SAFE practices and executing
programs as they were designed to be executed were essential for ensuring effective-
ness. Systemic and environmental factors also were acknowledged as important
components in promoting positive outcomes. Furthermore, assessing and monitor-
ing program outcomes were recommended as fundamental and necessary compo-
nents of program implementation (p. 420).
Similar findings were reported in

another meta- analysis (Weare & DON’T FORGET
Nind, 2011) that reviewed 52 In a 2011 meta-analysis of school-
school programs designed to pro- based universal SEL programs (Durlak
mote emotional well- being (SEL) et al.), it was found that SEL programs
and prevent mental health prob- were associated with a gain of 11%
lems. This review included 32 addi- in student achievement. Furthermore,
tional studies that had not been the programs did not detract from
academic instructional time, but
included in previous meta-analyses.
enhanced it.
Of the total programs examined,
most were a review of universal pro-
grams, although some were of targeted interventions. Overall, the study found
that, while a universal approach was the primary focus in schools, this was not as
effective as the use of a combined approach that included targeted interventions
for higher risk children (p. i64). The study also found that the use of specialists
at the start of a program was highly effective. However, this was not found to be
sustainable and did not yield the desired effects in academic achievement or
school improvement. Thus, embedding the program in daily routines and trans-
ferring delivery of the program to school leaders, teachers, and other school staff
can increase overall effectiveness (p. i65). Another important finding of the study
was that skills development alone was not enough. Rather, skills should be
embedded in a whole-school approach in order to optimize effectiveness (p. i65).
While several of the studies reviewed in this report found whole-school approaches
ineffective, the authors attributed these reported failures to “a lack of consistent,
rigorous and faithful implementation which is causing these approaches to
become too diluted and lack impact” (p. i66).
To explore the effectiveness of whole-school approaches to SEL, Goldberg
et al. (2018) conducted a separate meta-analysis in which 45 studies involving
496,299 students were reviewed. The purpose of the study was to examine inter-
ventions that adopted a whole-school approach to SEL and determine if they
were effective. Unlike universal SEL programs, whole-school approaches to SEL
target the entire school community as the agent of change. In other words, they
involve a complex and comprehensive planning process that encompasses signifi-
cant infrastructure and system-wide capacity building. Overall findings in this
meta-analysis of whole-school approaches indicated small, but significant, posi-
tive effects on social-emotional adjustment. Although the findings were not as large
as those found in other meta-analyses, it was believed that implementation played
a significant role in the lower effect sizes. Similar to what Weare and Nind (2011)
reported, this study found that implementation problems led to variability in the
obtained results. These problems included a lack of buy-in from staff, percep-
tions that the program was not needed, and insufficient training and teacher
self-efficacy (p. 771). One implication from these findings is that whole-school
approaches to SEL can positively affect students’ social-emotional development,
but comprehensive planning and preparation are essential prior to
implementation.
The synthesized findings of these and other meta-analyses (Sklad et al., 2012)
offer convincing support for the benefits of SEL, but there continue to be ques-
tions about the transferability of these benefits to different countries. Although
Diekstra (2008) found similar levels of effectiveness between programs imple-
mented in the United States and those implemented outside the United States, a
later study by Wiglesworth et al. (2016) found that SEL programs identified as
effective in the United States were rendered ineffective when implemented in non-
U.S. countries. However, the study acknowledged that these differences could
have been due to issues in methodology. Recognizing the importance of prior
infrastructure or the number of program adaptations that may be required when
implementing programs across sites is important to understanding transferability
between countries. Thus, additional research is needed to address cultural validity
issues in SEL programming and to help implementers better understand these
issues within the context of culturally diverse student populations.
Clearly, the immediate outcomes of school-based universal SEL programming
are supported in the literature, but what about the long-term outcomes? Results of
the Durlak et al. (2011) study are compelling, but the findings are limited to data
that were available through 2007 and not beyond. Although Weare and Nind
(2011) included studies that had not been included in previous studies, their find-
ings also noted limitations in data on follow-up effects. In the 52 studies they
reviewed, the interventions that lasted 9 months to a year were more effective than
brief interventions, but there were no studies on follow-up effects beyond this
timeframe. To address this gap in the research, a meta-analysis of follow-up effects
of SEL programs was conducted by Taylor et al. (2017). Results showed five sig-
nificant findings supporting the long-term, follow-up effects of SEL programs
(pp. 1164–1167). These findings are detailed in Rapid Reference 5.1.
The study by Taylor and colleagues on the follow-up effects of SEL has signifi-
cant implications, in general, but it also establishes the importance of early pro-
motion of SEL. Research has shown that early development of SEL skills can help
prepare children to be better learners and set them up for future success (Camilli
et al., 2010). Evidence that SEL outcomes are improved if they begin with younger
students and continue for several years was also reported in the meta-analysis
conducted by Weare and Nind (2011). Thus, the importance of SEL in early
Rapid Reference 5.1

Study Establishes Long-Term Effects of SEL Programs
While numerous studies have established the immediate benefits of SEL pro-
grams, there have been few studies to examine the long-term effects of these
programs. To address this concern, Taylor et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis
of 82 universal SEL programs involving 97,406 students in kindergarten through
12th grade. The studies collected follow-up data for 6 months or more following
the SEL intervention. The data were collected for students in the intervention
groups, as well as for students in the control groups. Results of all studies were
calculated for effects, and five main findings were reported:
1. Students in school-based SEL programs continued to show benefits on the
outcomes being measured for more than 3 ½ years after participating in the
program.
2. SEL interventions provided dual benefits for students. Not only did they
improve students’ skills, attitudes, prosocial behaviors, and academic perfor-
mance, but they also helped prevent negative problem behaviors such as
conduct problems, emotional distress, and drug use.
3. The positive effects of SEL were consistent for all student demographic groups.
4. SEL skills, rather than attitudes, predicted long-term follow-up effects, suggesting
the importance of skill development in improving youth adjustment.
5. Positive trajectories were seen in several developmental outcomes, such as
positive impact on future social relationships and increased high school
graduation rates.
Although the study identified some limitations in its findings, the overall results provided
empirical support for the long-term benefits obtained from quality SEL programming.
Source: Findings from Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. (2017). Promoting
positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interven-
tions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.12864
childhood education is critical and has been well documented in the literature
(Bierman & Motamedi, 2015; Denham et al., 2014; Huffman et al., 2000; Jones
et al., 2015). One of the most compelling studies demonstrating the importance
of early social-emotional development and its long-term impact is the Perry
Preschool Project, which has been recognized for its significant impact on early
childhood education at both the program and policy levels. The following section
focuses on the project, its outcomes, and the long-term impact that resulted.
Effectiveness of SEL: Early Intervention

The Perry Preschool Project was a longitudinal study that began in 1962 and exam-
ined outcomes for students who were exposed to a high-quality preschool program
that included a social development curriculum. The students in the intervention
program were compared to a control group of students who received a traditional
curriculum (i.e., one that did not include preschool education). All students in the
study were tracked until they reached the age of 40. Long-term results showed that
the students who received the preschool program had higher earnings, were more
likely to be employed, had committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to have
completed high school. The telling results of the study demonstrated the impor-
tance of early education and social-emotional development, not only for improving
scholastic and employment outcomes, but also for developing social responsibility.
The outcomes achieved by the project brought increased recognition to the impor-
tance of early childhood intervention and became a convincing argument for
change. The project is often credited with substantially influencing significant
changes in preschool education at the policy level.
The Perry Preschool Project was initiated to investigate the outcomes of high-
quality preschool programming for African American students who were from
low-income families and were considered at risk for failing in school. The study
was conducted over a period of four decades by psychologist David P. Weikart,
who later founded the HighScope Educational Research Foundation. The pro-
ject included 123 children in the Ypsilanti, Michigan, school district who were
assessed to be at high risk of school failure. These students, ages 3 and 4, were
randomly assigned either to a program intervention group in which students
received a high-quality preschool program, or to a traditional education program
that did not include a preschool program (thus, no intervention). There were 58
students assigned to the intervention group, and the remaining 65 students
received no preschool program. The students were matched by age, intelligence
score, socioeconomic status, and gender. There were no differences between the
groups when it came to parent educational level, family size, father absence, or
birth order. The only noted difference between the two groups was their pre-
school experience. As a result, the preschool program is believed to be the best
explanation for the differences in outcomes between the two groups.
Schweinhart et al. (2005) provides a description of the project and how results
were reported (p. 1). In general, students who were enrolled in the intervention
group attended a preschool program that included 2.5 hours of instruction each
day for 5 days a week and lasting for 2 years. The program employed a low staff-
to-student ratio of one adult for every five to six students, thus affording teachers
the time they needed to conduct home visits with each child’s family for 1.5
hours each week. Annual data were collected on all students through age 11, then
at additional targeted ages until they turned 40, allowing researchers to compile
comprehensive reports of their findings. Results were categorized according to
educational success, social responsibility, and socioeconomic outcomes.
Major findings of the project have been issued in numerous reports, but a
2004 news article published on the HighScope website (https://highscope.org/
highscope-perry-preschool-study/) provides a general summary of the long-term
outcomes for the students who were enrolled in the program. According to the
article, the high school graduation rate for these students was 65% compared to
only 45% for the students in the no-intervention program. The findings were
most remarkable for females in the project, however. Approximately 84% of
these females completed high school, compared to only 32% in the no-
intervention group. In addition, only 8% of the females who participated in the
program needed treatment for mental impairment, compared to 36% in the no-
intervention group. Average performance on language tests, intelligence tests,
achievement tests, and literacy tests also was higher for students in the interven-
tion program compared to those in the no-intervention group. One of the most
notable findings in the study was the lower delinquency rate for students in the
intervention program. Arrest and court records showed only 36% of this group
(at age 40) had ever been arrested, compared to 55% from the no-intervention
group. In terms of socioeconomic outcomes, 76% of the program participants
were employed at age 40 compared to 62% from the no-intervention group.
Furthermore, the median annual earnings for the intervention group were more
than $5,000 higher than for the no-intervention group, and they were more
likely to have a savings account and own their own homes as well.
A recent follow-up study by Heckman and Karapakula (2019) indicates the
benefits received from the intervention program have continued. Participants in
the study, who are now in their mid-50s, continue to demonstrate positive treat-
ment effects, but what is especially meaningful is the subsequent impact these
effects have had on their children. Data from the follow-up study indicate that
children born to the study’s participants were far more likely to graduate from
high school without being suspended than children born to participants in the
no-intervention group (p. 15). Additionally, the intervention group’s children
had less involvement with drugs and law enforcement, and were more likely to be
employed, than the no-intervention group’s children.
The Perry Preschool Project is considered a landmark study signifying the ben-
efits of early childhood education, but it has not gone without criticism. Some
have questioned the internal validity of the study since it did not follow strict
randomization when assigning subjects to the intervention and control groups.
Others have argued that the study’s small sample size makes it difficult to generate
scientific confidence in the findings and that, because the study has not been rep-
licated, the findings cannot be generalized. More recently, there are those who
believe the findings are no longer relevant to the current issues in early childhood
education. Many of these issues and criticisms have been addressed with plausible
explanations (Barnett, 2010; Schweinhart et al., 2005; Strauss, 2014), but issues
with scalability and the associated costs remain points of concern (for a cost–ben-
efit analysis of the original project, please see Rapid Reference 5.2). Despite the
criticisms and purported flaws in the project, it has remained one of the most
often cited studies in preschool education and has contributed substantially to
preschool improvement efforts.
Since the Perry Preschool Project’s
groundbreaking study, interest in the DON’T FORGET
relationship between early social- The Perry Preschool Project was a
emotional development and life out- landmark study that opened the door
comes for students has grown. The for many preschool policy changes
ability to positively influence these and contributed to improvements in
outcomes offers significant value to preschool education throughout the
students, educators, and the whole of United States.
Rapid Reference 5.2

Cost–Benefit Analysis of the Perry Preschool Project
Estimates of the economic rate of return for the Perry Preschool Project have
been widely cited in the study’s literature, all claiming substantial economic
benefits from the project. An analysis of data obtained on the study’s participants
at age 27 showed these benefits applied not only to the participants, but also to
the general public and to society. An updated cost–benefit analysis, using data
obtained 13 years later when the participants were at age 40, continued to show
positive benefits. This latest analysis showed that investment in early childhood
intervention resulted in higher wages for participants and positive savings to
taxpayers for each child participating in the program. Savings benefits were found
in several areas, including welfare assistance, special education, and criminal justice
system costs. While all areas showed significant savings, the most substantial
benefit was in the savings to crime victims (Parks, 2000). The savings to the
general public in terms of higher tax revenues, lower criminal justice system
expenditures, and lower welfare payments easily outweighed the cost of the
program. For every $1 invested in the program, a return of $12.90 was calculated
(Belfield et al., 2006).
society, but the predictive validity of social-emotional characteristics such as self-

control and interpersonal skills, for example, has been questioned. In an effort to
understand if these characteristics might predict future outcomes for students, Jones
et al. (2015) conducted a study of the relationship between kindergarten social com-
petence and future wellness. The researchers asked kindergarten teachers to rate their
children’s prosocial skills. They then analyzed the ratings to determine if there were
any significant associations between the skills and later student outcomes in the areas
of education, employment, crime, substance use, and mental health. The results of
the study showed “statistically significant and unique associations between teacher-
assessed prosocial skills and outcomes in all domains examined” (p. e5). Based on the
study’s results, the authors concluded that kindergarten teachers’ ratings of prosocial
skills can be a consistently significant predictor of future outcomes for students in all
areas included in the study. This study further supports the importance of early
social-emotional development and its long-term impact on life outcomes.
Evidenced Support for SEL

Establishing evidenced support for SEL involves more than simply proving its
effectiveness. It also must be universally accepted as a critical component in edu-
cation. In other words, does it do what it claims to do, and is there a universal
belief that it is not only critical but also necessary for educating all students? The
evidence presented thus far shows there is widespread empirical confirmation of
the effectiveness of SEL, and the evidence has been well documented through
two decades of research. Thus, with effectiveness confirmed, what evidence is
there that stakeholders accept SEL as an indispensable component of learning?
Several studies have examined SEL from the perspectives of school leaders, teach-
ers, and students and will be explored in the next section.
Teacher Support for SEL

Teachers have long recognized the importance of educating children’s hearts as
well as their minds. The science of teaching requires that teachers understand and
demonstrate this in their day-to-day practices. Yet far too often, the demands of
high-stakes tests and educational accountability place academic skill develop-
ment at the center of all learning, while neglecting the equal importance of social
and emotional skills. Good teachers know that social and emotional develop-
ment is the key to all learning. In a 2013 survey by Bridgeland et al., teachers
identified SEL as the missing piece in education. They recognized the impor-
tance of SEL, understood its value, and endorsed it for all students. Of the teach-
ers surveyed, 95% believed social-emotional skills were teachable, but less than
44% reported these skills were being taught on a schoolwide basis (p. 5). More
than three fourths of the teachers surveyed (77%) believed SEL would improve
students’ academic performance as well as their behavior (p. 7).
So why isn’t SEL being taught? This question poses a challenge because there is
no single answer. Teaching SEL is directly related to teachers’ beliefs about SEL,
and these beliefs are influenced by three things: their level of confidence in SEL,
their comfort in teaching SEL, and their perception of school-level support for
SEL (Collie et al., 2012). Considering these three things, teachers may perceive
there is schoolwide support for SEL, and they may believe it is important, but they
still may not teach SEL if they lack confidence in their ability to do so. Teachers
do not teach what they do not know regardless of how important they perceive it
to be. Teachers must have competency in their own abilities if they are to develop
confidence in teaching these skills. Competency in SEL, however, isn’t just about
teaching skills. It’s also about developing positive relationships with students and
creating classroom communities that are safe, caring, and supportive. Teachers
must possess the skills they teach. They must be able to recognize and manage
their own emotions, know their own emotional strengths and weaknesses, identify
others’ emotions (especially when there are differing cultural perspectives), and
develop caring and supportive relationships. Teachers also must demonstrate con-
cern and respect for others and know how their own decisions may impact others.
Teachers who possess social and emotional competencies are more adept at man-
aging their classrooms, have more positive relationships with students and col-
leagues, provide more engaging instruction, experience greater job satisfaction,
and are more likely to remain in the profession (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
Thus, developing teacher competency in SEL is not only necessary for its success,
but should be considered a prerequisite to implementation.
As indicated, teachers are aware
that SEL is important in preparing
young people for success, both in DON’T FORGET
school and in life. They support it Teachers recognize the importance
as a critical part of education, but of SEL and feel it should be a critical
they feel unprepared to use it as a part of education, but they do not feel
method for helping their students, adequately prepared or supported for
teaching it.
especially those who are experienc-
ing emotional and psychological
distress. Almost one fourth (23%) of teachers reported this as their biggest chal-
lenge, while another 43% reported struggling with knowing how to help stu-
dents who had problems outside of school (Schwartz, 2019). Teachers believe
there should be greater emphasis on SEL in the educational process, but schools
tend to focus more on managing behavior than on teaching SEL skills. Despite
their enthusiasm and support for SEL, however, many teachers believe they have
not been adequately prepared for its implementation. Professional development
has fallen short, and teachers are finding themselves at the heart of a fast-moving
initiative for which they have limited preparation. These challenges are certain to
grow, particularly in the aftermath of the pandemic of 2020. As more schools
embrace SEL and as policy mandates begin to develop and unfold, teachers will
need both training and support for implementing SEL. To ensure long-term suc-
cess and sustainability, the SEL needs of teachers will need to be a priority con-
sideration for schools (Long, 2019).
School Leader Support for SEL

For the past decade, school leaders have increasingly recognized the importance of
SEL, and their support for teaching these skills is evidenced in several studies. In a
recent survey of elementary school principals in the United States., SEL was a top-
ranked concern. The principals who completed the survey cited increasing issues
with student behavior, student mental health, absenteeism, lack of adult supervision
at home, and student poverty as underlying the needs for SEL (Fuller et al., 2018).
These findings are consistent with other principal surveys as well. In 2017, CASEL
published Ready to Lead (DePaoli et al., 2017), the first of two reports on principals’
perceptions of SEL and how it might transform schools. The second report was
published in 2019 (Atwell and Bridgeland, 2019) and provided an update to the
original report. The findings in both reports were based on surveys of 710 principals
in kindergarten–12th grade schools in the United States. Results of the 2019 report
indicated that, when compared to the previous report, most principals had main-
tained positive attitudes toward SEL (83%). However, their level of commitment to
SEL had increased since the first survey (up from 69% to 74%; p. 5). Likewise, 99%
of principals continued to believe that SEL skills could be taught, but an increasing
number of principals (70% compared to 43% in 2017) were finding a need for a
formal curriculum (p. 6). While these results clearly indicate the degree to which
principals support SEL, other find-
ings illustrated how they were strug-
gling with the challenges of
DON’T FORGET
implementation. One area in which Support for SEL has increased among
they struggled the most was in the school leaders, but they struggle with
the challenges of implementing a sus-
area of assessment of SEL skills.
tainable SEL program and are finding a
While most principals believed SEL need for a formal curriculum.
skills could and should be assessed,
they generally were unfamiliar with current SEL assessments. Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4
provide more detailed information on the principals’ responses related to assessment
of SEL skills and their most likely uses of the data.
Table 5.2 Percentage of Principals Currently Assessing SEL Skills

Current practices in assessment of SEL skills 2017 (%) 2019 (%)
Reported using some type of assessment to assess students 77 83
(either subgroups or all students*)
*Reported assessing all students 24 40
Source: Data from Atwell, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2019). Ready to lead: A 2019 update of principals’
perspectives on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and transform schools (p. 22).
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). https://casel.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Ready-to-Lead_FINAL.pdf
Table 5.3 Percentage of Principals Using Different Methods to Assess SEL Skills

SEL assessment method % Using
Behavioral observation 65
Administrative records of disciplinary actions 61
Student self-report 36
Performance assessment 32
Table 5.4 Percentage of Principals Using Assessment for Different Uses

Purposes and uses of assessment 2017 (%) 2019 (%)
Improve instruction 18 32
Program evaluation 17 32
Sharing data with parents on student’s SEL skills 19 31
Results of the CASEL report are similar to the findings from another report in
which both principals and teachers were surveyed about SEL (Hamilton et al.,
2019). In this report, however, researchers were able to compare responses
between the 3,299 principals who completed the survey and the 15,258 teachers
who responded. A summary of the key findings from this report is provided in
Rapid Reference 5.3.
Based on surveys of both principals and teachers, results are clear that both
groups consistently support SEL and believe it is an essential component in educa-
tion, but they continue to struggle with implementation. Most believe the primary
Rapid Reference 5.3

Teacher and Principal Perspectives on Social and Emotional
Learning in America’s Schools: Findings From the American
Educator Panels
Key Findings
• Large majorities of principals described social and emotional learning (SEL) as a
top priority.
• Most educators rated a wide range of SEL skills as important, although teachers
tended to assign greater importance to SEL skills than principals did.
• Educators reported believing that SEL programs can improve student out-
comes and school climate.
• Elementary teachers and principals tended to use SEL programs and curricula,
while teachers and principals in secondary schools tended to use informal practices.
• Educators reported using a variety of strategies, ranging from classroom
activities to community outreach, to improve students’ SEL skills.
• Schools reported adopting several initiatives and curricula to address SEL;
positive behavior systems were common.
• Majorities of teachers and principals reported that their schools measured SEL.
• Majorities of principals and teachers received training to support SEL; in-service
training was more common than preservice training.
Many principals and teachers reported that having more time would improve their school’s ability
to address SEL.
Source: Hamilton, L., Doss, C., & Steiner, E. (2013). Teacher and principal perspectives on
social and emotional learning in America’s schools: Findings from the American Educator Panels.
Reprinted under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License, RR-2991-
BMGF, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2991.html
benefit of SEL is the improvement of student behavior; thus, the strategies they
employ primarily focus on behavior management rather than on strengths-based
strategies. While many report a need to identify and measure SEL skills, most
measurement focuses on the learning environment rather than on student skills
(Hamilton et al., 2019, p. 21). When student skills are measured, it typically
involves subsets of students and not all students. Furthermore, the most frequently
used methods for assessing skills are behavioral observations and reviews of disci-
pline actions. Despite these struggles with implementation, enthusiasm for SEL
remains high among principals and teachers for a number of reasons, but primarily
because of a recognition that students need more than academic preparation to be
successful in life.
The increased emphasis on SEL can be attributed largely to a shift in thinking
about what defines student success. For more than a century, student success has
been defined by academic performance. In other words, students who perform
well in the “three R’s” (reading, writing, and arithmetic) and complete a public
education program are considered ready to experience success in life. Academic
“standards” have been the criteria for success that have guided schools for dec-
ades. Thus, students who have been academically successful have been deemed
ready to face the challenges of life. Academic accomplishment has been equated
with success in life since the industrial revolution, if not longer. What’s been
missing from this equation, however, is something called opportunity. What has
become clear is that not all young people have been afforded the same educa-
tional opportunities, and thus have not had the same educational successes.
Educators and policymakers have begun to recognize the importance of SEL in
assuring equitable access to educational opportunities for all students. It is
believed that SEL can lead the charge toward increased educational opportunities
for students, but only if leaders prioritize SEL and provide equal support to
developing these skills, as is done with academic skill development.
Student Support for SEL

Students understand the benefits of SEL far greater than teachers and school
leaders. After all, they are the recipients of these supports. This is one reason why
it’s so important to consider students’ perspectives. Listening to them and learn-
ing about their experiences, or lack of experiences, with SEL not only can provide
clear evidence of their support for SEL but can help schools strengthen and
improve their efforts. In a recent study examining youth perspectives on SEL
(DePaoli et al., 2018), information was collected from more than 1,300 youth
through an online survey and in-depth interviews. Included in the study were
800 current high school students and 500 recent high school graduates. Overall,
the results showed that for students who experienced strong SEL programs in
their schools, the experience resulted in a positive influence on their education.
The study also revealed a number of other findings as well. Of the study’s partici-
pants, a significant number reported social and emotional problems that made it
difficult for them to learn and do their best in school. More than half (61%)
reported feeling stressed, while 54% said they couldn’t learn because of other
disruptive students (p. 24). In terms of preparation for life after high school,
almost one third (32%) of students in high school at the time of the study did
not feel they were being prepared for success after school. The percentage grew to
more than one half (52%) when recent high school graduates were surveyed
(p. 16). There also was disagreement between current students and recent gradu-
ates on how well high schools prepared students for a job or career after high
school. Students who were currently enrolled in high school felt they were being
adequately prepared (62%), compared to only 41% of recent high school gradu-
ates (p. 16). Large differences also were found between students who attended
schools that were strong in SEL and those who attended schools that were weak
in SEL. In strong SEL schools, 89% of students said they got along well with
others, compared to only 46% of students from weak SEL schools. Likewise,
90% of students in strong SEL schools felt safe compared to only 60% in weak
SEL schools (p. 3). For recent graduates, 83% from strong SEL schools felt they
had been adequately prepared for success after high school, compared to only
13% from weak SEL schools (p. 4).
Other youth surveys have
revealed additional adverse experi- DON’T FORGET
ences for students. In a 2015 sur-
While school leaders and teachers
vey of 22,000 high school youth, understand the benefits of SEL, stu-
the Yale Center for Emotional dents have a far greater understanding
Intelligence reported that students of its full potential. School leaders and
felt bored at school 70% of the teachers see the primary benefits
time and felt stressed 80% of the of SEL in managing behavior, while
time (Watson, 2015). Likewise, in students see the primary benefits in
preparing them for success after they
a 2017 survey from YouthTruth, it
exit the school system.
was found that only 60% of high
school students and 59% of mid-
dle school students felt engaged in learning, compared to 78% of elementary
school students. In this same survey, only 52% of secondary students enjoyed
coming to school most of the time, and only half felt prepared for college or
a career.
With nearly one fifth of young people worldwide experiencing some type of
mental health issue, the need for SEL in schools has never been greater. Anxiety,
depression, and other suicide-related behaviors are leading causes of emotional
distress for today’s students. Add to this mix the stresses of a pandemic, high rates
of traumatic childhood experiences, increases in the rate of bullying, and school
safety concerns, and what emerges is a portrait of despair. Evidence from student
surveys shows that students support SEL and believe it is effective. There is no
better time for SEL, and students cannot afford to wait.
THE ECONOMICS OF SEL
Education systems face challenges each year in balancing the costs of doing busi-
ness with providing an appropriate educational program for the students they
serve. Rising costs generally outpace incoming funds and are often accompanied
by increased mandates, thus making the delivery of services more taxing while
also limiting schools’ access to much-needed resources. Consequently, school sys-
tems must analyze and compare the cost of their investments with one another to
determine which ones are the most effective, and thereby are more likely to yield
the greatest long-term benefits. Through a comparative analysis, economic value
can be established for a school system’s investments so that resources can be prop-
erly allocated for greater efficiency and effectiveness. Assigning economic value to
educational programs such as SEL, however, can be an arduous task because the
full economic value can be difficult to quantify and is further complicated by
noneconomic costs associated with implementation and a time delay before full
benefits are realized. Therefore, school systems must examine both direct and
indirect costs, as well as tangible and intangible benefits, before an economic
value for SEL can be determined. More importantly, this value must be estab-
lished based on the effectiveness of SEL in supporting the system’s desired out-
comes for its students, and how these outcomes translate into long-term benefits
for taxpayers, the community, and society in general.
To demonstrate how school systems might use a benefit–cost analysis to deter-
mine the economic value of SEL and the potential return on its investment, a
study was conducted by Belfield et al. (2015). The study examined a range of
SEL interventions that were developed for use with individuals, classrooms, and
entire schools across a variety of grade levels. Among the six interventions examined,
there were some limitations acknowledged by the authors, including the inability
to capture all the benefits for each intervention or to convert some of the benefits
into monetary measures (p. 4). Therefore, the study analyzed the benefits com-
pared to costs for each intervention, then summarized the results and calculated
an average benefit–cost ratio to determine if the benefits of the interventions

were justified by the costs. Overall, the study found all six interventions had
benefits that exceeded their costs, and some of the interventions had substantial
benefits. The average benefit–cost ratio for all six interventions showed that for
every dollar spent, there was a return of 11 dollars (USD) on the investment
(p. 5). These findings illustrate how SEL offers a high rate of return on invest-
ment, but this rate may be even higher than calculated because of the inability to
measure and monetize many of the benefits, as well as many of the costs schools
currently have with managing negative behaviors. For example, the authors
pointed out that negative social behaviors can require more school resources,
which impose greater costs for schools in terms of the need for more staff and
services. Serious behavior problems can lead to special education services or grade
retention, or referral to other social agencies. Although the dollar amounts of
these behaviors are not known, if the costs could be itemized, it would seem that
an improvement of social-emotional skills would yield sizeable costs savings
(p. 47). Since these savings cannot be factored into the current rate of return, the
benefits are likely higher than what
was found. It’s also interesting to
DON’T FORGET
note that in schools where SEL has
been implemented, it is frequently A benefit–cost analysis of six SEL
reported that the improvement in interventions determined the average
return on investment was 11 dollars
students’ social-emotional skills has
for every dollar spent on the interven-
led to fewer disciplinary removals tions.
and improved attendance.
THE LOGIC FOR SEL
The evidence supporting the effectiveness of SEL has continued to grow and has
captured the attention of many, including policy makers and potential grant
funders. It has penetrated national initiatives aimed at improving behavior and
reducing school bullying and violence, as well as federal education accountabil-
ity statutes in the United States (e.g., the Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA]).
Despite the growing awareness and acknowledgment of the importance of SEL
in education, there is so much that still needs to be considered when imple-
menting SEL. The empirical evidence that supports the effectiveness of SEL
helps answer the question of why SEL is important, but it does not answer the
question of how it should be delivered. The complexities of systemic implemen-
tation and the internal logic that guides this process are equally, if not more,
important.
A logic model is an organized way of designing an initiative and making the

case for why it is needed and how it will improve the current situation. It provides
a roadmap for the process and is, essentially, a blueprint for how the initiative is
designed to work and what course of action will be taken. It serves as a visual
guide that illustrates the intended relationships between what needs to be invested
(i.e., resources), what activities will be involved, and what outcomes are desired.
It also provides a realistic understanding of the expected challenges, the resources
that will be needed to address the challenges, and the expected timeline for
achieving the desired outcomes. A logic model provides a common language,
helps avoid problems, and keeps everyone moving in the same direction. It is not
intended to be a fixed design or a set of rules. Instead, a good logic model shows
how the initiative is progressing and allows for adjustments in the process where
needed. A logic model expresses the evidence-based rationale, or thinking, behind
the initiative and why it is expected to be successful in solving the stated
problem(s). The logic behind the initiative can be illustrated through a variety of
forms, such as a flowchart, a table, or a graphic model. Some forms take on a
linear design, while others are more circular. The desired form should be guided
by the nature of the initiative. For example, initiatives that involve interreliant
components might be more effectively represented by a circular model, while
those that involve cause-and-effect discussions may be depicted more effectively
with a linear model. Linear models provide a logical “if-then” sequence to the
progression of the initiative and are used frequently to illustrate relationships
between the components of the initiative. Circular models, in contrast, help illu-
minate the interdependent influences of various components, such as systems
issues, on the intended outcomes of the initiative. Whatever form is chosen for
the logic model, it should represent the “big picture” along with the most impor-
tant parts, or details, which are illustrated in a visual model. Typical logic models
include basic components such as resources, activities, outputs, and effects. See
Rapid Reference 5.4 for a description of these components, as well as Figure 5.1
that provides an example of a logic model for a statewide initiative and Figure 5.2
that provides a sample template for developing a customized logic model.
In addition to understanding what a logic model is, it’s important to under-
stand the “how to” in its development. A team-based approach is highly recom-
mended, as it offers a comprehensive view of the issues involved and provides an
opportunity to gain input from key stakeholders. For school systems, the team
should include members that clearly understand the issues as they relate to their
areas of expertise and who are fully committed to the goals of the initiative over
the course of time. Team members should include a school administrator, one
instructional representative specialized in general education and another specialized
Rapid Reference 5.4

Basic Components of a Logic Model
Logic models provide a big picture for the change desired by an initiative and offer
clarity and direction for the efforts involved. Typical models include the following
components:
• Resources or inputs needed to conduct the initiative: What resources
will be needed to implement and operate the initiative? This section identifies
all resources that will be needed to drive the course of change. These include:
1. Individuals who will be required to implement the initiative and may
represent a stake in the initiative’s outcomes. For example, a SEL initiative
may need to include a school administrator, a general education staff
member, a special education staff member, a school mental health profes-
sional, a parent, a student, or any volunteers or representatives from other
stakeholder groups and agencies that may be needed to implement a
whole-school approach to the initiative.
2. Any tangible needs such as curriculum materials, supplies, programs, or funds
that may be essential for the initiative.
3. Documentation of agreements, endorsements, or memorandums with
participating organizations or groups.
4. Any other resources that may be needed to implement and support the
initiative.
• All identified resources should have a purpose, should be accessible, and should
be necessary for carrying out the activities and objectives of the initiative. The
resources section also should address any foreseeable constraints (such as
funding or legal mandates) that may create barriers to the initiative’s objectives
and for which specific consideration may need to be given.
• Activities designed to facilitate/guide the changes: How will the
resources be accessed and used to implement and operate the initiative? This
section identifies how the resources will be used to carry out the activities and
guide the course of change. This may include activities that address training
needs or promotional and awareness needs. It also may include methods and
processes for conducting assessment and data collection or for expanding
collaborative partnerships. Essentially, this section should identify any activities
that will be needed to promote the desired change. When identifying the
activities, avoid being too ambiguous or too detailed. The activities should be
broad enough to achieve the desired outcomes, but not so detailed that the
model becomes too elaborate or too complex. The goal of the activities
section is to provide a broad description of the essential steps needed to guide
the process of change in a way that can be clearly evidenced. If further detail is
needed for specific activities, a separate but related model could be developed.
• Outputs or evidence/data that show activities were completed:
What evidence is needed to show that the activities were completed as
planned? This section identifies what was accomplished by the activities and if
they delivered what was intended. The output of an activity might be a specific
amount of service or a product, for example. Whatever the intended outputs,
consideration should be given to the indicators that will be needed to demon-
strate that the activities and benefits were achieved.
• Effects or outcomes: What results, consequences, or impacts are expected if
the activities are accomplished as intended? This section identifies the changes
that are expected as a result of the activities. These changes should be evidenced
through short-term outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and long-term outcomes
Typical logic models also should include the following elements:
• A mission statement or statement of purpose: What is the underlying
rationale for the change? This section might identify an existing problem or need
that the initiative is intended to address, or it might simply target an opportunity
for change.
• Contextual factors or conditions for change: What is the context for
the change, and what conditions are likely to influence the change? This section
identifies any factors that may be underlying or driving the need for change, or
any variables that are likely to influence the need for change, such as a need to
align policies and programs. It also identifies any conditions that might create a
climate for change, such as political initiatives, regulatory mandates, or economic
situations, among others.
in special education, a school mental health professional, a parent, a student, and

any members of collaborative partner programs such as local child-serving agen-
cies, faith-based groups, or community mental health providers, among others.
Once the team is identified, information about the initiative should be provided
to each member in advance of the first meeting. The information should include
relevant facts and details about the initiative so that members have a general
understanding of the issues as they assemble to begin the process of developing the
logic model that will drive the initiative for change. It’s important to document
the team meetings and discussions, so assigning a note-taker should be one of the
first actions of the group. It’s also important for the team to understand that the
process will likely involve a set of complex issues requiring multiple discussions
and multiple meetings. In other words, the goal is not only to develop a logic
model but also to create a sustainable approach to the initiative. Generally, this
means that the team will require a comprehensive understanding of the issues, the
interdependent components involved, and the mechanisms that drive change. A
more detailed explanation of the team process will be discussed in Chapter 7.
Mission: The mission of the state wide SEL initiative is to build a network of resources and supports that assist schools and communities with implementing SEL by integrating
concepts, approaches, pedagogical strategies, and evidence-based practices with inclusive programs that ensure educational equity for all.
Mission support efforts : Through monthly meetings, bring together representatives of a growing number of established and emerging SEL efforts includinglocal education
agencies, schools, organizations, groups, and individuals from across the state to:
• Connect, get to know one another, and share successes and challenges
• Provide training opportunities, promotional events, and resources that build and support sustainable practices
• Provide guidance and input to the state board of educationas we continue to develop this state-wide effort
Resources/Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes
• Board of directors • Develop organizational • Establishment of state and Short-term Intermediate Long-term
• State education structure and infrastructure federal 501(c)3 non-profit outcomes outcomes outcomes
leaders • Research and pursue, as status
appropriate, grant/funding • Development of • Compliance with • Reduction in tax • Organizational
• Regional education state and federal obligations leadership established
opportunities organizationby-laws and
service center (ESC) tax statutes for and infrastructure is
representatives • Develop and/or provide operating guidelines • Grant/funding
non-profit status sustainable
resources, supports, and • Access to government grant opportunities
• District/school (LEA) professional development portal, funding service • Funding streams identified • Grant/funding acquired
leaders to help advanceSEL providers, and funding identified
frameworks,concepts, agency directory • Increased • Increase in number of
• Youth-serving agency
approaches, pedagogy • Website and production of schools implementing
leaders • Guidance template for RFPs
and evidence-base social media training SEL
• Professional practices and LOIs accountsare resources and
organization leaders operational support • Increase in number of
• Webinars, website, blog, schools implementing
• Community leaders • Develop processes to help social media postings, and materials
align discipline practices • Advocacynetwork alternative approaches
resource materials available to discipline aligned
• Parent leaders with principles of social established • Increased
to members, schools, and with social justice
• Higher education justice and employ communities number of
• White paper/brief members in principles and
leaders restorative practices that
• White paper on alternative on discipline advocacy restorative practices
promote equitable
• Policy advocates/ approaches to discipline practicesadopted network
educational opportunities
leaders for all students aligned with social justice • Repository for tool kit,
• Tool kit developed • Policy agenda resources and training
principles and restorative to support
• Coordinate and align practices identified materials established
effortsthat support a implementation on the website
Whole-child approach to • Implementation tool kit and through a MTSS
the Multi-Tiered Systems resources designed for framework • Policy committee
of Support (MTSS) MTSS framework activates advocacy
Advisory partners: • Policy committee network to advance
processin schools • Policy statements and white formed
papers policy initiatives
• Program/product • Promote policy change
developers through advocacy efforts
Contextual factors/conditions for change: Social and emotional development is the foundation for learning and is equally as important as cognitive development and
academic achievement. SEL promotes the development of competencies that students need for success in school, in transitioning to higher education and/or the workforce,
and in life. SEL promotes positive youth development that builds prosocial behaviors and decreases problem behaviors, including violence and bullying. SEL efforts are
grounded in the belief that apositive school culture and climate are fundamentally necessary for building and sustaining a safe learning environment thatpromoteshealthy
relationships, successful instruction and a community of acceptance. School discipline policies that are aligned with principles of social justice and employ restorative practices
are more likely to promote equitable treatment of all students and have a positive impact on SEL outcomes. SEL efforts can build and promote positive relationships with
community partners and positively influence community norms. District, state, and federal policies can influence SEL efforts.
Figure 5.1 Sample Logic Model for a Statewide Nonprofit SEL Initiative

Mission:
Mission support efforts:
Resources/Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes
Short-term: Intermediate: Long-term:
Advisory partners:
Contextual factors/conditions for change:
Figure 5.2 Sample Template for a Logic Model
As schools begin the process of developing the logic model, there are a number
of resources that can help, and many are available at no cost. For example, the
Institute of Education Sciences, Regional Educational Laboratory Program (IES:
REL), offers an application known as the Education Logic Model (ELM). The
application is downloaded to a computer and can be used without an internet
connection. Once downloaded, the program guides users through a step-by-step
process that culminates in a printable logic model. Access to the application is
provided in the References section at the end of this chapter (Institute for
Education Sciences, n.d.).
MOVING FORWARD
Advancing an SEL initiative is a

challenging process for which there DON’T FORGET
is no “one-size-fits-all” model. Every There is no “one-size-fits-all” model
education system is unique with its for SEL. Each school system will have
own set of cultural challenges, so its own set of cultural and system
the model will naturally need to fit challenges, and must find supports at
the micro and macro levels in order
the unique needs of the system,
to create a model that fits the unique
while taking into consideration the needs of the system.
barriers, resources, and conditions
that may influence the initiative. From an ecosystem perspective, support will
exist at both the micro and macro levels (World Economic Forum, 2016, p. 24).
At the micro level of the ecosystem, support might be found in parents, teachers,
service providers, community members, and even student peers. At the macro
level, there may be national, state, or local policies that support SEL, as well as
supports from nonprofit groups, businesses, and institutions such as researchers,
developers, and investors. Engaging and collaborating with these system-level
supports will be the key to overcoming the challenges and barriers to SEL, thereby
creating effective and successful solutions for advancing the initiative. Part III of
this book will begin the process of moving the initiative forward, starting with
Chapter 7.
CONCLUSION
The evidence of SEL’s effectiveness is abundantly clear. Meta-analytic studies

have confirmed that SEL is effective for more than simply decreasing negative
student behavior. More importantly, it also is an effective catalyst for developing
prosocial behaviors, improving social and emotional skill development, and
increasing academic achievement. When implemented early and with fidelity
and integrity, the effects and benefits are lasting and far-reaching. Results of a
longitudinal study of the Perry Preschool Project demonstrated that not only did
social and emotional development help prepare students for success in school,
but it also prepared them for successes in life. Principals, teachers, and students
recognize the importance of SEL and have proclaimed it as the missing compo-
nent in education. Yet, prioritizing it as a worthwhile investment for education
systems that struggle with dwindling funds and limited resources remains a chal-
lenge. This is especially true in the current environment in which academic
accountability remains a high priority. However, investing in SEL has been shown
to yield a high rate of return for every dollar spent, and it does not detract from
academic achievement. Studies have confirmed that SEL enhances academic
learning, while also yielding benefits from improved prosocial behaviors such as
fewer disciplinary removals and improved attendance.
Despite the evidence of effectiveness and widespread benefits of SEL, educa-
tion systems continue to face challenges with implementation. While the empiri-
cal evidence demonstrates why SEL is important, it does not offer solutions for
how to move forward with a logical, planned process for systemic implementa-
tion. A logic model offers a guide for this process, but it is just that—a guide. The
following chapters will address the “how to” of the complex process of imple-
menting a sustainable approach to SEL.
TEST YOURSELF
1. Since 1980, job growth in the United States has been in occupations that
require high social skills, while job growth in occupations that require
high cognitive skills has declined. Deming (2017) believes this is attrib-
uted to a growth in what?
(a) SEL
(b) Academic accountability
(c) World economics
(d) Technology
2. The effectiveness of SEL has been evidenced in several meta-analytic
studies, but the most widely cited study is the one conducted by Durlak
et al. in 2011. In this study, it was found that SEL programs that were
implemented using four specific practices had increased success.These
four practices were:
(a) Safe, Active, Focused, Extrinsic
(b) Sequenced, Active, Focused, Explicit
(c) Safe, Asynchronous, Flexible, Explicit
(d) Sequenced, Asynchronous, Focused, Explicit
3. In the Durlak et al. (2011) meta-analysis, the largest program effect was
found in the area of what?
(a) Academic achievement
(b) Social-emotional skill performance
(c) Prosocial behaviors
(d) Classroom behavior
4. Taylor et al. (2017) examined the long-term effects of SEL programming
and found which of the following?
(a) Students in school-based SEL programs continued to show benefits on
the outcomes being measured for more than 3 ½ years after participat-
ing in the program.
(b) SEL interventions provided dual benefits for students. Not only did they
improve students’ skills, attitudes, prosocial behaviors, and academic
performance, but they also helped prevent negative problem behaviors
such as conduct problems, emotional distress, and drug use.
(c) The positive effects of SEL were consistent for all student demographic
groups.
5. The Perry Preschool Project was a longitudinal study that followed

participants for 40 years. It is one of the most widely cited studies in
education and is most credited for its contributions to what?
(a) The field of social-emotional learning
(b) Equity in educational opportunities
(c) Preschool improvement efforts
(d) Long-term understanding of the impact of poverty on education
6. Most school principals believe SEL skills can and should be assessed, but
the method used by most principals is what?
(a) Behavioral observation
(b) Administrative record review
(c) Student self-report
(d) Performance assessment
7. Of principals, teachers, and students, the group that understands the
benefits of SEL the greatest is the students.
(a) True
(b) False
8. In a study by Belfield et al. (2015), it was found that SEL intervention
programs yielded what rate of return on investment?
(a) 21:1
(b) 11:1
(c) 9:1
(d) 10:1
9. Typical logic models have the following four basic components:
(a) Resources, Routines, Inputs, Outputs
(b) Resources, Inputs, Outputs, Outcomes
(c) Resources, Activities, Outputs, Effects
(d) Resources, Inputs, Outcomes, Effects
10. The key to advancing an SEL initiative is what?
(a) Accessing ecosystem supports at the micro level
(b) Accessing ecosystem supports at the macro level
(c) Engaging and collaborating with ecosystem supports at both the micro
and macro levels
Answers: 1. d; 2. b; 3. b; 4. d; 5. c; 6. a; 7. a; 8. b; 9. c; 10. d
REFERENCES
Atwell, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2019). Ready to lead: A 2019 update of principals’
perspectives on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and
transform schools. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL). https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Ready-
to-Lead_FINAL.pdf
Barnett, S. (2010, September 17). Preschool matters today: The Perry preschool
study stands the test of time, but it doesn’t stand alone. National Institute for
Early Education Research. http://nieer.org/2010/09/17/
the-perry-preschool-study-stands-the-test-of-time-but-it-doesnt-stand-alone
Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015).
The economic value of social and emotional learning. Center for Benefit-Cost
Studies in Education. https://www.cbcse.org/publications/the-economic-
value-of-social-and-emotional-learning?rq=the%20economic%20value%20
of%20social%20emotional%20learning
Belfield, C., Nores, M., Barnett, S., & Schweinhart, L. (2006). The High/
Scope Perry Preschool Program: Cost-benefit analysis using data from the
age 40 follow-up. The Journal of Human Resources, 41(1), 162–190. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/40057261
Bierman, K. L., & Motamedi, M. (2015). SEL programs for preschool children.
In J. Durlak, C. Domitrovich, R. Weissberg, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook
for social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 135–150).
Guilford Press.
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national
teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and
Learning (CASEL). file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/the-
missing-piece.pdf
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the
effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development.
Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579–620.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social-
emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching
efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0029356
Deming, D. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the labor
market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1593–1640. https://
doi:10.1093/qje/qjx022
Denham, S., Bassett, H., Zinsser, K., & Wyatt, T. (2014). How preschoolers’
social-emotional learning predicts their early school success: Developing
theory—Promoting competency-based assessments. Infant and Child
Development, 23(4), 426–454.
DePaoli, J. L., Atwell, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2017). Ready to lead: A national
principal survey on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and
transform schools. http://www.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/
ReadyToLead_FINAL.pdf
DePaoli, J. L., Atwell, M. N., Bridgeland, J. M., & Shriver, T. P. (2018).
Respected: Perspectives of youth on high school and social and emotional learning.
Civic with Hart Research Associates.
Diekstra, R. (2008). Effectiveness of school-based social and emotional educa-
tion programmes worldwide. In C. Clouder, J. Argos, M. Pilar Ezquerra, L.
Faria, J. M. Gidley, M. Kokkonen, et al. (Eds.), Social and emotional educa-
tion: An international analysis (pp. 255–312). Fundación Marcelino Botín.
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.
Fuller, E., Young, M., Richardson, M., Pendola, A., & Winn, K. (2018). The
pre-k-8 school leader in 2018: A 10-year study. Ninth in a series of research
studies launched in 1928. National Association of Elementary School
Principals. https://www.naesp.org/pre-k-8-school-leader-2018-10-year-study
Garvin, D., Wagonfeld, A., & Kind, L. (2013). Google’s Project Oxygen: Do
managers matter? Harvard Business School.
Goldberg, J., Sklad, M., Elfrink, T., Schreurs, K., Bohlmeijer, E., & Clarke, A.
(2018). Effectiveness of interventions adopting a whole school approach to
enhancing social and emotional development: A meta-analysis. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, (34), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10212-018-0406-9
Hamilton, L., Doss, C., & Steiner, E. (2013). Teacher and principal perspectives
on social and emotional learning in America’s schools: Findings from the
American Educator Panels. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Public License, RR-2991-BMGF, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/
research_reports/RR2991.html
Harrell, M., & Barbato, L. (2018, February 27). Great managers still matter: The
evolution of Google’s Project Oxygen. re:Work. https://rework.withgoogle.com/
blog/the-evolution-of-project-oxygen/
Heckman, J., & Karapakula, G. (2019). Intergenerational and intragenerational

externalities of the Perry preschool project. (Working paper 25889). National
Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25889
HighScope Educational Research Foundation (HighScope). (2004, November).
HighScope Perry Preschool study: Long-term study of adults who received
high-quality early childhood care and education shows economic and social gains,
less crime. https://highscope.org/highscope-perry-preschool-study/
Huffman, L., Mehlinger, S., Kerivan, A., Cavanaugh, D., Lippitt, J., & Moyo,
O. (2001). Off to a good start: Research on the risk factors for early school
problems and selected federal policies affecting children’s social and emotional
development and their readiness for school (ERIC No. ED476378).
Department of Health and Human Services. https://eric.ed.
gov/?id=ED476378
Institute for Education Sciences (IES). (n.d.). Education Logic Model (ELM)
application. Institute for Education Sciences: Regional Educational
Laboratory Program (IES:REL). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/
pacific/elm.asp
Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social
and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes.
Review of Educational Research, 1(79), 491–525. https://
doi:10.3102/0034654308325693
Jones, D., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional
functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social
competence and future wellness. Research and Practice, 105(11), 2283–2290.
https://doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630
Long, D. (2019). School leaders’ roles in empowering teachers through SEL.
State Innovations, 1(24), 1–4. National Association of State Boards of
Education. https://www.nasbe.org/
school-leaders-role-in-empowering-teachers-through-sel/
Parks, G. (2000). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/
highscope-perry-preschool-project
Schwartz, S. (2019). Teachers support social-emotional learning, but say
students in distress strain their skills. Education Week, 37(38), 1, 12–13.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/07/17/teachers-support-social-
emotional-learning-but-say-students.html
Schweinhart, L., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W., Belfield, C., & Nores, M.
(2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40.
HighScope Press.
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., De Ritter, M., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012).
Effectiveness of schoolbased universal social, emotional, and behavioral
programs. Do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill,
behavior, and adjustment? Psychology and Schools, (49), 892–909.
Strauss, V. (2014, February 28). Why preschool critics are wrong. The Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/28/
why-preschool-critics-are-wrong/
Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. (2017). Promoting positive
youth development through school-based social and emotional learning
interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development,
88(4), 1156–1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864
Watson, S. (2015, October 26). Students unhappy in school, survey finds.
WebMD. https://blogs.webmd.com/from-our-archives/20151026/
students-unhappy-in-school-survey-finds
Weare, K., & Nind, M. (2011). Mental health promotion and problem
prevention in schools: What does the evidence say? Health Promotion
International, 26(S1), i29–i69. https://doi:10.1093/heapro/dar075
Wiglesworth, M., Lendrum, A., Oldfield, J., Scott, A., ten Bokkel, I., Tate, K.,
& Emery, C. (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and
international transferability on universal social and emotional learning
programme outcomes: A meta-analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education,
(46), 347–376.
World Economic Forum. (2016). New vision for education: Fostering social and
emotional learning through technology. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf
YouthTruth. (2017). Learning from student voice: Are students engaged?
YouthTruth Student Survey, A National Nonprofit. https://youthtruthsurvey.
org/student-engagement/#section1
Six
MAKING THE CASE FOR SEL
INTRODUCTION
The evidence and support for SEL are unequivocal, and the recognition of its
importance in teaching and learning is expanding rapidly. At no other time in
history has SEL been as important as it is right now. As the world begins to
emerge from a global pandemic, the need for SEL in schools is at its highest
point. With the increased recognition of this need is the belief that the tides of
change are turning in education, as mounting evidence of SEL casts doubt on the
traditional practices and philosophies that have long guided education systems
worldwide. Global excitement for SEL continues to build, and more and more
school systems are embracing it as the missing link to teaching and learning. As
these systems clamber for SEL programming and guidance, however, the chal-
lenges are beginning to surface. The complexities of understanding what it is and
the role of every individual in executing a schoolwide approach to SEL have shed
light on many barriers and have ushered in a host of unanticipated questions and
concerns.
159
CHALLENGES TO GAINING
BUY-IN DON’T FORGET
Barriers to Learning As the world emerges from the global
and Teaching pandemic caused by COVID-19, more
schools are embracing SEL as the
Every educator knows that when missing link to teaching and learning.
students come to school with per-
sonal or situational problems, very
little learning occurs. These problems create barriers to the learning process and
ultimately impact student and system outcomes. Recognizing these barriers, and
how they connect with and impact the learning process, is fundamental to under-
standing the importance of SEL in education. Rapid Reference 6.1 provides a
visual illustration of how these barriers are connected to student and system out-
comes and how they can create inequities that influence these outcomes.
Rapid Reference 6.1

MAKING CONNECTIONS
Do barriers create inequities that influence outcomes?
BARRIERS TO LEARNING AND
TEACHING
Poverty
Social injustice
STUDENT/SCHOOL OUTCOMES
Homelessness
Language
Academic Achievement
Adverse Childhood Experiences
Language Proficiency
Abuse and Neglect
Attendance
Domestic Violence
Graduation
Family Instability
Discipline Referrals
Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Disproportionate Placements
Pregnancy
Law Enforcement Referrals
Truancy
Juvenile Justice Involvement
Human Trafficking
Pregnancy-related Services
Race; Gender; Sexual Orientation
State Performance Accountability
Foster Care
Student Performance Accountability
Gang Involvement
Special Education Placement
Juvenile Delinquency
Postsecondary Readiness
Disability
Federal Programs Accountability
Mental Health
Others
Natural Disasters
War and Conflict
Military-related Issues
Incarceration
Others
Making the Case for SEL 161
Many of these problems are acute concerns that typically can be addressed
through schoolwide programs and supports, but a growing number of problems
have become more chronic and pervasive and are related to a variety of factors,
such as poverty, exposure to violence and trauma, and mental disorders, just to
name a few. The prevalence of mental illness, for example, has continued to grow
over the past several decades and, as previously stated in Chapter 4, has been
designated a public health crisis by the U.S. Public Health Service since 2000.
Furthermore, significant increases in mental health problems are expected world-
wide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization
(WHO, 2020) estimates that as many as one out of five children and adolescents
currently experience mental disorders, and this percentage is expected to increase
substantially in the aftermath of the pandemic. Of the current mental illnesses
identified in young people, half of these begin by age 14, but prolonged exposure
to the trauma of the pandemic will necessitate earlier identification.
Neuropsychiatric conditions are the leading cause of disability in young people in
all regions of the world. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) report that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
anxiety, and behavior disorders are among the more common disorders diagnosed in
U.S. children, and some of these conditions occur together (CDC, 2020). Treatment
rates vary for the different disorders, with about 78% of children ages 3–17 receiving
treatment for depression, while only 50% of children with behavior disorders receive
any type of treatment. Suicide-related behaviors have also increased over the past
several decades. As reported in Chapter 4, the suicide rate for young people ages 10
to 24 climbed 56% between 2007 and 2017. Suicide is ranked as the third leading
cause of adolescent mortality, and the rates continue to increase.
Many children who experience
mental illness also have encounters
with the juvenile justice system. DON’T FORGET
As much as 75% of the youth Neuropsychiatric conditions such as
involved with juvenile justice have a ADHD, anxiety, and behavior disor-
diagnosable mental health disorder ders are the leading cause of disability
in young people throughout all regions
(Underwood & Washington, 2016).
of the world. Suicide is the third lead-
In addition, 75% of the 2 million ing cause of adolescent mortality.
youth in the juvenile justice system
have experienced traumatic victimi-
zation, and 93% have reported exposure to adverse childhood experiences, includ-
ing child abuse, family and community violence, and serious illness (Baglivio et al.,
2014). Overrepresentation of youth of color in the U.S. juvenile justice system is
also of great concern. Although youth of color constitute only about one third of
the total adolescent population in the United States, they disproportionately

outnumber the White youth in the juvenile justice system. Youth of color consti-
tute about two thirds of the youth population in the juvenile justice system
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020).
These unresolved problems with
mental health and other personal and
situational issues often lead to multi- DON’T FORGET
ple challenges in classrooms, schools, Although youth of color comprise
and communities. The barriers they only one third of the adolescent
create for learning and teaching ulti- population in the United States, they
mately result in poorer outcomes for constitute two thirds of the popula-
students, as well as for the school sys- tion of adolescents in the U.S. juvenile
tems that serve them. Teachers of justice system.
these students report high rates of
burnout and emotional stress, which often lead to difficulties in managing class-
rooms and may cause frequent and ongoing emotional exhaustion (Jennings &
Greenberg, 2009). In fact, a longitudinal study by the National Center for Education
Statistics found that 17.3% of beginning teachers left the profession by the end of
the 5-year study (Gray & Taie, 2015). Although various reasons have been cited for
why teachers choose to leave the profession, one of the most frequently cited has
been a high degree of emotional burnout and stress for which they feel unprepared.
When students experience a lack of success in learning, this leads to school fail-
ure, peer rejection, punitive contacts with teachers, and chronic disengagement from
school. Student engagement is not only important to learning, but studies have
found it to be necessary to learning. Schools that create a culture of engagement are
far more likely to experience better outcomes. Unfortunately, engagement rates have
been steadily declining over the past several decades. To determine the rate of disen-
gagement, Gallup, an American analytics and advisory company based in
Washington, D.C., gathered data from over 5 million surveys of students in grades
5 through 12 over a period of several years (Hodges, 2018). The surveys included
students from every U.S. state and a range of rural, suburban, and urban school set-
tings. Results indicated more than half (53%) of these students were either not
engaged or actively disengaged from school. In addition, two key factors emerged as
predictors of school engagement. Students who (a) felt their school was actively
committed to improving student strengths, and (b) had one teacher who made them
feel excited about the future, were 30 times as likely to be engaged in school than
students who disagreed with these statements.
Multiple studies have shown a positive association between school engagement
and academic outcomes, but what exactly is engagement? There are multiple vari-
ations in how it is defined and measured, so the term is frequently misunderstood
and misused. Like SEL, it is important for educators to reach agreement on what
it is and the terminology that will be used when discussing it, measuring it, and
employing strategies for improvement. While school engagement often is used to
refer to students’ compliance or conformity with academic tasks or school expecta-
tions, the true meaning of engagement involves how students feel about being
connected to their school and to their teachers. Fletcher (2005) describes school
engagement as “students being attracted to their work, persisting despite chal-
lenges and obstacles, and taking visible delight in accomplishing their work.”
Although there are various definitions offered in the literature, all agree that
engagement is a key factor in improving student outcomes. As schools create a
culture of engagement in schools, there are three dimensions of engagement on
which they should focus: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive (Fredricks et al.,
2004). Each of these is described in Rapid Reference 6.2.
Rapid Reference 6.2

Dimensions of School Engagement
Behavioral engagement: This dimension of engagement involves the concept

of participation. Students who are behaviorally engaged are more likely to be
involved in academic and social activities, including extracurricular opportunities
such as school clubs, sports, and interscholastic events. Social and emotional
competencies are crucial to behavioral engagement and can promote success
both in school and out of school. Behavioral engagement is considered a key
factor in the prevention of school dropout.
Emotional engagement: This dimension involves emotional connections in
school. This includes relationships with school staff and peers. It also includes
emotional commitment, or motivation, to do the required work. Students who
are emotionally engaged in school are more willing to do the work and experi-
ence a sense of connection and pride with their school.
Cognitive engagement: This dimension involves a sense of investment or
commitment. Students who are cognitively engaged in school tend to apply
themselves better, have a good work ethic, have good comprehension for
complex ideas, and can master difficult skills. Social and emotional competencies,
especially responsible decision making, are critical to cognitive engagement.
Source: Adapted from Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney,
K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A descrip-
tion of 21 instruments (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evalu-
ation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
edlabs. (This report is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission.)
Thus far, this section has focused on personal and situational problems that
create barriers to learning, but there also can be institutional problems that create
barriers. Although they may be unintentional, they usually are resistant to change.
These include but are not limited to governance issues (e.g., policies, mandates,
and organizational management structures), funding issues (e.g., availability, dis-
tribution, and management of funds), resource issues (e.g., availability and access
to programs, constraints in programs, and redundancies in programs), and staff-
ing issues (e.g., shortages, insufficient training, and lack of school mental health
professionals). Removing many of these barriers can be a challenge, but it does
not mean schools must create new systems. Doing so would exacerbate already
fragmented systems and lead to further “silo-ing” in schools. This is exactly the
sort of pitfall that SEL is intended to avoid. Existing policies, procedures, and
operating guidelines should be examined through the lens of equity to eliminate
barriers wherever possible. In addition, learning and teaching supports can and
should be expanded to address the needs of the whole child and incorporate
social and emotional development into the process. Through this expanded
focus, efforts become more cohesive, administrative costs are reduced, and stu-
dents and staff experience greater success.
To design schools where students are engaged and learning, school systems
must commit to a comprehensive, coordinated, and systemic approach to SEL
that addresses barriers at all levels (i.e., personal, situational, and institutional),
has strong and effective leadership, employs a whole-child model of intervention
and service delivery, and creates a culture of student engagement. Involving staff
in this effort is one of the first challenges school systems encounter and will be
discussed in the next section.
Stakeholder Commitment
One of the beginning challenges to moving forward and implementing SEL is
acquiring commitment from stakeholders. As Chapter 5 demonstrated, the evi-
denced support for SEL is widespread among teachers, school leaders, students,
and parents. The momentum for SEL is gaining, even among policy makers. Each
of these groups recognizes the transformative ability of SEL and its importance in
education. They also recognize how effective SEL has been with improving student
and system outcomes, as demonstrated by multiple studies. Despite the broad sup-
port and understanding of its importance, however, the commitment to school-
wide implementation has been and continues to be sporadic. One reasonable
explanation might be a lack of funding, but that doesn’t fully explain things, espe-
cially in wealthier school systems where many student-and system-level outcomes
remain as difficult to change as those in poorer school systems. Another viable

explanation is the perception that SEL requires an increased time commitment and
greater accountability for teachers (i.e., more responsibility on their plates); there-
fore, it is plausible that commitment from teachers has faltered. This is likely not
the case, however, since most studies have shown that teachers support SEL and
believe it is the missing component in education (Bridgeland et al., 2013). Teachers
are committed to SEL, but they want and need training and support in how to
embed SEL into their pedagogy and practice. SEL commitment most certainly will
require support at the instructional level, but the rationale for the lack of commit-
ment to a schoolwide approach is likely explained better from a systems-level
perspective.
There are many possible explanations for the lack of commitment to SEL, but
perhaps the most reasonable is related to how school systems operate. These com-
plex systems involve a host of challenges at multiple levels within the system that
can be overwhelming for any group of stakeholders. So, simply recognizing the
importance of SEL isn’t the same as implementing it. SEL cannot be “plugged
into” the existing system. It must be integrated systematically so that it becomes
embedded in every aspect of the system’s operations. This is not a simple task,
and it involves commitment at every level of the system. Gaining buy-in from
stakeholders, therefore, involves more than simply “selling” everyone on the ben-
efits of SEL. As with any new initiative, it’s important to provide facts and dispel
myths about the initiative, but it is equally if not more important to recognize the
many challenges that may be encountered. System-level change is difficult for
most people, and it’s important that everyone have a clear understanding of what
is involved and why it is not just important but necessary. In the case of SEL, it
is not a single event but an ongoing process for change. Therefore, the complexi-
ties of the school system, the impasses that can occur at various levels, and the
internal logic for SEL that must be understood by all are important acknowledg-
ments for ensuring that everyone at all levels can commit to addressing the many
changes that will be needed.
THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP DON’T FORGET

AND GOVERNANCE
Getting stakeholders to recognize the
Trust and credibility in school lead- benefits and importance of SEL isn’t
ership and governance are critical enough to gain buy-in. They also must
understand the internal logic for SEL
forces in gaining stakeholder buy-in
and know the challenges involved in
for SEL. Transparency is the vehicle making it happen.
through which trust and credibility
are built, and it must be embraced throughout the change process. Prior to
implementing any type of change, however, stakeholders must be ready for and
accepting of the change. This means that leaders in the school system must focus
on motivating all stakeholders for change, not just the staff. Everyone involved in
the change process must clearly understand what’s in it for them. While most will
understand and acknowledge the benefits of SEL for students, they may not
understand how SEL benefits others within the system and how it benefits the
entire system. Consequently, they may lack motivation for the large-scale changes
that accompany SEL. Leaders at every level within the system must have a broad
and detailed understanding of the logic that guides SEL, as well as the evidence
that supports its effectiveness for students, teachers, and the systems that serve
them. They must be able to articulate this information in meaningful ways to all
stakeholders. Therefore, information that is provided to stakeholders must be
clear, factual, and transparent. It must provide supporting evidence for how SEL
benefits students, teachers, and the system that serves them. It also must provide
evidence about its effectiveness, including cost-effectiveness. When citing the
evidence, leaders must be clear about what type of research was conducted, how
educational implications were confirmed by the research, and how the results are
applicable to the current systemwide efforts. Simply stating that SEL has been
proven to be beneficial is insufficient. Leaders must be knowledgeable of the
evidence that supports the initiative, but they also must be careful not to extrapo-
late conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. Above all, leaders must
be able to explain how the evidence supports SEL and how it supports the deci-
sions for implementing SEL.
Leaders within the school system also should be able to explain how SEL
relates to governance and how changes may impact policies and procedures at
multiple levels, including policies that ensure equitable access to educational
opportunities for all students. Leaders should be clear about how these changes
can impact student performance measures, such as discipline, behavior, and
attendance, among others. Stakeholders also will need a clear grasp of SEL’s
potential impact on the underpinnings of the system’s governance. In other
words, leaders should be clear in explaining how SEL not only impacts changes
in the day-to-day policies and operations of the system, but also has the potential
to shift the long-term vision and mission of the school system, which typically is
guided by the system’s strategic plan. Stakeholders will need to understand that
many system-level changes are likely to occur, but leaders should be transparent
in articulating that SEL is not a “one-size-fits-all” model. Rather, it is designed to
meet the unique needs of each school community and will be reflected through
the governance and leadership of that community. Uniqueness within a school
system should be recognized, which means that each school will need to approach
SEL in a manner that meets that school community’s unique needs (e.g., elemen-
tary schools will have differing needs than secondary schools).
One of the most difficult challenges faced by leaders committed to imple-
menting a schoolwide approach to SEL involves risks. It is natural to expect that
implementing SEL will lead to challenges with the status quo, as well as resistance
from those who favor the traditional approach to education. Not only may resist-
ance be uncomfortable, but it also may be oppositional. Leaders who are com-
mitted to SEL, therefore, must lead with courage and vision. This type of
leadership has been described as transformative leadership and has been defined
by Elias, O’Brien, and Weissberg as “leadership that is willing to realign struc-
tures and relationships to achieve genuine and sustainable change” (2006). In the
current environment in which leaders are overwhelmed and primarily focused on
meeting accountability standards, this type of leadership requires risks, some of
which can be worrisome. Yet the dangers of not taking these risks can be serious
and far more concerning than the risks themselves. Leaders who are committed
to SEL understand that the risks of not making the needed changes will likely
translate into a continuation of the same poor outcomes. In other words, not
taking risks to advance SEL means schools are likely to see very little improve-
ments in disproportionate outcomes for children of color and children with dis-
abilities. It also means there will likely be more disengaged students, more
concerns with school safety, more dissatisfied teachers, and less ability to retain
teachers, just to name a few.
So how can school leaders lead
with courage and vision? First, they DON’T FORGET
must not ignore what is already Transformative leaders are those who
being done and what is working believe that sustainable and genuine
well. They must identify, recognize, change requires a willingness to realign
and acknowledge the programs, structures and relationships.
strategies, and practices that are
effective, so as not to abandon them. The expression “Don’t throw out the baby
with the bathwater” illustrates perfectly what leaders must do to assure stakehold-
ers that SEL is not intended to supplant or replace any of the effective practices
already in place. Rather, stakeholders must have a clear understanding that SEL
is a systemic process designed to improve outcomes for students and for school
systems. Next, leaders must focus on what SEL is and why it requires the com-
mitment of all stakeholders. SEL should be presented, not as a new program or
trend in education, but as a missing component in education. It is grounded in
over two decades of scientific discoveries from brain research that have had major
implications for education. The neuroscience behind social and emotional devel-
opment demonstrates the critical role these processes play in learning. Thus, SEL
has emerged as an essential pathway to learning that requires an expanded
approach to how young people are taught. This expansion requires educators to
move beyond a traditional cognitive and academic approach to education and
toward a whole-child approach that includes the social and emotional dimensions
of learning. Leaders must convey to stakeholders that social and emotional devel-
opment is as important as, if not more important than, academic achievement.
Leaders also must recognize that
change is difficult, and it is especially
difficult for educators. For many dec-
CAUTION
ades, school systems have been inun- SEL is not intended to supplant or
dated with a litany of mandates in replace the effective school practices
that are already in place and working
education policy, along with a host of
well.
new trends and practices that all
claim to reform and revolutionize
education. While these reformations may have positive intentions and outcomes,
they often result in an unintended cascade of changes that can be quite overwhelm-
ing for school systems. As a result, most educators are extremely apprehensive when
new initiatives are introduced. As support for SEL gains traction around the world,
the probability of policy changes and mandates becomes high. Leaders and promot-
ers of SEL will need to have a clear understanding of how these reforms may impact
the schoolwide approach to SEL and should advocate for policy initiatives that align
with SEL best practices. Leaders should be cognizant of how policy efforts may
influence stakeholders’ perceptions of SEL. Thus, it will be important to explain that
SEL is not a trend or a new fad in education and is not another thing to add to the
teachers’ plates. On the contrary, SEL is a new approach to learning that is grounded
in brain research and should be embedded in pedagogy and practice throughout
every aspect of the learning program. Policy reforms and mandates that are not
aligned with this approach could create further challenges for school leaders.
Leaders at all levels in the school
system should have the ability to
model social and emotional skills CAUTION
and manage their staff and students SEL is not another thing to be added
using emotional intelligence. to teachers’ plates. It is everyone’s
Managing with heart is an example responsibility.
of how leaders might use emotional
intelligence to lead others. This is described as a leader’s ability to get people to
work toward a common goal, to be empathetic and artful in sharing constructive
criticism, and to understand what people desire in order to be truly satisfied with
their work (Goleman, 2011). Instead of leading through domination, school
leaders should be able to manage with heart and be skilled in the basic emotional
competencies of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relation-
ship management (pp. 102–105).
As leaders move forward with integrating SEL into existing processes and prac-
tices, they will need to adopt a framework that guides and ensures a comprehen-
sive approach to implementation. Overall, the process can take between 2 and 5
years to achieve sustainable implementation, but this depends upon the unique
needs of each school community and the level of commitment from all stakehold-
ers. Regardless of the time required to achieve the identified outcomes, the success
of the initiative will be measured by the strength and support of the leadership at
every level within the school system. As the expression goes, “It takes a village,”
and with SEL the village of leaders must be committed to a comprehensive but
continually improving process that provides a multi-tiered system of supports that
ensures equitable access to educational opportunities for all students.
LAYING THE FOUNDATION
Core Values
Most schools have a set of fundamental beliefs that serve as their guiding princi-
ples. These beliefs are frequently translated into a set of core values that are
intended to help the school know if it is on the right path toward realizing its
goals. They are a central component of SEL, and they provide a common lan-
guage that allows everyone to have a shared understanding of the school’s vision
and mission. Unfortunately, the core values established by many schools often are
superficial and meaningless. Not only does this degrade the intent of having core
values, but also it is a waste of a valuable opportunity. In many cases, core values
are developed in a perfunctory fashion or from a consensus of agreement from
the school’s members. According to Patrick Lencioni of the Harvard Business
Review (July 2002), this is the wrong approach to developing core values because
it creates the wrong impression that all input is equally valued. While all voices
should be heard, the decisions about core values should be based on what is most
important in order to accomplish the school’s vision and mission.
Core values are not the same as personal values but are intended as a reflection
of the vision and character of the school. These are the qualities and virtues that
the school must encourage and support with intent. They are embedded into all
aspects of the culture and climate and are promoted by school leaders and all
school staff, including bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria staff, and ancillary staff.
So, for example, if the qualities or virtues most valued by the school are primarily
related to academic performance, then the core values will reflect this, and aca-
demic accomplishment will be embedded throughout the culture and climate of
the school and the school system. On the other hand, if honesty, empathy,
responsibility, and academic integrity are the qualities most valued by schools,
then the core values will reflect these, and they will be embedded into all aspects
of the school’s culture and climate.
Whatever core values a school adopts, their ability to guide the vision and mis-
sion of the organization will be limited if the values are not designed with the
future in mind, especially from the students’ perspective. Academic virtuosity, for
example, will not matter if students have no hope for an academic future. Core
values must offer students a sense of hope for their future. Without positive pur-
pose in their lives, students will have little reason to want to learn, regardless of
whether they are learning social- emotional competencies or academic skills
(Elias, 2018). Having positive purpose and achieving academic success are a
package deal (p. 13), so schools must adopt values that help build the assets and
competencies needed for today’s young people to develop character and a sense
of purpose. Figure 6.1 provides a visual illustration of how core values form the
foundation for the actions and beliefs in a school, which establishes the school’s
culture and climate and ultimately supports the school’s mission and vision.
Core values are not meant to be easy to implement, but they demand every-
one’s best effort. This will sometimes lead to ethical dilemmas that can make
members feel uncomfortable. However, this is to be expected if the values are a
true reflection of what matters most. They are meant to be strong reminders of
what the school represents and believes is important. Therefore, they must be
developed authentically, remain at the core of the school’s operations, and be
monitored and practiced faithfully.
School Culture and Climate

Chapter 4 examined the effects of DON’T FORGET
school culture and climate with Core values are the guiding principles
regard to building and maintaining of a school. They help establish a com-
a safe and positive learning environ- mon language and direct the vision
ment. This section will expand fur- and mission of the school. Core values
ther on these concepts and begin should be reflected in the school’s cul-
ture and climate and should support
exploring how they intersect and
the development of competency, char-
connect with SEL. This will be fol- acter, and purpose in young people.
lowed by a review of some of the
Beliefs and
Actions
School Culture
School Climate
The Mission
& Vision
CORE VALUES
Figure 6.1 Core Values as a Foundation for School Culture and Climate: The Driving
Force Behind the School’s Mission and Vision.
research on school climate, including theoretical models, and a discussion of

measurement tools and strategies for assessing climate as a foundation for SEL.
Every student should have an opportunity to learn in an environment that is
positive, nurturing, and geared toward success. Physicist Albert Einstein once said,
“I never teach my pupils, I only provide the conditions in which they can learn.”
Creating an environment in which students feel safe, feel they are a part of a caring
and accepting community, are valued and supported, and are encouraged to take
risks with learning sets an equitable foundation where all students can learn. It also
provides parents with a level of trust and confidence in their children’s schools.
The quality of the learning environment is inextricably linked to SEL and is para-
mount to its success. Research has shown that when teachers utilize SEL-related
pedagogy, the classroom climate is improved, particularly the disciplinary climate.
Furthermore, blended approaches that incorporate SEL and school climate, such
as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), have been shown to pro-
vide additional positive outcomes for students (Berg et al., 2017).
Efforts to incorporate SEL and school climate in classrooms and schools

should begin with an assessment of the environment. While the assessment can
identify areas where additional supports may be needed and help inform deci-
sions about resource allocations, the primary goal of the assessment is to ensure
the learning environment is equitable and that access and opportunity are
afforded to all students. Prior to assessing the learning environment, however, it’s
important to have a clear understanding of both school culture and school cli-
mate, and their role in creating positive, healthy, and engaging conditions for
learning.
School culture is the collective persona of a school. It is shaped by the school’s
customs and traditions, its history, and its practices. School culture is based on
the beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of the school. As with any organization,
culture includes a set of unwritten rules, or expectations, to which members are
expected to adhere. Essentially, school culture is formed by the messages that are
passed down through the organization’s history, and it evolves with each genera-
tion. These unwritten rules, practices, customs, and traditions reflect the values
held by the school’s members and are affected by their attitudes, beliefs, and
expectations. A school’s culture tells its members how they are supposed to think,
feel, and react to things, based on the values held by the school. Thus, the culture
of a school can be observed through the words, actions, and attitudes of its mem-
bers. So, if a school places a high value on academic performance or on zero toler-
ance policies for discipline problems, for example, this likely will be reflected in
its day-to-day practices, as well as in its words and actions. Other values that hold
less meaning are less likely to receive the level of interest or priority as those that
are held in the highest regard. For this reason, many schools find it challenging
to change their culture without taking a deep look into its values.
School climate, on the other hand, is the character of a school. It reflects the
spirit and attitude of the school and is often characterized as the temperature of
the school. A positive school climate, for example, reflects a warm and inviting
atmosphere, while a negative climate reflects a cold and uninviting atmosphere.
Positive school climates foster better learning and development and help improve
academic achievement. School climate is unique to each school and can be
observed in the relationships within the school, the norms, the routines, and the
overall morale of the school. A school’s climate is much easier to change than a
school’s culture.
Interest in school climate has increased significantly over the past several dec-
ades but has gained even more following in the United States since the passage of
Public Law 114-95 (also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA]) in
December 2015. Schools in the United States are now required to include one or
more measures of school quality and student success in their statewide account-
ability systems. In addition to indicators that focus on improving academic suc-
cess, accountability systems can now include measures of student and staff
engagement, and school climate and safety. As a result, state and local education
agencies have new opportunities to develop policies that focus on improving
school climate and fostering SEL.
Research on school climate also has grown considerably over the past three
decades, leading to increased interest in it as a viable approach not only for
improving school safety and school order, but also for improving student learning
and systems outcomes. However, like SEL, the research has been complicated by
the absence of a common definition and inconsistent models of implementation.
Despite these limitations, school climate reforms in different parts of the world
have been associated with many positive outcomes for students, including
improved socioemotional development, improved student learning and achieve-
ment, improved behavior and discipline, reduced absenteeism and truancy, and
increased school completion rates, among others. A large body of research has
demonstrated how influential a positive school climate can be on increasing stu-
dent motivation to learn and on mitigating the negative impact of socioeconomic
factors on academic success (Thapa, 2013). Theoretical models of school climate
suggest that it is not a single, unitary concept. Rather, there are multiple, inter-
related dimensions involved. The model proposed by Thapa and colleagues
(2012) suggests there are five essential areas where focus is needed:
1. Safety (e.g., feeling safe socially, emotionally, intellectually, and
physically)
2. Relationships (e.g., connecting and engaging; positive staff-to-student,
staff-to-staff, student-to-student, staff-to-parent; and respect for
differences)
3. Teaching and learning (e.g., academic, social, emotional, and charac-
ter; service learning; and support for professional learning)
4. Institutional environment (e.g., physical layout; size and supervision of
physical space; and condition and quality of school facilities)
5. School climate: the processes of school improvement (i.e., school
climate is considered a part of the school improvement process; it is
embedded into the school curriculum and reflected in evidence-based
programs and practices throughout the whole school)
These five dimensions of school climate are interconnected, so information relat-
ing to each individual area may also be relevant to other areas as well. Other
researchers have suggested different dimensions on which to focus. The U.S.
Department of Education uses a three-factor model to describe the conditions

for assessing school climate. Additional information on this model and the related
assessment tool aligned with the model can be found in Rapid Reference 6.3.
Rapid Reference 6.3

U.S. Department of Education School Climate Model
The U.S. Department of Education’s School Climate Model (depicted below)

includes three primary domains and 13 topic areas. The model forms the basis for
the Department’s School Climate Surveys (EDSCLS) that are used to measure
school climate.
School Climate Model
Engagement Safety Environment
Relationships Emotional Physical

safety environment
Cultural and
linguistic Physical Instructional
competence safety environment
School Bullying/ Physical

participation cyberbullying health
Substance
Mental health
use
Emergency Discipline
readiness/
management
According to the model, positive school climate involves the following three
conditions:
• Engagement: Strong relationships between students, teachers, families, and
schools, and strong connections between schools and the broader community.
• Safety: Schools and school-related activities where students are safe from
violence, bullying, harassment, and controlled-substance use.
• Environment: Appropriate facilities, well-managed classrooms, available
school-based health supports, and a clear, fair disciplinary policy.
Many models or frameworks of school climate depict similar areas where focus
is needed, and many of these areas overlap. The U.S. Department of Education’s
model illustrates the areas where researchers and practitioners have found
common agreement. What is critical to remember is that all areas are important
when developing policies and practices. More importantly, all students should be
able to attend schools where a safe and supportive learning environment is
provided.
The EDSCLS is a web-based tool that was developed from the U.S.
Department of Education’s School Climate Model to allow states, local districts,
and schools to collect and act on reliable, nationally validated school climate data
in real time.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Envi-
ronments. (2020). ED school climate surveys. https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls/
measures#Topic%20Areas%20the%20EDSCLS%20Measures. (This information is in the
public domain and does not require permission to reprint.)
While there may not be a consensus on which dimensions or areas are most
critical, there is agreement that school climate needs to be clearly defined in order
to adequately measure all its aspects. Unfortunately, the debate over how to
define school climate continues to produce confusion over what constitutes effec-
tive school climate efforts. Furthermore, many believe that positive behavioral
interventions (e.g., PBIS) are the same as school climate improvement. Cohen
(2014) provides a helpful description of the similarities between the two, but also
stresses that behavioral models such as PBIS tend to be based on a top-down
model that is educator driven and based on extrinsic motivation, which is very
different from school climate improvement. Without consensus on a universal
definition, obtaining reliable and valid assessment information is problematic,
but not impossible. In fact, over the past two decades, there have been dozens of
measures developed for the purpose of measuring school climate, and the demand
is likely to increase as more states focus on school climate reform in response to
ESSA’s accountability indicator for school quality. It’s important, however, for
states to be familiar with and understand the basis for these measures, and to
which theory of school climate they are aligned. Take, for example, the U.S.
Department of Education’s ED School Climate Surveys (EDSCLS). These sur-
veys were based on the Department’s School Climate Model (see Rapid
Reference 6.3), which is a three-factor theoretical model. The surveys were struc-

tured to measure the 13 topic areas associated with each of the three factors of
school climate identified in the model. Likewise, the National School Climate
Center developed a Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (CSCI) that is
aligned with a four-factor theoretical model that includes (a) safety, (b) relation-
ships, (c) teaching and learning, and (d) institutional environment. Items on the
surveys were structured to measure different areas associated with each of the four
factors identified in the four-factor model. Although there are commonalities
between these two models, they each are designed to guide school climate efforts,
so results may suggest different strategies.
The availability of school and classroom climate surveys has expanded consider-
ably in the last decade. There also are a host of tools, resources, and research reports
that can assist schools with the process of addressing school climate efforts. Table 6.1
provides a compilation of the most common instruments available for measuring
school and classroom climate. The table provides information about the constructs
measured by each survey, along with each survey’s intended audience (e.g., student,
staff, or parent), grade levels targeted for each survey, costs (if any) for each survey,
and how to access the survey or information about the survey.
Whatever measure is chosen, it’s important for schools to understand that
there is no single definition of school climate. On the contrary, there are many.
There also are no standards established for what constitutes an effective school
climate improvement process. In addition, there have been several theoretical
models proposed to help guide improvement efforts. Consequently, a school’s
efforts will need to be coordinated to align with the school’s chosen definition
and theoretical model. Furthermore, schools should understand that developing
a positive school climate is an intentional process. While all schools have an
inherent climate, the likelihood of that climate being positive is increased when
it’s developed with intention. This intentional process requires strong leadership
and data to inform the process. Assessment is only one component of the process,
and it should not be based on any single measure. Rather, it should include mul-
tiple sources of data and information to help form a valid and reliable picture of
the different but interconnected aspects of the school’s climate. This may include,
for example, observations, a review of school discipline data, and interviews with
stakeholders. While surveys of school climate can be extremely helpful in form-
ing this “big picture,” they also have limitations, especially if used for accounta-
bility purposes. Their reliance upon the self-reports of the individuals completing
them makes them subject to personal biases. Thus, they should be interpreted
with that in mind and in the context of the other information collected as part of
the assessment.

Table 6.1 Common School and Classroom Climate Surveys
Target group
Students
Families
Survey name Constructs measured Grade/age Language Cost and

levels access rights Contact/link
Staff
Academic Optimism Student–teacher relationships; Grades K–12 English ● No infor- Access:

of Schools Surveys Safety; School connectedness; mation Elementary Teacher: http://
Academic support; Order and www.waynekhoy.com/
discipline; Physical environment; elementary-teacher-ao/
Parent involvement; Trust Secondary Teacher: http://
www.waynekhoy.com/
secondary-teacher-ao/
American Institutes Safe and respectful climate; High Elementary English ● No cost Information: David Osher at
for Research expectations; Student support; Social (2–4) Spanish dosher@air.org
Conditions for and emotional learning Middle (5–8)
Learning Survey High school
(9–12)
Association of Students in grades 3–5: Grades 3–12 English ● Copyright Information: Jenni Lefing at
Alaska School • Caring others; Social and emotional owned by jlefing@aasb.org
Boards School learning Students in grades 6–12: Association of
Climate and • Respectful climate; School safety; Alaska School
Connectedness Parent and community involve- Boards
Survey ment; Student involvement; High
expectations; Caring adults; Peer
climate; Social and emotional
learning; Student delinquent
behaviors; Student drug and
alcohol use
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 177 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Table 6.1 (Continued)
Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Association of Alaska School leadership and involvement; Grades K–12 English ● Copyright Information: Jenni Lefing at
School Boards School Staff attitudes; Student involvement; owned by jlefing@aasb.org
Climate and Respectful climate; School safety; Association of
Connectedness Parent and community involvement; Alaska School
Survey Student delinquent behaviors; Boards
Student drug and alcohol use
Authoritative School Disciplinary structure; Academic Grades 6–12 English ● Publicly Access: https://curry.virginia.
Climate Survey expectations; Student support available at edu/
(respect for students, willingness to no cost authoritative-school-climate-
seek help); Student engagement survey-and-school-climate-
(affective, cognitive); Prevalence of bullying-survey
teasing and bullying; Bullying
victimization; General victimization;
Aggressive attitudes; Positive values
(personal conviction, concern for
others)
Authoritative School Disciplinary structure (fairness, Grades 6–12 English ● Free and Information: https://curry.
Climate Survey justness); Student support (respect publicly virginia.edu/
for students, willingness to seek available authoritative-school-climate-
help); Student engagement (affective, survey-and-school-climate-
cognitive); Prevalence of teasing and bullying-survey
bullying.
0005172815.INDD 178 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

NOTE: The ASCS is designed to
measure the degree to which a school
has authoritative characteristics such
as fair discipline, supportive teachers,
and high academic expectations, as
well as associated characteristics such
as low rates of bullying and high
student engagement.
California Healthy School connectedness; School supports Grades 5–12 English ● Publicly Access: http://chks.wested.org
Kids Survey (caring relationships, high Spanish available but Information: http://chks.
expectations, opportunities for copyright wested.org
meaningful participation); protected
Community supports (caring
relationships, high expectations,
opportunities for meaningful
participation); Tobacco, alcohol, or
drug use at school; Physical/verbal/
emotional violence victimization;
Physical/verbal/emotional violence
perpetration; Harassment
victimization; Peer supports (caring
relationships, high expectations);
Home supports (caring relationships,
high expectations, opportunities for
meaningful participation); Problem
solving; Self-efficacy; Cooperation and
communication; Empathy;
Self-awareness
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 179 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
California School Facilitation of parent involvement; Grades K-12 English ● Publicly Access:
Parent Survey Positive student learning Other available but http://csps.wested.org
environment; Opportunities for translations copyright Information:
meaningful participation; Cultural available protected http://csps.wested.org
sensitivity; Clarity and equity of
discipline policies; Perceived school
safety; Learning barriers
California School Collegiality; Resource provisions and Grades K–12 English ● Publicly Information:
Staff Survey training; Professional development available but http://cscs.wested.org
(instruction, cultural competence, copyright
meeting student needs); Positive protected
student learning environment;
Caring and respectful relationships;
High expectations of students;
Opportunities for meaningful
participation; Cultural sensitivity;
Clarity and equity of discipline
policies; Perceived school safety;
Learning facilitative behavior;
Learning barrier (risk behavior)
0005172815.INDD 180 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Communities That Community risk factors (low Grades 6–12 English ● Publicly Access: https://www.
Care Youth Survey neighborhood attachment, available communitiesthatcare.net/
community disorganization, (2014 userfiles/file s/2014CTCYS.
transitions and mobility, perceived Survey) pdf
availability of drugs, perceived Information:
availability of handguns, laws and University of Washington
norms favorable to drug use); Center for Communities That
Community protective factors Care (206-685-7723 or
(opportunities for prosocial ctr4ctc@uw.edu)
involvement, rewards for prosocial
involvement); Family risk factors
(family history of antisocial behavior,
poor family management, family
conflict, parental attitudes favorable
toward drug use, parental attitudes
favorable toward antisocial behavior);
Family protective factors
(attachment, opportunities for
prosocial involvement, rewards for
prosocial involvement); School risk
factors (academic failure, low
commitment to school); School
protective factors (opportunities for
prosocial involvement, rewards for
prosocial involvement); Peer–
individual risk factors (rebelliousness,
gang involvement, perceived risks of
drug use, early
(Continued)
0005172815.INDD 181 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
initiation of drug use, early initiation `

of antisocial behavior, favorable
attitudes toward drug use, favorable
attitudes toward antisocial behavior,
sensation seeking, rewards for
antisocial involvement, friends’ use
of drugs, interaction with antisocial
peers, intentions to use); Peer–
individual protective factors
(interaction with prosocial peers,
belief in moral order, prosocial
involvement, rewards for prosocial
involvement, social skills, religiosity);
Outcome measures (depression,
antisocial behavior, substance use)
Community and Students in grades K–6: Academic Grades K–12 English ● Base fee per Access:
Youth Collaborative motivation; Academic press; Support Spanish school; or http://cayci.osu.edu/surveys/
Institute (CAYCI) for learning; Family and community Hard copy Information:
School Experiences connections; Parental involvement fee; or Dawn Anderson-Butcher at
Survey and support; Diversity; Externalizing Additional anderson-butcher.1@osu.edu
behaviors; Internalizing behaviors; service fee per for copies
Peer relationships; Safety; School version, per
connectedness; Social skills; Activities school
0005172815.INDD 182 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Students in grades 7–12: Academic
motivation; Academic press; Career
and college readiness; Support for
learning; Family and community
connections; Parental involvement
and support; Diversity; Externalizing
behaviors; Internalizing behaviors;
Peer relationships; Safety; School
connectedness; Social skills; Activities
Community and Student academic motivation; Grades K–12 English ● Base fee per Access: http://cayci.osu.edu/
Youth Collaborative Academic press; Career and college Spanish school; or surveys/
Institute (CAYCI) readiness; Perceived family/caregiver Hard copy Information:
School Experiences support for learning; Family support fee; or Dawn Anderson-Butcher at
Survey for pro-social activities; Perceived Additional anderson-butcher.1@osu.edu
family history; Perceived support for service fee per
students’ basic needs; Community version, per
supports for positive youth school
development; Community services
and supports; Student externalizing
behavior; Student internalizing
behavior; Perceived learning supports;
Perceptions of school climate; Student
safety; School connectedness; School
support for prosocial activities;
Student psychological wellbeing;
Student social skills; Teacher/staff
commitment
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 183 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Community and Career and college readiness; Grades K–12 English ● Base fee per Access:
Youth Collaborative Experiences of teacher and school Spanish school; or http://cayci.osu.edu/surveys/
Institute (CAYCI) support; Overall experiences of Hard copy Information:
School Experiences school; Engagement efficacy; Parent/ fee; or Dawn Anderson-Butcher at
Survey caregiver support; School and Additional anderson-butcher.1@osu.edu
community support services for service fee per for copies
parents/caregivers; School support for version, per
parent/caregiver engagement; Support school
for students’ basic needs; Involvement
in activities
Comprehensive Students in grades 3–5 or 6–12: Grades 3–12 English ● Not publicly Information:
School Climate Orderly school environment; Spanish available http://www.schoolclimate.
Inventory (CSCI) Administration provides Contact org/climate/csci.php
instructional leadership; Positive the Center Contact:
learning environment; Parent and for Darlene Faster, COO &
community involvement; Instruction additional Director of Communications,
is well-developed and implemented; translations at the National School
Expectations for students; Climate Center, dfaster@
Collaboration between schoolclimate.org or (212)
administration, faculty, and students 707-8799 x22
0005172815.INDD 184 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Comprehensive Rules and norms; Physical and Grades 3–12 English ● Not publicly Information: http://www.
School Climate emotional bullying; Physical Spanish available schoolclimate.org/climate/
Inventory (CSCI) surroundings; Social and civic Contact csci.php
learning; Professional relationships; the Center Contact:
Respect and diversity; Openness; for Darlene Faster, COO &
Outreach to family members; additional Director of Communications,
Support for learning; Administrator translations at the National School Climate
and teacher relationships Center at dfaster@
schoolclimate.org or (212)
707-8799 x22
Comprehensive Physical and social bullying; Respect Grades 3–12 English ● Not publicly Information: http://www.
School Climate and diversity; Social support—adults Spanish available schoolclimate.org/climate/
Inventory (CSCI) (toward each other and toward csci.php
students); Social and civic learning; Contact:
Physical surroundings; Rules and Darlene Faster, COO &
norms; Student–student Director of Communications,
relationships; Support for learning at the National School
Climate Center at dfaster@
schoolclimate.org or (212)
707-8799 x22
Culture of Competencies (Version 4.2 only) Grades 6–12 English ● Can be used Access: http://
Excellence & Ethics (excellence, ethics); School culture free of charge, excellenceandethics.org/assess/
Assessment (excellence, ethics); Faculty practices subject to the ceea-samples.php Information:
(CEEA)—Faculty/ (excellence, ethics); Student safety; conditions of Vlad Khmelkov at
Staff Survey Faculty support for and engagement of the User vkhmelkov@
students; Leadership practices; Faculty Agreement excellenceandethics.org
beliefs and behaviors; Home–school
communication and support
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 185 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Culture of Students in grades 4—6 (elementary) Grades 4–12 English ● Can be used Access: http://
Excellence & Ethics and grades 6—12 (secondary): free of charge, excellenceandethics.org/assess/
Assessment Competencies (Version 4.2 only) subject to the ceea-samples.php
(CEEA)—Parent (excellence, ethics); School culture conditions of Information:
Survey (excellence, ethics); Faculty practices the User Vlad Khmelkov at
(excellence, ethics); Student safety; Agreement vkhmelkov@
Faculty support for and engagement excellenceandethics.org
of students
Culture of Perception of school culture; School Grades 4–12 English ● Can be used Access: http://
Excellence & Ethics engaging parents; Parents engaging free of charge, excellenceandethics.org/assess/
Assessment with school; Learning at home/ subject to the ceea-samples.php
(CEEA)—Faculty/ promoting excellence; Parenting/ conditions of Information:
Staff Survey promoting ethics the User Vlad Khmelkov at
Agreement vkhmelkov@
excellenceandethics.org
0005172815.INDD 186 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Delaware Bullying Physical bullying; Verbal bullying; Grades 3–5 English ● Survey Access: Delaware Positive
Victimization Parent Social/relational bullying or instruments Behavior Support Project
Scale 9–12 and related website: delawarepbs.org
resources,
including
interpretation
guidelines and
post-survey
action
planning tools,
are publicly
available
Delaware School School climate (teacher–student Grades 3–5 English ● Survey Access: Delaware Positive
Climate Parent relations, student–student relations, or instruments Behavior Support Project
Survey respect for diversity, clarity of 9–12 and related website: delawarepbs.org
expectations, fairness of rules, school resources,
safety, teacher–home including
communications, total school interpretation
climate, parent satisfaction); Bullying guidelines and
victimization (physical bullying, post-survey
verbal bullying, social/relational action
bullying); Student engagement planning tools,
(cognitive and behavioral, emotional) are publicly
available
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 187 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Delaware School Students in grades 3–5 (elementary) and Grades 3–12 English ● Survey Access: Delaware Positive
Climate Student grades 6–12 (secondary): School climate Spanish instruments Behavior Support Project
Survey (teacher–student relations, student– Haitian and related website: delawarepbs.org
student relations, respect for diversity, Creole resources,
clarity of expectations, fairness of rules, including
school safety, student engagement interpretation
schoolwide, bullying schoolwide, total guidelines
school climate); Positive, punitive, and and post-
SEL techniques (positive behavior survey action
techniques, punitive techniques, social planning
emotional learning techniques); tools, are
Bullying victimization (physical publicly
bullying, verbal bullying, social/ available
relational bullying, cyberbullying);
Student engagement (cognitive and
behavioral, emotional)
0005172815.INDD 188 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Delaware School School climate (teacher–student Grades 3–5 English ● Survey Access: Delaware Positive
Climate Teacher and relations, student–student relations, or Spanish instruments Behavior Support Project
Staff Survey respect for diversity, clarity of 9–12 Haitian and related website: delawarepbs.org
expectations, fairness of rules, school Creole resources,
safety, student engagement including
schoolwide, bullying schoolwide, interpretation
teacher-home communications, guidelines
teacher–staff relations, total school and post-
climate); Positive, punitive, and SEL survey action
techniques (positive behavior planning
techniques, punitive techniques, tools, are
social-emotional learning techniques) publicly
available
Effective School Safety; Respect for students; Grades 6–12 English ● Check Access: http://www.education.
Battery Planning and action; Fairness of Spanish website umd.edu/CHSE/resources/
rules; Clarity of rules; Student Assessment/ESB.html
influence Information:
Eva Yui at climate-assess@
umd.edu
Effective School Safety; Morale; Planning and action; Grades 6–12 English ● Order forms Access: http://www.education.
Battery Smooth administration; Resources Spanish can be found umd.edu/CHSE/resources/
for instruction; Good race relations; at: http://www. Assessment/ESB.html
Parent and community involvement; education. Information:
Student influence; Avoidance of umd.edu/ Eva Yui at climate-assess@umd.
grades as sanction CHSE/ edu
resources/
Assessment/
ESB.html
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 189 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Elementary Discipline environment; Student Grades 2–6 English ● Approved by Access:

Classroom Climate interactions; Learning/Assessment; Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Assessment— Attitude and culture. NOTE: This Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
General instrument should be used with of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
(CCAI-E-G) elementary teachers, parents, staff, Office of Safe assessment/#system-
administrators, and external and comparison
assessment consultants. Supportive Information:
Schools. John Shindler, Director of the
Users must Alliance for the Study of
obtain School Climate, at jshindl@
copyright calstatela.edu
authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
0005172815.INDD 190 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Elementary Discipline environment; Student Grades 2–6 English ● Approved by Access:
Classroom Climate interactions; Learning/Assessment; Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Assessment— Attitude and culture. NOTE: This Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
Student (CCAI-E-S) instrument is intended as a of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
complement to the data from the Office of Safe assessment/#system-
SCAI-S-G. and comparison
Supportive Information:
authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 191 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Elementary School Physical environment; Student Grades 2–6 English ● Approved by Access:
Climate Assessment interactions; Leadership and Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Instrument— decisions; Management and Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
General discipline; Learning and assessment; of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
(SCAI-E-G) Attitude and culture; Parents and Office of Safe assessment/#system-
community; Special education and comparison Information:
(optional); Project-based learning Supportive John Shindler, Director of the
(optional) NOTE: This instrument Schools. Alliance for the Study of
should be used with elementary Users must School Climate, at jshindl@
teachers, parents, staff, obtain calstatela.edu
administrators, and external copyright
assessment consultants. authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
0005172815.INDD 192 9/13/2021 7:27:30 PM

Elementary School Physical environment; Student Grades 2–6 English ● Approved by Access:
Climate Assessment interactions; Leadership and Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Instrument— decisions; Management and Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
Student (SCAI-E-S) discipline; Learning and assessment; of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
Attitude and culture; Parents and Office of Safe assessment/#system-
community; Special education and comparison
(optional); Project-based learning Supportive Information:
(optional) NOTE: This instrument is Schools. John Shindler, Director of the
intended as a complement to the Users must Alliance for the Study of
data from the SCAI-S-G. obtain School Climate, at jshindl@
authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 193 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Parent and Physical appearance; Student Grades 6–12 English ● Approved by Access:
Community School interactions; Leadership/Decisions; Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Climate Assessment Discipline environment; Learning/ Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
Instrument assessment; Social-emotional of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
(SCAI-P) culture; Community relations Office of Safe assessment/#system-
and comparison
authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
0005172815.INDD 194 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

PBIS School Elementary (grades 3–5): School Grades 3–12 English ● Free and Access: https://www.pbis.org/
Climate Survey connectedness; School safety; School Spanish publicly resource/
Suite orderliness; Peer and adult relations available school-climate-survey-suite
Middle/high school (grades 6–12:
Teaching and learning;
Relationships; Safety
PBIS School Staff connectedness; Structure for Grades 3–12 English ● Free and Access: https://www.pbis.org/
Climate Survey learning; School safety; Physical Spanish publicly resource/
Suite environment; Peer/adult relations; available school-climate-survey-suite
Parental involvement
PBIS School Teaching and learning; School safety; Grades 3–12 English ● Free and Access: https://www.pbis.org/
Climate Survey Interpersonal relationships; Spanish publicly resource/
Suite Institutional environment; Parent available school-climate-survey-suite
involvement
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 195 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Secondary Discipline environment; Student Grades 6–12 English ● Approved by Access:

Classroom Climate interactions; Learning assessment; Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Assessment Attitude and culture NOTE: This Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
Instrument— analytic-trait instrument is intended of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
General for use by teachers, staff, and Office of Safe assessment/#system-
(CCAI-S-G) administrators. Please use the and comparison
CCAI-S-S when surveying student Supportive Information:
perceptions of classroom climate. For Schools. Users John Shindler, Director of the
whole-school-level assessment, use must obtain Alliance for the Study of
one of the ASSC SCAI school copyright School Climate, at jshindl@
assessment instruments. authorization calstatela.edu
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
0005172815.INDD 196 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Secondary Discipline environment; Student Grades 6–12 English ● Approved by Access:
Classroom Climate interactions; Learning assessment; Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Assessment Attitude and culture NOTE: This Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
Instrument— instrument is intended as a of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
Student (CCAI-S-S) complement to the data from the Office of Safe assessment/#system-
SCAI-S-G. and comparison
authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 197 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
Secondary School Physical appearance of the school; Grades 6–12 English ● Approved by Access:
Climate Faculty relations; Student interactions; Spanish the U.S. A PDF version is available at
Assessment—General Leadership/decision-making; Department of http://web.calstatela.edu/
(SCAI-S-G) Discipline environment; Learning Education, centers/schoolclimate/
environment; Attitude and culture; Office of Safe assessment/#system-
School–community relations NOTE: and comparison
This instrument should be used with Supportive Information:
secondary teachers, parents, staff, Schools. Users John Shindler, Director of the
administrators, and external must obtain Alliance for the Study of
assessment consultants. copyright School Climate, at jshindl@
authorization calstatela.edu
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
0005172815.INDD 198 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Secondary School Physical appearance of the school; Grades 6–12 English ● Approved by Access:
Climate Assessment Faculty relations; Student Spanish the U.S. A pdf version is available at
Instrument— interactions; Leadership decision- Department http://web.calstatela.edu/
Student (SCAI-S-S) making; Discipline environment; of Education, centers/schoolclimate/
Learning environment; Attitude and Office of Safe assessment/#system-
culture; School–community relations and comparison
NOTE: This instrument is intended Supportive Information:
as a complement to the data from Schools. John Shindler, Director of the
the SCAI-S-G. Users must Alliance for the Study of
authorization
through a site
license from
the Alliance
for the Study
of School
Climate
(ASSC,
formerly
WASSC)
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 199 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
The Center for Orderly school environment; Grades K–12; English ● Not publicly Information:
Research in Administration provides admins and available Center for Research in
Education Policy instructional leadership; Positive professional Education Policy at CREP@
School Climate learning environment; Parent and staff memphis.edu or
Inventory community involvement; Instruction 1-866-670-6147
is well-developed and implemented;
Expectations for students;
Collaboration between
administration, faculty, and students
The Consortium on Academic engagement; Academic Grades 4–12 English ● Free and Access: http://ccsr.uchicago.
Chicago School press; Peer support for academic publicly edu/downloads/17242009_
Research Survey of achievement; Teacher personal available my_voice 9th-11th_student_
Chicago Public attention; Schoolwide future codebook_.pdf and http://
Schools orientation; Student sense of ccsr.uchicago.edu/
belonging; Safety; Incidence of downloads/23532009_my_
disciplinary action; Student–teacher voice_senior_student_
trust; Teacher personal support; codebook.pdf
Student classroom behavior Information:
Elaine Allensworth at
elainea@uchicago.edu
0005172815.INDD 200 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

The Consortium on Teacher–principal trust; Grades English ● Free and Access: http://ccsr.uchicago.
Chicago School Collective responsibility; Teacher– PK–12 publicly edu/downloads/2009/HS_
Research Survey of teacher trust; School commitment; available Teacher_Survey09Cdbk_8-6.
Chicago Public Student responsibility; Disorder and pdf
Schools crime; Teacher–parent interaction; Information:
Teacher–parent trust; Principal Elaine Allensworth at
instructional leadership; Teacher elainea@uchicago.edu
influence in policy
The Organizational Supportive principal behavior; Grades PK–6 English ● Check Information: www.waynekhoy.
Climate Description Directive principal behavior; website com
for Elementary Restrictive principal behavior;
Schools Collegial teacher behavior; Intimate
(OCDQ-RE) teacher behavior; Disengaged teacher
behavior
The Organizational Supportive principal behavior; Grades 7–9 English ● Check Information: www.waynekhoy.
for Middle Schools Restrictive principal behavior;
(OCDQ-RM) Collegial teacher behavior;
Committed teacher behavior;
Disengaged teacher behavior
The Organizational Supportive principal behavior; Grades 10–12 English ● Check Information: www.waynekhoy.
for Secondary Engaged teacher behavior; Frustrated
Schools teacher behavior; Intimate teacher
(OCDQ-RS) behavior
(Continued )
0005172815.INDD 201 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

Target group
Students
Families

Staff
U.S. Department of Engagement (cultural and linguistic Grades 5–12 English ● Free and Access: https://
Education School competence, relationships, school Spanish publicly safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/
Climate Survey participation); Safety (emotional available edscls/administration
(EDSCLS) safety, physical safety, bullying/
cyberbullying, substance abuse);
Environment (physical environment,
instructional environment, mental
health, discipline) NOTE: Emergency
Management/Readiness items are
included in the student survey, but
were not designed to form a scale.
Physical Health items are also
included, but the data did not form a
scale for the student survey. Thus,
physical health items should be
examined at only the item level for
students (i.e., analysis of individual
survey questions).
0005172815.INDD 202 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

U.S. Department of Engagement (cultural and linguistic Grades 5–12 English ● Free and Access: https://
Education School competence, relationships, school publicly safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/
Climate Survey participation); Safety (emotional available edscls/administration
(EDSCLS) safety, physical safety, bullying/
cyberbullying, substance abuse);
Environment (physical environment,
instructional environment, physical
health, mental health, discipline)
NOTE: Emergency Management/
Readiness items are included in the
staff surveys but were not designed to
form a scale.
U.S. Department of The EDSCLS parent survey includes Grades 5–12 English • Free and Access: https://
Education School items about Engagement (cultural and publicly safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/
Climate Survey linguistic competence, relationships, available edscls/administration
(EDSCLS) school participation); Safety
(emotional safety, physical safety,
bullying/cyberbullying, substance
abuse, emergency readiness/
management); and Environment
(physical environment, instructional
environment, physical health, mental
health, discipline).
However, because of the brevity of the
parent survey, the data for these items
did not form scales. Thus, parent data
should be examined at only the item
level.
0005172815.INDD 203 9/13/2021 7:27:31 PM

In summary, the assessment of school climate should include multiple sources

of data and information. It should include enough “breadth and depth” of infor-
mation to provide a comprehensive and clear understanding of the various
dimensions related to school climate and should include input from all stake-
holders. It also should be included in the context of the larger, systematic process
of ongoing systems-level improvement, which will be discussed in the next sec-
tion. School climate efforts should complement, support, and lay the foundation
for the larger schoolwide SEL initiative.
SEL Through a Lens of Equity

While school culture and climate are unique to each school, so is SEL. As previ-
ously discussed, there is no “one-size-fits-all” model that can be applied to every
school in the exact same manner. SEL must be designed and implemented to
meet the unique needs of each school community and its members. Its success
will be measured by how well it benefits and supports all students, not just cer-
tain students. Thus, schools must recognize and understand the diverse needs of
its student population in order to provide the backdrop for a positive school
culture and climate. This, in turn, will help provide the context for SEL, which
subsequently will help ensure fair and equitable opportunity, as well as treatment,
for all students.
The issue of equity is not new to education. Historically, sociopolitical issues
have permeated schools and have led to a racialized milieu in education much
like what is seen in the general society. Recently, these issues have become a
prominent focus as social injustices have become more pronounced. Increasing
concerns over incidents of disproportionate treatment for people of color have
amplified this topic. These concerns have been mirrored in education, where for
the past two decades schools have struggled with the disproportionate identifica-
tion and treatment of students of color and students with disabilities. Now more
than ever, the need for social justice reforms in education is critical, and SEL can
serve as an impetus for these much-needed efforts. Before discussing social justice
issues in education, however, it’s important to have a clear understanding of
exactly what social justice is and how education can help ensure these reform
efforts are successful.
Social justice is a term used to describe the distribution of resources, income,
wealth, rights, and opportunities in a society. It is based on the concept of fairness
and the belief that every person in a society matters, and that rules are made to
ensure that everyone’s rights are protected. Fairness in a society is reflected in how
individuals have access to employment opportunities, healthcare, housing, and
education, among other things. The term social justice is often used in circum-
stances when fairness is being questioned. The term has appeared throughout the
world’s history whenever issues of oppression or exploitation have been a prob-
lem, but currently it is most closely tied to human rights and fairness.
In schools and education systems around the world, social justice provides an
opportunity to equalize the playing field for all students, especially students of
color and students with disabilities. To do so, schools must have a process that
ensures opportunities and treatment are fair and equitable for all students. SEL
offers this opportunity and provides a framework for making the systemic changes
needed to achieve this goal. Because education has long been viewed as society’s
equalizer, SEL provides schools with an opportunity to influence long-term and
sustainable changes in the greater society as well.
Implementing an SEL initiative through a lens of equity will require schools
to recognize and acknowledge current inequities, then work to promote and sup-
port the teaching of social justice throughout the school. This means, of course,
that existing inequities must be identified, and the work of understanding the
factors that contribute to these inequities must follow. This is by no means an
easy process, as it requires everyone involved to self-reflect on their own beliefs
and attitudes and be open to others’ perspectives. Consequently, everyone must
have a voice in the process, including students. It also requires that everyone
approach the process with a willingness to listen and an openness to understand-
ing the importance of a growth mindset. The process can be very hard for schools,
but it also can be very satisfying and productive, not only for staff but also for
students. The process of identifying implicit biases is an ongoing process, not a
one-time occurrence. Therefore, it must be addressed continuously. Through this
process, resources and supports can be developed to help eliminate and prevent
further inequities, and pedagogical strategies can be employed for teaching social
justice throughout the school and in classrooms.
Curriculum also will be important when implementing SEL through an
equity lens. Curriculum choices made by schools should be accessible to all stu-
dents and should be culturally fair. The cost of the program should be a consid-
eration when choosing a curriculum because many low-cost programs may not
have had the research support when developing the program, and therefore may
not meet certain quality standards. On the flip side of this, however, are high-cost
programs that may not be affordable for all schools, thus creating an access bar-
rier. Cost is only one factor that should be considered. More importantly, schools
will want to investigate how the program was developed and how outcomes were
measured. Consideration should be given to whether the program was developed
from the perspective of various cultures, or was based only on White American
culture. Also, during development, was it implemented with a diverse student

population from various socioeconomic backgrounds, or was it implemented pri-
marily in suburban, middle-class neighborhood schools? Another consideration
should be given to the program’s content. Questions may want to focus on
whether the content was developed and tested to include lessons and activities
that promote a growth mindset. For example, does the content provide opportu-
nities for open and collaborative group discussions where students can learn
about different perspectives on real-world topics? Not only will this help boost
their analytical thinking skills, but it will help prepare them for the world of their
future. Also, does the content include a diverse range of issues from a diverse
range of cultures?
Pedagogical practices in schools are as important as, if not more important
than, the curriculum when promoting positive learning and equitable opportuni-
ties for students. These strategies and practices should be considered a required
component when planning and developing an SEL implementation plan.
Knowledge of culture and its role in teaching and learning can help teachers
develop culturally responsive teaching practices and ensure that the knowledge
students acquire is not only meaningful in content but also relevant to the stu-
dents. Another area in which pedagogy and practice can complement SEL is in
the use of restorative practices. These practices are based on an emerging social
science and are being implemented in schools to change how schools respond to
behavior and discipline. This proactive approach focuses on promoting positive
school climates and strengthening relationships through the development of a
sense of community. While the term is often used interchangeably with restorative
justice, there are differences between the two.
Restorative justice is based on a theory of justice that relies on mediation and
agreement, rather than punishment, to deal with disciplinary offenses. It aims to
teach accountability and responsibility for behavior by acknowledging the harm
caused to others and by restoring the relationship between the person(s) harmed
and the perpetrator of the behavior. It provides schools with equitable and
respectable alternatives for dealing with disciplinary offenses, as opposed to the
traditional, more punitive methods. Restorative justice brings together the per-
sons impacted by a misbehavior and offers an equitable opportunity for all voices
to be heard and for retribution to be given to those that were harmed. It provides
schools with an alternative approach to dealing with discretionary offenses that
don’t require a mandated removal from school, and it promotes the healing and
restoring of relationships.
Restorative practices, on the other hand, are based on the theory of restorative
justice and provide a proactive approach to preventing disciplinary offenses
through the development of relationships and a sense of community in schools.

These practices recognize the importance of providing students with a safe learn-
ing environment, and they focus on methods and strategies that can help address
student’s needs, prevent misbehaviors, resolve conflicts, and promote healthy
relationships within the school environment. Like SEL, restorative practices
should be implemented schoolwide and integrated into the fabric of the school’s
culture, climate, and learning environment.
CONCLUSION
As illustrated in this chapter, the barriers that exist in society contribute to—and,
in many circumstances, create—inequities in learning. These inequities, in turn,
translate into poorer outcomes for many students and for the systems that serve
them. SEL can be a powerful force in mitigating some of these inequities, as well as
in reforming many of the injustices observed in education. Creating conditions for
SEL where students are engaged in learning and have opportunities for equitable
access to supports and resources, however, will require schools to build a founda-
tion for its success. This starts with establishing a school culture and climate that are
safe, positive, supportive, nurturing, and accepting of all students. When imple-
mented through a lens of equity, SEL can increase student engagement, improve
school environments, and help create schools and education systems where all stu-
dents receive an education that is fair and equitable. Not only can SEL improve
equitable access for students, it also can help dismantle many of the social injustices
in education that overflow into society, such as the deep disparities in the dispro-
portionate treatment of students of color and students with disabilities. SEL can
provide students with the supports they need, not only to acquire the equitable
education they deserve, but to become the civic-minded citizens needed for a fair
and just society. The education system that incorporates SEL through a lens of
equity can be the equalizer that drives this much-needed change in society.
SEL will require commitment from educators, however, so everyone must
understand its relevance, in terms of the outcomes desired for the students and
for the systems that serve them. Educational leaders must be willing to “steer the
ship” into uncharted waters by transforming existing systems into one coordi-
nated system in which management, governance, and resources are aligned to
support the needs of all students, staff, and families. A SEL framework should be
selected that focuses on developing the desired skills, then policies, programs,
and practices should align to the framework. This will help ensure that skills
being taught also are the skills being assessed and are aligned with the desired
outcomes. Thus, system change that promotes a whole-school approach to SEL
is more likely to achieve success and sustainability. The next chapter will offer a
comprehensive process that can help schools and education systems get started
with developing and implementing a plan using a multiphase approach to SEL.
TEST YOURSELF
1. One of the biggest challenges to implementing SEL is gaining buy-in

from staff. This is because teachers do not believe in the effectiveness
of SEL, and therefore do not support it.
(a) True
(b) False
2. The three dimensions of school engagement are:
(a) Academic, social, emotional
(b) Academic, social, behavioral
(c) Behavioral, emotional, cognitive
(d) Behavioral, emotional, academic
3. There are many possible explanations for why SEL lacks commitment in
schools, but perhaps the biggest reason is:
(a) Lack of funding
(b) Lack of evidenced support for SEL
(c) Teachers’ perceptions that it is yet one more thing on their plates
(d) The complex challenges presented at multiple levels in school systems
4. One of the biggest challenges to developing a sustainable model of SEL
is related to leadership. School leaders who are willing to take risks and
create genuine change by realigning structures and relationships are
known as:
(a) Transformative leaders
(b) Transparent leaders
(c) Transferal leaders
(d) Transactional leaders
5. Core values help form the basis for a school’s vision and mission.They
are the guiding principles of a school, and they help to establish a
common language.Therefore, core values should be reflected in the
school’s culture and climate and should encourage what?
(a) A sense of purpose for students
(b) Strong academic performance
(c) A sense of value among staff
6. School culture is best described as a school’s personality, while school

climate is best described as a school’s character.
(a) True
(b) False
7. Research on school climate has increased significantly in the last two
decades, with much of it focusing on the various dimensions of school
climate. One dimension proposed by Thapa and colleagues (2012)
identifies the following dimensions of school climate:
(a) Safety, Instruction, Emotions, Engagement
(b) Safety, Engagement, Environment
(c) Safety, Teaching and Learning, Relationships, Institutional Environment,
School Climate Improvement Process
(d) Safety, Instruction, Engagement, Institutional Environment, School Climate
8. Presently, there is no consensus for which domains of school climate are
most important, but there is general support for the PBIS model as
reflecting what is most important.
(a) True
(b) False
9. While all schools have a school climate, the chances of that climate
being positive, supportive, and nurturing are increased when school
climate is developed:
(a) Through consistent application of rules
(b) By explaining expectations
(c) By visibly posting rules in all areas
(d) Intentionally
10. To ensure SEL is implemented through a lens of equity, schools should
do the following:
(a) Have staff self-reflect on how attitudes and beliefs contribute to implicit
biases, and address these through a continuous improvement process.
(b) Choose a SEL curriculum that is culturally fair and has been imple-
mented with a diverse group of students from diverse backgrounds.
(c) Develop pedagogical practices that promote positive learning and
educational opportunities for all students.
Answers: 1. b; 2. c; 3. d; 4. a; 5. a; 6. a; 7. c; 8. b; 9. d; 10. d
REFERENCES
Baglivio, M., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Sayedul Huq, M., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N.
(2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives
of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2). http://www.
journalofjuvjustice.org/JOJJ0302/article01.htm
Berg, J., Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Yoder, N. (2017). The intersection of school
climate and social and emotional development. American Institutes for
Research. https://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/SelfAssessmentSEL.pdf
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national
teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and
Learning (CASEL). file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/the-
missing-piece.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Data and statistics
on children’s mental health. https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.
html
Cohen, J. (2014). School climate policy and practice trends: A paradox. A com-
mentary. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org
Elias, M. (2018). Guiding research-based practices into the SEL 2.0 era. In T.
Fyke (Ed.), Building people: Social-emotional learning for kids, families, schools
and communities (pp. 9–22). Abingdon Press.
Elias, M., O’Brien, M., & Weissberg, R. (2006, December 1). Transformative
leadership for social-emotional learning. National Association of School
Psychologists. https://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Resources%20
and%20Publications/Handouts/Families%20and%20Educators/Social%20
Emotional%20Learning%20NASSP.pdf
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Public Law 114-95, 20 U.S.C. § 6301.
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners
in school change (2nd ed.). SoundOut.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:
Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational
Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney,
K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high
school: A description of 21 instruments (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2011–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Goleman, D. (2011). Leadership: The power of emotional intelligence: Selected
writings. More Than Sound LLC.
Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first
five years: Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007–08 beginning
teacher longitudinal study (NCES 2015-337). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Hodges, T. (2018). School engagement is more than just talk. Gallup. https://
www.gallup.com/education/244022/school-engagement-talk.aspx
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Lencioni, P. (2002, July). Make your values mean something. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2002/07/make-your-values-mean-something
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2020, July 15). Racial and ethnic
disparities in the juvenile justice system. https://www.ncsl.org/research/
civil-and-criminal-justice/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-the-juvenile-
justice-system.aspx
Thapa, A. (2013). School climate research. National School Climate Center.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/ED573661-1.pdf
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Higgins-D’Alessandro, A., & Guffey, S. (2012). School
climate research summary: August 2012 (Brief No. 3). National School
Climate Center. https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.3102/0034654313483907
U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Safe Supportive Learning
Environments. (2020). ED school climate surveys. https://
safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls/measures#Topic%20Areas%20the%20
EDSCLS%20Measures
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). Child and adolescent mental
health. World Health Organization, Mental Health. https://www.who.int/
mental_health/maternal-child/child_adolescent/en/#
SECTION III
SEL AS A SUSTAINABLE FRAMEWORK

FOR SUCCESS
Seven
GETTING STARTED: A MULTIPHASE

APPROACH TO WHOLE-SCHOOL
IMPLEMENTATION OF SEL
INTRODUCTION
The future of any society depends upon an educated workforce, but with the
mounting problems and barriers that impact learning, along with declining
resources, the task of educating today’s young people has become quite a challenge.
Add to this an increasing demand for academic accountability, and the pressure on
educators and school leaders may seem overwhelming, if not insurmountable. Even
with educators’ best efforts, this simply may not be enough to prepare today’s stu-
dents for the workforce of the future. The current challenges in education require,
if not demand, systemwide changes, and SEL offers schools the changes that are
needed. When implemented at a system level and with a focus on equity, SEL
promises to transform education so it can meet the demands of educating today’s
youth. This chapter describes a process for achieving this transformation, and
Figure 7.1 provides a visual model for what schools can achieve when implement-
ing SEL through a coordinated, school-based, systemwide framework.
To be clear, implementing an SEL initiative is not intended to supplant existing
processes or practices. Rather, the purpose of SEL is to improve upon these pro-
cesses by coordinating and linking efforts to one another and focusing on meeting
the needs of the whole child, not just some of those needs. Accordingly, SEL will
require a shift in mindset about how education has long operated. Making this shift
will not be easy, and some may view SEL as an added burden on schools, especially
for teachers. To be clear, getting started with SEL requires a significant amount of
work, and, while teachers necessarily will play a vital role in the process, it is not
215
SEL
nity Co
mmu mm
Co un
ity
L
Multi-tiered
SE
SE
Systems of
L
Support
nity
SE
K
Scho
OR
ate ol
LF
im
Commu
Cl C
EW
Community
Few
RA
&
ul
tur
re
M
ultu
e&
ME
RA
Some
School C
Climate
WO
LF
All
SE
RK
Governance Supports
& Instruction (Students
Management & Staff)
L
SE
SE
L
Informed Decisions
ity SEL FRAMEWORK

mun
m Co
Co mm
unit
y
SEL
Figure 7.1 Coordinated, school-based, systemwide framework for implementing SEL.
to be perceived as something for which teachers alone will be responsible. Everyone
must share the responsibility for implementing SEL, and as the mindset about
teaching and learning begins to shift, this will become more apparent. Not only will
SEL help schools operate more efficiently by eliminating redundancies and dupli-
cated efforts, it also will help them better serve students by removing many of the
barriers to learning that create inequities in education. So, schools need not fear
SEL as an additional “thing,” for it is meant to support existing efforts, not create a
new one. It is intended to improve outcomes not just for students but also for the
systems that serve the students. Despite the intense work required for moving the
SEL initiative forward, it promises end results that will justify the efforts and
rewards that are likely to be quite gratifying.
The success and sustainability of SEL, however, will be contingent upon a
variety of factors. Among the most important will be the level of comprehensive,
GETTING STARTED: A MULTIPHASE APPROACH 217
systemwide planning that is undertaken, and the degree of coordination between

the supports and services provided. Of equal importance will be the commitment
it receives from leaders, staff, and other stakeholders, and the continuum of
resources and supports available to students and staff throughout the process. But
how does this happen? Where do schools begin? This chapter highlights the key
components involved in getting started with SEL and provides a multiphase
approach that can guide schools through the necessary but hard work of develop-
ing and implementing a systemwide, whole-school approach to making SEL
happen. The process and the work involved ultimately can lead schools to the
creation of a system in which the business of teaching and learning operates in a
comprehensive, cohesive, and coordinated manner. Through this system, all part-
ners and stakeholders have equal but differentiated accountability (B. Wimpelberg,
personal communication, January 5, 2021), and share the responsibilities and
rewards of educating the students served by the system.
SYSTEM CHANGE PROCESS
Starting an SEL initiative is a change process that must be planned and sustained
over time. Whether it is implemented at a campus level or at a systemwide level, it
is important to keep in mind that it is an intentional process that leads to transfor-
mational change. It involves four fundamental stages: (a) building consensus,
(b) developing infrastructure, (c) implementing a plan, and (d) reviewing and revis-
ing for continuous improvement (see Figure 7.2). Developing a successful and sus-
tainable model for SEL, however, is a systematic and comprehensive process that
involves a coordinated set of events. The entire process involves a significant amount
of collaboration and planning, and although it may be described in different phases
or in a sequence of steps as noted, the progression through each phase or step does
not have to proceed in a lockstep manner. Rather, the process is intended to be
fluid, and it may require back-and-forth movement at any given point.
MULTIPHASE APPROACH TO SEL
In pursuing any type of system-level change, it is important to approach the pro-

cess comprehensively in order to identify the intended consequences as well as
any unintended consequences that may result. This cumbersome task can be
quite overwhelming for schools, so it is recommended that a school’s SEL initia-
tive be approached in phases. In the coming sections of this chapter, a multiphase
approach will be described to help schools move through the process with greater
ease, but the process is not intended to be linear. There should be fluidity between
Building
Consensus
(common
language,
understanding
& perspective)
Review &
Developing
Revise
Infrastructure
(ongoing
(data-informed
continuous
process)
improvement)
Plan
Implementation
(multi-level,
multi-year)
Figure 7.2 Four stages of system-level change involved in implementing a systematic

approach to an SEL initiative.
the phases with an understanding that some phases may require work that is
prerequisite to a subsequent phase. In this sense, it is a systematic process because
it ensures that foundational components are addressed to support overall success
and sustainability. As committees work through the phases, however, they may be
able to move back and forth between them and approach some of the tasks con-
currently, but only if essential foundations have been addressed.
In the next section, each phase will be described in detail, along with the antici-
pated outcomes for each phase. Consideration should be given to the progression
of tasks, activities, events, materials, and resources that will be anticipated during
each phase. The process is somewhat analogous to the “scope and sequence” of a
curriculum or lesson in that it outlines what is to be expected and what the antici-
pated outcomes will be. Like scope and sequence, the process is flexible and fluid as
it adapts to changes or variations in the system or in requirements. System transpar-
ency and communication are integral to the success of each phase. An overview of
the multiphase approach to SEL can be found in Rapid Reference 7.1.
Rapid Reference 7.1

Multi-Phase Approach to SEL
PHASE 1: Foundations
• Assemble a steering committee
∘∘ Determine the committee type
∘∘ Identify key members
∘∘ Establish vision and scope
• Build consensus
∘∘ Develop a common language, understanding, and perspective
PHASE 2: Developing the Infrastructure
PHASE 2a: Data-planning process
• Overview of triangulated approach
• Overview of the Social-Emotional Learning Foundations Inventory (SELFI)
∘∘ System review and analysis
♦♦ Demographics
♦♦ Academic wellness
♦♦ Behavioral wellness
♦♦ Health and wellness
♦♦ At-r isk/special needs factors
♦♦ Other behavioral data
♦♦ Policies and procedures
∘∘ Learning needs assessment
♦♦ Review and analysis of programs and resources
♦♦ Assessment of the learning environment
∘∘ Assessment of support systems
♦♦ Problem-solving process
♦♦ Continuum of supports
♦♦ Informal needs assessment
PHASE 2b: Data-informed decisions

• Use of data in decision making
• Identification of priorities and goals
• Selection of the SEL framework
• Development of SEL instruction
∘∘ Integrated
∘∘ Explicit (i.e., S.A.F.E.)
• Identification of staff SEL needs
• Assessment of SEL competencies
• Alignment of systems and processes

∘∘ Policies, procedures, programs, and practices
∘∘ Allocating/reallocating resources
∘∘ Consolidating information
• Development of a logic model
PHASE 3: Planning and implementing
• Developing the implementation plan
∘∘ Key components
♦♦ Duration of plan
♦♦ Level of implementation
♦♦ Problem-solving process
♦♦ Allocation of staff and resources
♦♦ Budget requirements
♦♦ Progressive improvement process
♦♦ Targeted goals for
–– policies and procedures
–– professional development
–– programs and resources
–– instruction and curriculum
–– student engagement
–– safety and crises
–– family and home engagement
–– collaborative-community partnerships
• Implementing the plan
∘∘ Gaining staff commitment
∘∘ Ensuring a positive school culture and climate
∘∘ Aligning SEL assessment with instruction and the curriculum
∘∘ Staff training and development
♦♦ SEL overview and plan
♦♦ SEL pedagogy and practice
♦♦ Restorative practices
♦♦ Trauma-informed practices
♦♦ Positive behavior strategies
♦♦ Safety and crisis planning
♦♦ Social justice
♦♦ Implicit bias/microaggressions
♦♦ Mental health conditions
♦♦ Others as identified
PHASE 4: Progressive Improvement

• Data-informed decision-making process
∘∘ Five levels:
1. Conceptual framework
♦♦ Identify
♦♦ Define
♦♦ Intervene
♦♦ Evaluate
–– Types of data
–– Method of collection
–– Frequency of collection
2. Plan review/adjustment
♦♦ Informal review
♦♦ Progress monitoring
♦♦ Minor adjustments/changes
♦♦ Formal review
3. Policy and procedural revisions
4. Adjustments or changes to resource allocations
5. Recognizing and communicating results
Phase 1: Foundations for SEL

Goal(s): Build consensus by developing a common language, a common under-
standing of the issues, and a common perspective on potential solutions.
Anticipated outcome(s): Foundation will be laid to begin developing the infra-
structure for the SEL initiative.
Assembling a Steering Committee

Getting started with the SEL initiative begins with forming a steering committee
and building consensus. Once commitment to SEL has been made by the school’s
leadership, the process begins by engaging key stakeholders. In most schools, the
effort is spearheaded by a committee, or team, whose purpose is to organize,
coordinate, and guide the initiative forward. Since this involves a great deal of
time and effort, it is preferable that membership be voluntary. In many instances,
the team can be formed by consolidating existing teams. For example, many
schools already have a student intervention team that leads the multitiered systems
of support (MTSS) process. They also may have a bully prevention team or a
character development team, among others. Consolidating existing teams into
one overarching SEL committee can eliminate the potential of duplicating efforts
and creating inefficiency.
When organizing the SEL steering committee, several considerations should
be made. First, the type of committee needs to be determined before members
can be identified. Types of committees include campus level, district level,
regional, or any other type that might be deemed appropriate. Once this is deter-
mined, members of the committee can be identified and recruited. Membership
should reflect the diversity of the school community’s population, and it should
be comprehensive enough to represent all stakeholders, yet small enough to
ensure a manageable structure and effective operations. Instructional staff should
represent all areas of instruction, including general education and special educa-
tion. For secondary schools, there should be representation from “nonacademic”
content areas as well, such as vocational and athletic instruction. Key stakehold-
ers to consider include at least one member from each of the following
categories:
• School administrators
• Instructional staff (special education and general education)
• Support staff
• School mental health professionals
• Ancillary staff
• Parents
• Students
• Community members (e.g., mental health service providers, health service
providers, and faith-based organizations)
• Child-serving agency representatives
• Others, as appropriate
Student membership is strongly encouraged and should be representative of
the demographics of the student population. In recent years, student voice has
emerged as a critical component in school change efforts. When students speak
out and adults listen, a great deal can be learned that can lead to significant
changes (Harris et al., 2014). Schools may choose to have several students serving
as members, and they may want to identify and select them through a staff nomi-
nations process or by inviting students to apply. Whatever the selection process,
the length of time students will serve on the committee should be determined in
advance. Once student members are chosen, an adult member of the committee
should be assigned the role and responsibility of mentoring and guiding the
s tudents. This mentor should be willing and able to orient and prepare the stu-
dents for participation in the initiative and serve as a guide throughout the pro-
cess. Orientation for the students should include, among other things, an
overview of what SEL is and why it is important, an explanation of the commit-
tee’s purpose, the anticipated goals and outcomes for the initiative, and what the
students’ roles and responsibilities might be. Students also should be prepared for
what to expect while participating in committee meetings, such as the structure
of the meetings, the group norms for the meetings, the activities they may be
tasked with, how data collection and analysis will be used to inform the commit-
tee’s work, and how important it is for their voices to be heard throughout the
process. Adult committee members should encourage student participation and
welcome their voices. Above all, they should listen and absorb what the students
might have to say. It is also important for adult members to be mindful of the
group norms during committee meetings and be cautious about sharing sensitive
information so as not to violate personal confidences or confidentiality laws.
Adults should be mindful that they will be serving as role models for the
students.
Once membership has been established, the vision and scope of the initia-
tive should be communicated by the school’s leader, along with overall expec-
tations in terms of commitment to the initiative and the anticipated amount
of work. The leader should explain the roles and responsibilities of team
members and the expectation of a shared leadership for the initiative. In other
words, each committee member should understand that, due to the scope of
the project, everyone will be responsible for taking a lead role in a specific
part of the process. For example, during the system review phase, one mem-
ber might be tasked with leading and guiding others through the review pro-
cess because she/he is likely to have greater familiarity with the internal
systems of the school. Thus, she/he may be better able to navigate these sys-
tems. What is important for members to know and understand is that each
member will be asked to share in the leadership of the initiative by calling
upon his/her area of knowledge and expertise to guide others through the
critical phases of the initiative.
Building Consensus
The first activity for the committee should be led and guided by the member
who is most knowledgeable of SEL from both an empirical and practical per-
spective. The first objective, and probably the most fundamental one for the
committee, is to develop a common language and understanding of the prob-
lems and issues related to SEL, as was discussed in Chapter 1. The goal of this
activity is to arrive at a common perspective and vision for the initiative.

Committee members should be ready and willing to review and discuss the rel-
evant literature, best practices, and historical development of SEL to assist in
gaining an understanding of the issues and problems. A review of Part I of this
manuscript can assist with this process. Once a common perspective is reached
by the committee, there should be a clear understanding of the mission, vision,
and scope of the initiative. The committee should be cautious, however, in
expecting an immediate resolution to the problems and issues identified. The
nature and scope of any SEL initiative comprise an extensive and comprehensive
undertaking; therefore, the committee should expect that it will require several
years to achieve long-term goals. Furthermore, the goals are likely to change and
adapt as the initiative evolves into an ongoing and progressive improvement
process, so short-term and midterm goals should be discussed. Decision making
during the ongoing improvement process will be guided and informed by ongo-
ing data that need to be collected throughout the process. All of this should be
clearly articulated to the committee at the outset of the initiative.
As the steering committee moves into Phase 2 of the process, the primary
focus will turn to developing an infrastructure for the initiative. This is perhaps
the most time-intensive and complex part of the process, so it is recommended
that schools divide this phase into two parts: Phase 2a and Phase 2b. Phase 2a
includes an extensive data collection and review process, as well as a comprehen-
sive review of programs and resources. Phase 2b will then allow the steering com-
mittee to consolidate the information so it can be used to facilitate alignment of
systems and procedures. Following this, the information can be synthesized into
a logic model for SEL. Phase 3 will then allow the committee to formulate a plan
for implementation.
Phase 2: Developing the Infrastructure

Phase 2a: Data-Planning Process
Goal(s): Data collection, review, and analysis will guide and inform the SEL
planning process.
Anticipated outcome(s): Data will inform decisions for developing infrastructure.
A Triangulated Approach
Once the committee has established a common language, understanding, and
perspective of the issues, the work of the SEL steering committee shifts to
developing a plan for implementation. The plan development process starts
with an intensive examination of the school’s data and any other relevant infor-
mation about the school. Since this activity can be quite cumbersome, or even
overwhelming, a triangulated approach offers an opportunity to dissect the pro-
cess, making it more manageable. It also provides the committee with a com-
prehensive view of each of the interconnected systems that drive teaching and
learning, all of which are based upon the central beliefs that form the school’s
mission, vision, and SEL framework. The approach examines the following
three key areas: (a) systems review and analysis (i.e., policies, procedures, prac-
tices, and outcome data), (b) learning needs assessment (i.e., programs,
resources, and the learning environment), and (c) review and analysis of sup-
ports (i.e., supports for students, staff, and families). Reviewing these three
areas requires self-reflection and is much like taking a self-portrait, or “selfie,”
of the school. To assist the committee with the process, a tool called the Social-
Emotional Learning Foundations Inventory (SELFI) is offered in Chapter 8. It
provides a set of templates and tools from which a self-portrait of a school
emerges. This can then guide and assist SEL committees as they develop a SEL
implementation plan.
The triangulated approach to data collection, like the multiphase approach, is
intended to be a fluid process that may or may not proceed sequentially but may
move back and forth between each of the three interconnected areas. A visual
illustration of the process is provided in Figure 7.3. This type of approach can be
helpful in developing a “big picture” of a campus or a school system, particularly
as it relates to teaching and learning, the barriers that are involved, and the out-
comes that result. Ultimately, the information will help shape a plan for imple-
menting the SEL initiative.
System Review and Analysis

Since system-level change is unique to each system, it must be built upon an
understanding of the system and all the pieces that help it function. Therefore,
a system review helps identify areas where things are working well, areas where
improvement may be needed, or areas where there may be redundancies or gaps
in the system. The review process includes an examination of policies, proce-
dures, operating guidelines, problem-solving processes, programs, accountabil-
ity data, and other relevant information about the school. Areas where
accountability data may be collected, reviewed, and analyzed include, but are
not limited to, (a) demographics, (b) academics, (c) behavior and discipline,
(d) health and w
ellness, and (e) at-risk information. Other data that may assist
in this process include anecdotal data that are not typically reported for
accountability purposes. Examples of this might be the number of students
Supports
Mission/Vision
SEL
Framework
Systems Learning Needs
A triangulated approach to SEL involves three key areas of focus:

1. Systems review and analysis (comprehensive review and analysis
of policies, procedures, guidelines, outcome data, etc.)
2. Learning needs assessment (review and analysis of programs, resources,
and the learning environment)
3. Review and analysis of supports (continuum of supports for students, staff,
and families; needs assessment)
Figure 7.3 A triangulated approach to SEL.
who have a parent in the m ilitary or who live in a single-parent home. As men-
tioned, the SELFI is a tool that was developed to assist schools with the self-
reflection task. The tool is available in Chapter 8, and it contains a set of
templates to help with the data collection process. Once data are collected and
aggregated, it should be disaggregated by student subgroups to aid in identify-
ing areas where inequities may exist.
Prior to the last decade, most schools used multiple, but separate, data systems
for the different operations within the school. They had financial data systems,
human resources data systems, attendance and enrollment data systems, and
accountability data systems, among others. These systems were not connected
and often were difficult to understand and operate. Furthermore, student data
were not aligned between the systems, so student information was often frag-
mented. As technology has improved, however, schools have begun to improve
their data infrastructure. Most schools now use a comprehensive data system that
allows data to be linked across systems. While there is no one data system, the
improvements brought about by technology have allowed schools to access and
analyze data more effectively. Without this, the use of data in decision making
can be challenging (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
As stated, the system review process is a comprehensive and taxing activity, so the
committee should anticipate spending a fair amount of time on it. The information
it provides can help the committee reflect on areas where gaps, problems, or issues
may have been identified. Through this self-reflection, the committee can analyze
existing supports to see how they connect with outcomes, which can be very useful
during the review of programs, resources, and the learning environment.
Learning Needs Assessment

As discussed, the information obtained from the system review and analysis
serves as a guide for the committee’s work in assessing programs, resources,
supports, and the learning environment. Thus, the next step in the triangulated
approach is the learning needs assessment, which involves two parts. The first is
a review and analysis of programs and resources, and the second is an assess-
ment of the learning environment. Each part can help the committee arrive at
an overall picture of the conditions for learning, including any areas where needs
are not being met.
The first part of the learning needs assessment is to review and analyze
programs and resources to determine if they are (a) being used effectively and
efficiently, (b) being duplicated, or (c) indicating any gaps in services. This also
can help the committee determine if current and future needs can be met through
adjustments to existing programs and resources, or if they need to be reallocated
to improve effectiveness and efficiency. For suggested questions that committees
might ask when conducting this part of the assessment, along with a template for
synthesizing and consolidating the information, please refer to the SELFI that is
included in Chapter 8. The template provides committees with a visual overview
of programs and resources so that duplications and gaps can be identified. The
template also is available as a fillable form on the book’s companion website.
An assessment of the learning environment is the second part of the learning
needs assessment, and it provides the committee with an overall picture of the
environment and the conditions in which students learn. The purpose of a learn-
ing environment assessment is to determine if the conditions for teaching and
learning promote positive outcomes and success for all students. In general, these
conditions should encourage high expectations, offer rigorous instruction, be
warm and engaging, use a strengths-based approach, and be culturally responsive.
Inclusive learning environments include these characteristics and more. They
seek to create a learning community where caring and respectful relationships are
fundamental to learning, where diversity is expected and valued, where i nstruction
is designed to meet the needs of all learners, and where students feel a sense of
belonging and purpose.
Data and information that were collected during the system review and analysis
will help the committee determine the extent of the learning environment assess-
ment. It is not uncommon for schools to discover that behavior, discipline, and
academic data are suggestive of systemic problems within the environment, so a
full assessment might be warranted. Of particular concern is whether the learning
environment promotes educational equity for all students, especially if the
school’s data indicate significant disproportionate outcomes for subgroups of stu-
dents. Assessing the learning environment can help identify areas where addi-
tional resources and supports may be needed and how these resources should be
allocated. The assessment also might need to include a school climate assessment,
which was discussed in Chapter 6, along with a list of school climate survey tools.
There are various approaches to assessing the learning environment, but there
is not a single method. One framework, however, that can help guide the process
is the ICEL framework. ICEL is an acronym that represents four components: (a)
instruction, (b) curriculum, (c) environment, and (d) learner. To be clear, ICEL
is not an assessment instrument. It is a framework that helps organize data and
information gathered from an assessment (Hosp, 2006). The ICEL framework is
especially useful in helping schools develop a better understanding of how learn-
ing occurs within the context of the environment. It also helps identify any bar-
riers that may be creating, or have the potential to create, inequitable opportunities
for learning. Many times, when a student is not learning, schools make assump-
tions that the reasons lie within the student. Schools may underestimate the
influences that other factors in the environment may have on student learning.
The ICEL framework encourages a full review of these factors, including equita-
ble access to resources and supports and culturally responsive practices, among
others. This review can assist with analyzing if these factors are underlying or
contributing to students’ learning difficulties. When viewed through the lens of
equity, these factors may offer surprising insights into how the learning environ-
ment may be contributing to inequity and subsequent difficulties with learning
for many students. Rapid Reference 7.2 provides an overview of the ICEL frame-
work, along with questions to consider when using the framework within the
context of a learning environment assessment.
Ultimately, a learning environment assessment helps determine if there is a
need for system-level improvement, such as in the school’s culture or climate, and
if there is equitable access and opportunity for all students. School culture and
climate, as discussed, provides a critical foundation for SEL. A positive, accept-
ing, and nurturing school and classroom provides the backdrop for engaging
Rapid Reference 7.2

Using the ICEL Framework to Determine an Equitable
Learning Environment
Domains of Learning Defined

I Instruction How content is taught.
Instruction varies by level, rate, and presentation; use of
academic language and vocabulary is appropriate for
developmental level; instruction includes clear learning goals
and learning intentions; questions are used to help students
process information at various levels of understanding and
offers flexible options such as increased time to process
answers and different options for answering; offers project-
based learning to increase instructional relevance; instruction
is differentiated (e.g., leveled texts, information presented in a
variety of formats, concepts demonstrated with manipulatives
and simulations, a variety of work and study environments
available in the classroom, etc.); activities and lesson plans are
based on principles of universal design for learning; instruction
provides opportunities for small-group or cooperative
learning; instruction provides time to practice skills and repeat
practice, if needed for mastery; guided practice is provided
and information is scaffolded; direct and explicit instruction is
provided; and progress monitoring and assessment are used
to inform the teacher on effectiveness of instruction and to
provide feedback to the student on skill development.
Questions to consider:
• How is the curriculum differentiated?
• Are instructional techniques developmentally appropriate?
• Are language and vocabulary developmentally appropriate?
• Are instructions clear?
• Is small-group and cooperative learning used?
• Is project-based learning allowed?
• Does instruction include visuals and graphics?
• Are new concepts and new information scaffolded?
• How is feedback provided?
• Is student feedback allowed and valued?
• Are language differences considered when delivering
instruction?
C Curriculum What is taught.

Includes scope, sequence, pacing, materials, rigor, format,
and relevance. Curriculum is standards based (scope refers
to the depth of understanding of the standards and
sequence refers to the order of instruction of the stand-
ards); instruction is aligned to standards; opportunities are
provided for students to bridge learning between units of
instruction; supplemental instruction is provided when
needed; students understand what mastery of standards
looks like; instructional materials are available in a variety of
formats; different forms of technology are used to facilitate
learning; and scaffolding is provided to support student
learning.
• Is instruction aligned with the curriculum?
• Is there a sequencing of objectives?
• Are materials available in a variety of formats, including
print, electronic, manipulatives, media, consumables, etc.?
• Are accommodations provided for various learning
styles and/or language differences?
• Does the instructional format offer a different modality
for learning for students with language differences?
E Environment Where instruction takes place.
Includes classroom culture and climate, expectations,
management and routines, facilities, class size, and student
participation. The classroom environment facilitates
community building; routines and rituals help reduce
stress; adults in the environment recognize and respond
appropriately to students who have experienced trauma;
classroom activities promote citizenship and encourage a
sense of purpose; the classroom climate is warm and
nurturing, engages all students, and promotes belonging;
schedules provide predictable routines and activities;
students are encouraged to explore their personal,
cultural, racial and academic identities and proactively
dispel stereotypes; restorative discipline practices are used
to repair community and support student learning; rules
and expectations for behavior are clearly defined; in large
classes, small-group instruction, and project-based learning
are used when possible; the physical environment is
organized and materials and resources are clearly labeled
for access by all; the physical arrangement of the classroom

encourages small-group learning, peer learning, and project-
based learning; physical conditions of the classroom are
conducive to learning (i.e., noise level is controlled, distractions
are reduced, temperature is controlled, lighting is sufficient,
etc.); performance expectations are consistent between
home and school; adult and/or peer mentoring are provided
when indicated; and cultural and language differences are not
used to explain and excuse poor performance.
• Is the physical environment clean, orderly, and organized?
• Is the physical environment conducive to learning (i.e.,
addresses distractions, temperature, lighting, and layout)?
• Are resource materials labeled for access by all students,
including those with language differences?
• Are schedules posted in a variety of formats (print,
visual timers, etc.)?
• Are routines and schedules consistently followed?
• Are students tardy to class because of disorderly
hallways and lack of supervision?
• Is adult supervision present during transition times and
are transition signals used?
• Are rules and expectations clearly articulated, demon-
strated, and posted for visibility?
• Do students perform differently around certain peers?
• How are parents encouraged to participate in their
children’s school activities and made to feel welcome at
school events?
• Is the student’s home environment conducive to
homework completion?
L Learner Who is taught.
Includes qualities that represent the unique capacities and/
or traits of a student. These may be influenced by prior
knowledge and learning experiences, physical development,
race, gender, culture, and family and environmental condi-
tions. Learner qualities include personality, social emotional
well-being, developmental abilities, physical health, and skills
and knowledge. Learner abilities that can impact perfor-
mance, skill development, and achievement include (but are
not limited to) language, sensory/motor skills, attention,
focus, motivation, organization, memory, and persistence.
• What are the student’s prior learning experiences (i.e.,
education history and opportunities to learn)?
• Has the student ever been retained or held back in school?
• Is there a history of poor attendance in school?
• Are there concerns or issues with developmental
language that might influence learning?
• Does the student’s style of learning match instruction?
• Is the curriculum appropriate for the student’s develop-
mental learning level? If not, are accommodations
sufficient to provide success?
• Does the student have access to alternative formats of
materials (i.e., audio, visual, sensory, etc.)?
• What is the condition of the student’s health (e.g.,
vision, hearing, etc.)?
• Are there health conditions (previous or current) that
might influence learning?
• Are there concerns about social, emotional, or cognitive
development that might influence learning?
• Is there a history of persistent misconduct or discipline
concerns at school, home, or in the community?
• Does the student have friendships at school, home, and
in the community?
• Are relationships with peers and adults appropriate for
the student’s developmental age?
• Is the student involved in extracurricular activities at
school, home, or in the community?
• Does the student maintain home responsibilities (i.e.,
chores) at home?
• Is the student involved with service-learning projects at
school, home, or in the community?
• Are there cultural differences (including language
differences) that might explain learning difficulties?
• Is the student considered a minority student due to race?
• Are there environmental conditions, such as poverty,
transience, or homelessness that might influence
learning?
students in the learning process. Thus, the learning environment assessment

should include an assessment of both the school and classroom climates. A tem-
plate for using the ICEL framework to guide the learning environment assess-
ment is part of the SELFI and is included in Chapter 8. The template is available
on the book’s companion website as well.
Assessment of Support Systems

The system review and analysis also can reveal areas in which supports may be lack-
ing or insufficient, such as in the continuum of supports available for teaching
and learning, or in the school’s process for identifying supports and interventions
(e.g., MTSS). A comprehensive problem-solving process is a key component in a
learning support system and the MTSS framework is a common approach used
by schools. It provides a comprehensive system for differentiating support based
on the unique needs of the school or the school system (NASP, 2016). Although
the MTSS framework is similar to the Response to Intervention (RtI) model, it is
much broader in scope. Both MTSS and RtI are conceptualized as multitiered
models that are premised on proactive beliefs, and they both provide for increas-
ingly intensive interventions and supports. However, the MTSS model is system-
focused while the RtI model is primarily student-focused. Consequently, the
MTSS model allows schools to improve outcomes for all students by integrating
multiple school improvement efforts (e.g., instruction, school climate and safety,
and behavior and discipline) throughout the process. MTSS is not a one-size-fits-
all model but is unique to each school community, thus problem-solving proce-
dures are likely to differ for each school, as will the composition of the school’s
problem-solving team. A properly functioning team, however, can facilitate the
efficiency and effectiveness of a school’s support systems by reducing fragmenta-
tion in services, helping to monitor program outcomes, and improving commu-
nications with parents and community partners. Whatever model is used to
represent a school’s problem-solving process, there should be clearly defined poli-
cies and procedures established by the school and communicated to the staff.
There also should be clear objectives for the tiered levels of support, along with
consistency in implementation and decision making. The SELFI in Chapter 8
provides a Checklist for a Solution-focused Problem-solving Process that can assist
schools and school systems in developing this process. The checklist is available
on the book’s companion website as well.
Assessing a school’s support systems not only helps identify areas where teach-
ing and learning supports are needed, but also assesses the SEL supports that may
be needed. This includes supports for students, staff, and families as well.
Identifying family needs can help engage parents in the learning process, while
also bridging the needs of students and families with the supports and services
available within the community. School efforts to develop collaborative commu-
nity partnerships, where responsibility and accountability are shared, can enhance
SEL effectiveness and success.
Assessing a school’s support systems also helps inform decisions about how and
where to allocate resources. Through an analysis of existing supports and resources,
the school can identify areas where gaps exist and where additional supports are
needed. When conducting the analysis, the school should focus on key areas where
support is needed and should begin by examining classrooms before moving out-
ward toward the entire school, the student’s families, then the school community.
Where gaps are identified, needs then can be prioritized. The SELFI in Chapter 8
provides a Matrix for a Continuum of Student, Staff, and Home Supports that
schools can use to assess supports in seven essential areas, along with the level of
supports available in each area. Using the matrix, schools can identify any gaps in
the continuum of supports being provided by the school. The matrix is available
as a fillable form on the book’s companion website, as well.
Phase 2b: Data-Informed Decisions
Goal(s): Data will help set priorities and goals and align systems and processes
within the infrastructure.
Anticipated outcome(s): Foundation will be laid for developing the SEL imple-
mentation plan.
Use of Data in Decision Making

Upon completion of the triangulated review (i.e., the system review and analysis, the
learning needs assessment, and the assessment of support systems), the committee
will need to synthesize and consolidate all the data and information to help identify
priorities and set goals. Depending on what has been revealed, it can be used either
to inform, inspire, or drive the committee’s decisions about goals. For an explanation
about the differences between these three approaches to decision making (data
informed, data inspired, and data driven), please refer to Rapid Reference 7.3.
Identifying Priorities and Setting Goals

Data and information gathered during Phase 2a will help the committee prior-
itize needs and establish goals for the long term, medium term, and short term.
In addition to ensuring equitable opportunities for all students, the goals will
Rapid Reference 7.3

Distinguishing Between Date-Informed, Data-Inspired,
and Data-Driven Decision Making: What About
Moral Decision Making?
For the past several decades, the field of education has been deluged with data,
and its use in the decision-making process has grown rapidly as technology
advances have made data more readily available. In the United States, the passage
of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law ushered in an era of standardized
testing, which was largely responsible for the increased reliance on data in
educational decision making. Since then, schools in the United States have been
using data-driven decision making (DDDM), as a multistep, fact-finding process to
drive educational decisions, including what to teach and how it should be taught.
More recently, however, this approach has come under scrutiny, not because of its
use of data to make decisions, but because of its obsession with quantifiable data
at the exclusion of qualitative data and ethical decision making (Wang, 2019).
Consequently, decision making has evolved as more schools have begun to see
data as a tool that can shed light on areas of concern, not simply drive decisions. It
should be noted that all three of the approaches discussed are not new concepts,
as they have been around the business world for quite some time. The following
descriptions provide an overview of how each approach is differentiated and how
each is used for different decision-making purposes:
Data-driven decision making: Decisions are entirely data based. The data
provide the exact information needed to validate decisions and are trusted
without question. Decisions do not take into account human experience or
insight. DDDM is useful when hard facts are needed and an answer to a specific
question is desired. This approach is useful if the data needed are to answer
questions of “What?” or “How many?”
Data-informed decision making: Data are only one factor in the decision-making
process, rather than the entire basis for the decision. Data must be analyzed and
interpreted and not simply accepted as is.This approach uses multiple sources of
information including experiences, knowledge, and insights. Decisions do not rely
solely upon the data.The data act as a check on human intuition and help illuminate
areas where there may be issues or concerns, and to help guide innovation.This
approach is useful if the data are needed to answer questions of “Why?”
Data-inspired decision making: Data are used to think critically while
imagining possibilities. Data provide inspiration and are used to support
innovative ideas. While the data are viewed in conjunction with all other
information, it is helpful for analyzing options and informing strategies. This
approach helps match the right choice with the proven data. It is useful when
data are needed to answer questions of “What if?”
need to be prioritized to focus on creating optimal learning environments. An

emphasis on prevention efforts and addressing the barriers that create inequities
in learning should be considered a priority. A “whole-child” perspective will
ensure that a continuum of supports is available and will decrease the likelihood
of programs or interventions being fragmented. Of particular importance is the
identification of areas where gaps in services or resources may exist, such as in
SEL instructional programs, teaching strategies, and assessment practices.
Selecting the SEL Framework

Prior to developing the implementation plan, an SEL framework needs to be selected
(if this has not already been done) and aligned with the SEL program of instruction
and assessment practices. Having an SEL framework helps prevent the cherrypick-
ing of interventions, strategies, and assessments that may or may not be related to
one another—or to the desired outcomes. Choosing a framework for SEL is an
important part of the implementation process because it guides the committee in
defining what matters most and in establishing the SEL standards (i.e., competen-
cies) on which to focus. The standards then guide the teaching and learning practices
for SEL and help ensure assessment is aligned with what is being taught.
In selecting an SEL framework, schools must have a clear understanding of
the theoretical foundation for the framework, as well as the evidenced support for
its use. In addition, the competencies fostered by the framework must be framed
from a developmental perspective, since SEL is a developmental process. As chil-
dren and youth mature, skills and competencies develop at certain stages, there-
fore, instruction must follow a developmental sequence. Tasks for teaching the
competencies must be viewed in the context of these developmental stages and
naturally should become more sophisticated as students mature. Focusing on
tasks from a developmental foundation will make the SEL framework clearer and
more comprehensive, and standards, assessment, and instruction are more likely
to be adequately aligned (Denham, 2018). One example of a framework based
on a developmental perspective of growth is the Search Institute’s Developmental
Assets®. For a description and overview of this framework, please refer to Rapid
Reference 7.4.
Currently, there are more than 140 frameworks from which to choose, so review-
ing each one is beyond the scope of this book. There are, however, several
resources available to assist in the selection. For example, the Ecological
Approaches to Social Emotional Learning (EASEL) Laboratory at Harvard
Graduate School of Education offers the Explore SEL website, which serves as a
navigator for the most current SEL frameworks and their competencies (EASEL,
n.d.). The website is a culmination of the work done through the Taxonomy
Rapid Reference 7.4

The Developmental Assets® Framework
The Developmental Assets framework was released by the Search Institute in

1990 and, since then, has been used by schools, practitioners, and child-serving
organizations around the world. The framework is grounded in decades of research
on positive youth development, prevention, and resiliency, and is supported by
hundreds of studies on its effectiveness. Developmental Assets promotes a
strengths-based approach to working with young people and focuses on the
positive experiences, relationships, opportunities, and personal competencies that
young people need in order to be successful in school and life.
Within the framework, there are 40 positive supports and strengths considered
to be the building blocks of healthy development. Half of the strengths develop
through external supports found in schools, homes, and communities, and the
other half are internal assets that children develop to help them become healthy,
caring, competent, and responsible adults. Research conducted by the Search
Institute over the past three decades has shown that the more of these assets a
person has, the less likely they are to engage in risky behaviors. The assets are
categorized as follows:
External assets:
• Support
∘∘ Caring relationships
∘∘ Appreciation
∘∘ Acceptance
• Empowerment
∘∘ A chance to contribute
∘∘ Feeling safe and valued
• Boundaries and expectations
∘∘ Rules and consistent consequences
∘∘ Encouragement
• Constructive use of time
∘∘ Opportunities to develop skills and interests with others
Internal assets:
• Commitment to learning
∘∘ Learning for a lifetime
∘∘ Belief in own abilities
• Positive values
∘∘ Guiding principles and values to make healthy choices
∘∘ Internal compass
• Social competencies (i.e., life skills)

∘∘ Relationship skills
∘∘ Problem-solving skills
∘∘ Coping skills
• Positive identity
∘∘ Sense of purpose, power, and promise for future
Source: The Search Institute, 2021. The Developmental Assets® framework. https://www.
search-institute.org/our-research/development-assets/developmental-assets-framework/.
Project, which was discussed in Chapter 1. It also provides additional SEL

resources and research findings on SEL. Another resource that offers information
on SEL frameworks is available from the American Institutes for Research (AIR).
A compilation of 15 of the most current and widely adopted SEL frameworks
was identified in a recent AIR publication (Berg et al., 2017). Although the
frameworks that were identified differ in their taxonomies and orientations, they
all are grounded in theory and research. At the time of this book’s publication,
however, the most widely adopted framework in schools was the one developed
by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL),
which was reviewed and discussed in Chapter 1.
Whichever framework is chosen by a school, it should reflect what the school
has identified as being most important and should be based on a developmental
perspective of learning. It also should be examined through a lens of equity, to
ensure it is culturally fair and will support the school’s efforts to eliminate barriers
to learning. Ultimately, the framework will help align SEL goals, SEL instruc-
tion, and SEL assessment with the school’s systems and processes.
Developing the SEL Instructional Program

The SEL instructional program should include two components: (a) direct and
explicit instruction in skill development, and (b) integration of SEL into every facet
of the school environment, including academic instruction, daily routines, assem-
blies, sports and recreational activities, extracurricular activities, clubs and organiza-
tions, and so on. Explicit teaching and integration of SEL with academic instruction
can be challenging at first, so the committee should consider a plan for staff train-
ing and development when setting priorities and goals about SEL instruction.
Explicit instruction in SEL competencies should be included as an integral
part of the instructional day, so an appropriate amount of time should be allotted
for this. While some states in the United States have adopted SEL standards,
most have not, so many schools have chosen to develop their own standards to
help guide instruction and measure outcomes. Likewise, some schools have
developed their own SEL curriculum, while others have selected commercially
available curriculum programs. Whichever option is chosen, the program should
be evidence-based, culturally fair, and aligned to the chosen SEL framework to
ensure the skills being taught are the skills that are desired. Research has shown
that effective SEL curriculums include four elements, which are represented by
the acronym S.A.F.E. (Durlak et al., 2011). These are as follows:
• Sequenced: Step-by-step approach that fosters skill development
• Active: Use of active forms of listening to help students learn and master
skills
• Focused: Focuses on allowing sufficient time for skill development
• Explicit: Includes explicit goals for target skill development
The research concluded that when SEL programs incorporated these four ele-
ments, they were more effective in achieving the desired outcomes, as compared
with programs that did not include the four elements.
Identifying Staff SEL Needs

While goals targeting student success are critical, so are the supports and
resources that staff will need. Studies of teacher stress and job satisfaction have
shown that the social and emotional needs of staff are a critical priority to the
long-term success of SEL (Long, 2019). For staff to be able to cultivate stu-
dents’ SEL skills, adult SEL skills must be strengthened first. This includes
fortifying their ability to cope with and manage stress, and building their
expertise in teaching and modeling SEL competencies. It also includes environ-
mental and leadership supports that empower staff and help them feel valued
and needed.
Teachers can self-assess their SEL competencies to determine how their teach-
ing practices impact their student’s SEL competencies by completing a self-
reflection survey. For example, CASEL developed a personal assessment and
reflection tool as part of their Guide to Schoolwide SEL (CASEL, 2020b), which
is available to teachers at no cost. There is also a survey from the Center on Great
Teachers and Leaders at the American Institutes of Research (Yoder, 2014), which
is also provided at no cost. Tools of this type can help teachers not only reflect on
their own social and emotional competencies, but also identify areas where pro-
fessional development may be needed.
Professional development opportunities are one of the most important methods
through which schools can build and support adult SEL skills, and thus improve
their confidence in teaching and supporting their students’ competencies. Teachers

and staff should be encouraged to provide input into their training needs, and
opportunities should be provided, but ultimately all training should be coordinated
to support the goals and objectives identified in the SEL plan. Another way to build
adult SEL skills is to embed them into staff routines and expectations. For example,
staff meetings might include a set of guidelines that are developed to guide group
discussions. The guidelines might offer opportunities for staff to practice listening
and communications skills, or methods for engaging in collegial discourse and
debate. Yet another way to strengthen adult SEL is through organized social events
and relationship-building activities. By focusing on and supporting the staff’s SEL
needs, schools can help decrease stress levels, improve job satisfaction, and ulti-
mately improve outcomes for students (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
Assessment of SEL Competencies

Assessing students’ SEL skills should be included as a prioritized goal in the
SEL plan. The assessment should be conducted prior to implementing SEL
instruction in order to establish a baseline for growth. The committee should
consider the purpose for the assessment and should strive to align it with the
SEL framework and curriculum so that desired skills are those that are being
taught and assessed. The method and type of assessment also should be identi-
fied, along with the frequency of assessment and the staff position, or positions,
that will be responsible for conducting the assessment. Particular attention
should be given to the tool(s) selected for the assessment, along with any poten-
tial limitations to interpreting results and aligning them with the SEL frame-
work, curriculum, and instruction. A comprehensive guide to SEL assessment
is offered in Chapter 9, including a step-by-step approach and a discussion of
potential limitations. Also included in the chapter are several references and
resources, as well as examples of how assessment results might align with
instruction.
Alignment of Systems and Processes

Systems alignment is an important step toward integrating the SEL framework
with teaching and learning. It identifies the framework as an essential part of the
school’s mission and vision, and it connects the framework with policies, proce-
dures, programs, and practices within the system. Thus, programs and resources
must be allocated, or reallocated, to align with the areas where universal, targeted,
and intensive supports have been identified. By aligning the framework with the
system and its resources, the committee affirms that SEL is the missing link in
education and is as important to learning as academics. Results of alignment
efforts should be reflected in the school’s strategic improvement plan (SIP) to

confirm its importance and to safeguard implementation efforts.
To enhance cohesion and ongoing success, it is equally important that
supports and services be aligned between the schools in the system. The
infrastructure of a school’s problem-solving process should connect with
other schools in its feeder pattern. In other words, problem-solving processes
for the different schools in a school system should align both vertically and
horizontally to ensure consistency and maintenance of services. Once the
alignment process is completed, the committee should consolidate all find-
ings from the data review and analysis process into one comprehensive docu-
ment. To facilitate this process, the SELFI Consolidated Findings Report is
available in Chapter 8, and it is also available as a fillable template on the
book’s companion website. Once all data and information have been consoli-
dated and synthesized, the committee is ready to move toward developing a
logic model for SEL.
Developing a Logic Model

A logic model offers a visual guide for implementing SEL, and it identifies the
resources that need to be invested, the activities involved, and the outcomes
desired. It gives schools a big-picture view of the process and provides clarity and
direction for the initiative. The logic model offers a visual conceptualization of the
implementation plan, but the plan provides the details (e.g., tasks, activities,
resources, and supports) needed for implementation. The basis for the model
rests on the belief that SEL is fundamental to learning, and, with the necessary
supports, it will lead to improved outcomes for students and for the systems that
serve them. This belief is translated into a statement that articulates the vision for
the endeavor, and the model then identifies the changes that will be needed in
order to accomplish the desired outcomes. A full description of logic models,
along with the basic components that should be included, and a sample logic
model can be found in Chapter 5. Rapid Reference 7.5 offers a set of guiding
principles upon which a logic model for SEL should be based.
The priorities and goals identified at this point will help guide the planning
process and lay the foundation for the implementation plan that will be devel-
oped in the next phase. As goals are identified, the committee also should iden-
tify methods for continuously monitoring and measuring progress toward these
goals. To assist in the data- informed decision- making process, Rapid
Reference 7.6 provides a list of key questions that are intended to stimulate
discussions and help guide committees toward the next phase of developing an
implementation plan.
Rapid Reference 7.5

Guiding Principles for Developing a SEL Logic Model
1. Schools should recognize the relationship between social emotional

development and learning in order to address the barriers that lead to
educational inequities in education.
2. School culture and climate form the foundation for a sustainable and successful
approach to schoolwide implementation of SEL.
3. School leadership is critical to the process of promoting positive changes and
transforming educational outcomes. Systems at all levels have a shared
responsibility for achieving this change.
4. Early efforts to prevent and intervene with mental health issues in schools are
essential to creating long-term success for all students.
5. Educating young people is a collaborative effort. Partnerships between schools,
families, and communities will strengthen and support this effort, but policies,
procedures, programs, and resources need to be aligned and coordinated to
ensure success.
6. In order to prepare students for success in school and in life, supports for
transitions should be considered at all levels, including, but not limited to,
within schools, between schools, between home and school, and between
schools and communities.
7. Approaches to teaching SEL should begin with identifying supports for instruc-
tion and professional development for the staff. Decisions about programming
and practices should be evidence-based and viewed through an equity lens.
8. Standards for social emotional development should be clearly defined in
policies and procedures at all levels of governance.
Rapid Reference 7.6

Prior to moving into Phase 3 of developing an implementation plan, the SEL
committee will want to review the data and information collected thus far, to
determine if informed decisions can be made. The following questions can serve
as a discussion guide for key issues that need to be considered when developing
the SEL implementation plan:
1. Are equity and access to educational opportunities an explicit part of the SEL plan?
2. Have policies, procedures, practices, and programs been reviewed to ensure they
reflect equitable opportunities for all students and do not perpetuate inequities?
3. Has an SEL framework been selected that reflects the needs identified by the
school community?
4. Does the SEL framework reflect equity, cultural responsiveness, trauma-
informed practices, and eliminating barriers to learning?
5. Do policies contain specific language directed at developing SEL competen-
cies, or is the language inconsistent and ambiguous? Is a separate set of SEL
policies needed?
6. Do policies, procedures, practices, and programs align with the SEL
framework?
7. Have school culture and climate needs been identified, along with a plan for
intentional improvement?
8. Have resources (including staff) been allocated or reallocated to eliminate
redundancies and improve efficiency and effectiveness?
9. Has an SEL curriculum been identified to provide explicit instruction, and is it
empirically validated and culturally fair? Has a training plan been created to
support the implementation of the SEL curriculum?
10. Have professional development needs been identified and a plan created?
11. Is there a comprehensive problem-solving process such as a MTSS through
which student, staff, and campus needs can be addressed?
12. Has a continuum of comprehensive supports for students, staff, and families
been identified?
13. Have SEL assessment needs been identified and aligned with the SEL
framework? What type of assessment will be used, how frequently will it
occur, and who will be responsible for administering and collecting the data?
14. Have progress-monitoring needs been identified and aligned with the skills
being taught? How will information be collected, who will collect it, and how
often will it be collected?
15. Have pedagogical strategies for infusing SEL into the standard curriculum
been identified and a plan for staff development created?
16. Have targets for measuring system improvement been identified, along with
methods of measurement identified? Along with measuring SEL core
competencies, other suggested targets might include:
a. School climate
b. Attendance rate
c. Rate of referrals for behavior and/or discipline
d. Teacher job satisfaction
e. Graduation rates
f. Retention rates
Phase 3: Planning and Implementing

Goal(s): Identify key components of a comprehensive SEL implementation plan.
Anticipated outcome(s): Development of a multilevel, multiyear implementa-
tion plan.
Developing the Implementation Plan

Once the school’s infrastructure has been developed, the stage is set for formulat-
ing the implementation plan. Based on the data and information collected and
reviewed during the previous phases, the SEL committee now should have a
complete picture of the school and all its relevant needs. At this point in the pro-
cess, the needs should have been prioritized and consensus reached regarding the
key components to include in the implementation plan. These might include,
but are not limited to:
1. Duration of the plan
2. Level of implementation
3. Procedures for MTSS, along with associated staff development
4. Allocation of staff and resources
5. Budget requirements (short and long term)
6. Targeted goals for
• Policies and procedures (i.e., development, revision, or realignment)
• Professional development
• Programs and resources (i.e., development, realignment, or reallocation)
• Instruction and curriculum, along with associated staff development
• Student engagement
• Safety and crises
• Family and home engagement
• Collaborative-community partnerships
7. Progressive improvement process that includes
• Data collection methods, frequency of data collection, and staff involved
• Frequency of review and revision of the plan
• Method and frequency for sharing/communicating results
Before developing the implementation plan, schools should determine if their
infrastructure rests on a foundation that will ensure success. In other words, does
the infrastructure include a positive school culture and climate? If so, the school’s
plan has a greater likelihood for success, and the committee can proceed confi-
dently with developing a plan with a multiyear scope, but the level of implementa-
tion will depend upon the school’s identified needs. It is suggested that things
begin at a scale that is achievable and ensures success, then gradually increases (i.e.,
scales up). As an example, a large education system that includes multiple schools
might decide to develop a 3-year plan that begins with implementation at the
elementary level for the first year, then expands to include middle schools during
the second year, followed by high schools during the third year. In another exam-
ple, an individual school might decide on a 3-year plan that begins with prekin-
dergarten through first grades during year 1, followed by grades 2 and 3 in year 2,
and grades 4 and 5 in year 3. The option that works best for a campus or school
system will depend upon the resources available and the level of needs that have
been identified. Schools should explore the option that best meets their needs,
with the goal of taking things to the highest scale as the initiative progresses.
There may be some instances in which schools find the critical infrastructure
for SEL is missing, which prohibits large-scale implementation. An example
might be a case in which a school struggles with managing challenging behaviors
and discipline problems. After assessing the learning environment, the school
might determine that school climate is an area that requires intensive interven-
tion before it can proceed with a broad-scale SEL plan. Thus, the school’s multi-
year plan might prioritize school climate as a key need, with all resources and
supports focused on developing this part of the infrastructure during the first
year. Subsequent years then would focus on gradually scaling up to include other
areas identified by the committee, such as revising policies and procedures to
align with SEL or developing a campus-based MTSS, for example.
The SEL implementation plan will be unique to each school or school system,
so naturally each school’s plan will look different. As an example, a plan for an
elementary school is likely to look considerably different from a plan for a sec-
ondary school. Despite these differences, however, both plans should address the
foundations for SEL (e.g., school culture and climate) and should contain the key
areas previously discussed, such as aligning policies, programs, and practices, and
identifying the SEL curriculum. So, while every school’s plan will look different,
all plans should address the critical components discussed. In addition, when a
plan is being developed for an entire education system, consideration should be
given to the uniqueness of each school within the system. In such cases, it is
essential that each school have a voice in the development of the plan.
Once decisions are made about goals and priorities, the committee can pro-
ceed with developing its plan. A review of the logic model will help the commit-
tee identify activities and tasks to be included in the plan, along with a timeline
for beginning and completing each. Figure 7.4 provides a visual representation of
how the plan might be grouped to include the critical elements that are needed
for the plan.
1 2
Duration and Level of Resource/Asset Commitments

Implementation District/school staff;
One-year, 3-year, 5-year; Volunteers/collaborative partners;
District, campus, grade or class level; Evidence-based programs and practices;
Targeted activities and tasks with key Materials, supplies, other resources,
dates (e.g., start, review, continue, and supports;
end, etc.) Budget (short term and long term)
3 4
Ongoing Review and Progressive
System-Level Alignments and Goals Improvement
Common language and terminology; Data collection (how, when, who);
Policies, procedures, and practices; Data analysis and review process
Learning environment needs; (includes aggregated and disaggregated
Professional learning needs; data, and data-informed decision points);
Short-term, mid-term, long-term goals Communicating results and celebrating
successes
Figure 7.4 Key groups of information to be included in the SEL implementation plan.
Implementing the Plan
With a well-thought-out and detailed plan in hand, the committee is ready to
begin implementation. As has been stated throughout this book, SEL is a process.
So too, is implementation, and it begins with gaining staff commitment.
Achieving staff buy-in for SEL is the first challenge the school will encounter, and
it should be approached with openness and transparency. Reassurances that SEL
is not another thing on the teachers’ plates will be of paramount importance.
As has been stated, teachers recognize and support SEL, but most do not feel
adequately prepared to teach it. Therefore, the plan for training teachers and sup-
porting their own SEL needs must be a vital part of the initial conversations. The
need for a common language, understanding, and perspective also will be critical
to the initial steps in implementation.
Once staff commitment has been achieved, efforts then turn toward establish-
ing a positive school culture and climate and laying the foundation for equity.
Using the data and information obtained from the self-reflection in Phase 2a, the
plan should target goals for eliminating barriers to learning and for creating wel-
coming and engaging learning environments. Using the ICEL framework, spe-
cific goals and activities can be identified for SEL instruction, the SEL curriculum,
and the integration of SEL with daily routines and practices within the school
and classroom environments. Other goals that support a positive culture and
climate might include activities for aligning policies, programs, and practices to
ensure equitable access and treatment for all students. Data should be collected,
as specified in the plan, to inform ongoing improvement efforts and aid with
decision making.
Aligning the SEL curriculum with the chosen framework should precede the
assessment of students’ SEL competencies. A curriculum for explicit instruction
of SEL and strategies for integrating SEL with existing pedagogy and practice
should be implemented as specified in the plan. Using the step-by-step guide for
assessing SEL competencies not only will help schools identify students’ skill
levels, but also will help guide the SEL instructional program and the monitoring
of student progress in the program. Depending on the type of assessment used,
the information also may help with evaluating program effectiveness. As with
other areas, ongoing data collection (as specified in the plan) will aid in progres-
sive improvement efforts.
One of the most important components of the plan will be setting goals for
staff development and training. In addition to providing staff with an overview
and description of the SEL implementation plan, goals should target specific
areas that can support equitable practices. These include training in SEL peda-
gogy and practice, restorative practices, trauma- informed practices, positive
behavior strategies, safety and crisis planning, social justice, implicit biases and
microaggressions, and mental health issues, among others. Participation in pro-
fessional development opportunities should be encouraged, and data should be
collected to inform additional areas of need.
Phase 4: Progressive Improvement

Goal(s): Identify and collect data to inform decisions and promote ongoing
improvement.
Anticipated outcome(s): Progressive improvement in student and system
outcomes.
Progressive improvement is the term that best describes this phase. While it
implies that things will continuously get better, it goes a step further to offer a
broader meaning. Not only are things expected to get better, but also progress
will be experienced through innovative ideas and forward-thinking approaches.
Unlike the continuous improvement process, progressive improvement looks to
the future through an enlightened mindset where decisions focus not just on
improvement for the sake of improvement, but also on creating sustainable and
system-altering improvement.
The success of the SEL initiative will be contingent upon the degree to which
data and information are collected, synthesized, and reviewed to progressively
inform decisions and make sustainable improvements. The progression includes
five levels: (a) the decision-making process, (b) review and adjustments to the
plan, (c) policy and procedural revisions, (d) resource allocations and adjust-
ments, and (e) recognition and communication of successes. The first level is the
decision-making process and is conceptualized in Figure 7.5.
This level is a prerequisite to the other four levels because it encompasses an
ongoing process of data collection, review, and analysis that will subsequently be
used to inform decisions at the other levels. Decisions at the first level are based
on a review and analysis of ongoing data collection (as specified in the plan) from
multiple sources, not just one. It should include information from direct and
indirect measurement methods, as well as progress-monitoring data for academ-
ics, behavior, and SEL. It also should include updated information from the self-
reflection activity (SELFI) that was completed in Phase 2a, and information
collected through an ongoing review of programs and resources, as well as
updated information about staff development needs.
As data are collected, reviewed, and analyzed, the information is used to reflect
on the plan, determine its impact on student and system outcomes, and adjust
the plan where the data and information suggest changes are needed. The process
of reviewing and revising the plan should occur on a predetermined schedule,
such as monthly, or whenever indicated by incoming data and information. It is
best if it is synchronized with the data collection and analysis process to ensure
current information is used to inform decisions. Figure 7.6 provides a visual
example of the plan revision process.
Identify Define Intervene Evaluate
What do What does How will Did we

we want to it look we improve
improve? like? improve it?
it? What
strategies
will help us
improve
it?
DATA-INFORMED PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
Figure 7.5 Conceptual framework for the decision-making process.

Formal
• Team review
Progress
• Monthly monitored decision
• Data- • Stakeholders • Midyear
informed updated • Annually
• Ongoing
• Make
Informal • Data- Minor changes or
review informed adjustments
or changes adjustments
• Disseminate
results
Continuous review
Figure 7.6 Review and revision of the SEL implementation plan.
In some cases, the decision-making process will reveal the need for changes in
system-level policies or procedures, or it may indicate a need to reallocate
resources or adjust how resources are accessed. Changes such as these can have a
critical impact on the momentum and success of the plan, so caution is war-
ranted. Prior to making these kinds of changes, schools should consider the
degree of disruption that may result. Other factors, such as the timing and fre-
quency of these changes, also can have an impact, so schools should be aware of
these things when making decisions that affect system-level operations. This pre-
caution is not meant to imply that system-level changes should not occur; it is
merely intended to increase awareness that these types of changes have the poten-
tial to create unintended consequences.
SUMMARY
The purpose of the multiphase approach to SEL is to provide schools with a

comprehensive and systematic method for tackling the difficult task of systemic
change in order to implement and advance SEL in schools. A systematic method
ensures that all “i’s are dotted, and all t’s are crossed,” as described in Rapid
Reference 7.7.
For schools or districts that already have begun the planning and implementa-
tion process, there may be anxiety or concerns that some of the components
described in this approach have been inadvertently overlooked. These schools
should find comfort in knowing that there is no need to start over. As stated, the
multiphase approach is not required to be implemented in a lockstep, sequential
Rapid Reference 7.7

“Dotting i’s and Crossing t’s” Using a Systematic Approach
to SEL Planning
Dotting i’s with a systematic approach ensures:

• Intentional efforts throughout the process
• Integral planning for all aspects of the school’s environment and operations
• Integrity in all phases of implementation
Crossing t’s with a systematic approach ensures:
• Transformational improvement for all aspects of learning and teaching
• Translation of what is most important in educating today’s young people
• Transposition of priorities to ensure educational equity for all students
manner. Instead, it is a fluid process, and any aspects of planning and implemen-
tation that may have been missed still can be addressed using the multiphase
approach. To facilitate this approach to the SEL planning process, a checklist is
Rapid Reference 7.8

Checklist for the SEL Multiphase Approach
The following checklist can help schools monitor all activities completed as part of
the multiphase implementation of SEL. For activities that are not completed,
schools can determine the rationale for completing or not completing the
activities, and identify any additional actions that may be needed.
Instructions: Check all activities that have been completed for each phase of
implementation.
Phase 1: Foundations
• Steering committee was assembled.
• Steering committee type was identified.
∘∘ State level
∘∘ District level
∘∘ Campus level
∘∘ Grade level
• Key members were represented.

∘∘ Administration
∘∘ Instruction—general education
∘∘ Instruction—special education
∘∘ Parent/caregiver
∘∘ Student/s
∘∘ School mental health specialist
∘∘ Support staff (e.g., paraeducator, custodial staff, food-service staff, administra-
tive assistant, transportation staff, etc.)
∘∘ Ancillary staff (e.g., school safety officers, providers of special education services
such as OTs, PTs, special education counselors, mobility instructors, etc.)
∘∘ Community members (e.g., mental health service providers, health service
providers, faith-based organizations, etc.)
∘∘ Child-serving agency representatives
∘∘ Others:
• Committee’s vision was identified
• Committee’s scope was identified
• Consensus was developed
∘∘ Common language was developed
∘∘ Common understanding of issues was established
∘∘ Common perspective was reached on viable solutions
• Triangulated approach was reviewed, discussed, and clarified
• SELFI was completed and included the following groups of data and information:
Group 1: System review and analysis
∘∘ Demographic information
∘∘ Academic wellness
∘∘ At-risk/special needs factors
∘∘ Health and wellness factors
∘∘ Behavioral health factors
∘∘ Other behavioral health data not collected by schools
∘∘ Policies and procedures
Group 2: Learning needs assessment
∘∘ Review and analysis of programs and resources
∘∘ Assessment of the learning environment, including school and class climate
Group 3: Assessment of support systems
∘∘ Problem-solving process
∘∘ Needs assessment
♦♦ Supports for students, staff, and families
♦♦ Professional development

• Data were used to inform the identification of priorities and goals
• SEL framework was selected
• SEL instructional program was identified
∘∘ Program is embedded into all aspects of the learning environment
∘∘ Program is evidence-based and provides for explicit instruction (i.e., includes
the S.A.F.E. elements of Sequenced, Active, Focused, Explicit)
∘∘ Program is aligned to the chosen SEL framework
∘∘ Program is culturally fair
• Staff SEL needs were identified
• Student SEL competencies were assessed
∘∘ Competencies were defined and aligned to the SEL framework, curriculum,
and instruction
∘∘ Assessment type was identified
♦♦ Formative
♦♦ Summative
♦♦ Screening
♦♦ Curriculum based
♦♦ Criterion referenced
♦♦ Norm referenced
∘∘ Method of assessment was identified
♦♦ Direct method:
♦♦ Indirect method:
∘∘ Limitations to assessment results, if any, were identified
♦♦ Limitations:
• Alignment of systems and processes was completed
∘∘ Policies and procedures were aligned with the SEL framework
∘∘ Programs and resources were allocated to address the SEL needs
∘∘ The SIP includes SEL as a priority goal
• A Logic model was developed
• Developing the implementation plan: Key components that were considered
∘∘ Duration of plan implementation
♦♦ One-year
♦♦ Three-year
♦♦ Five-year
∘∘ Level of plan implementation
♦♦ District
♦♦ Campus
♦♦ Grade or class
∘∘ Process for MTSS
∘∘ Allocation of staff and resources

∘∘ Budget requirements (short and long term)
∘∘ Targeted goals for:
♦♦ Policies and procedures
♦♦ Instruction and curriculum
♦♦ Student engagement
♦♦ Transitions
♦♦ Safety and crises
♦♦ Family and home engagement
♦♦ Collaborative community partnerships
∘∘ Progressive improvement process
♦♦ Data collection method, frequency, and staff involved
♦♦ Frequency of review and revision of the plan
♦♦ Method and frequency for sharing/communicating results
• Implementing the plan
∘∘ Staff commitment was gained
∘∘ Positive school culture and climate needs were established
∘∘ The SEL Framework was aligned with SEL assessment, instruction, and curriculum
∘∘ The SEL curriculum includes strategies for
♦♦ Explicit instruction
♦♦ Integrated instruction
∘∘ Staff development and training needs were identified
♦♦ SEL overview and plan
♦♦ SEL pedagogy and practice
♦♦ Restorative practices
♦♦ Trauma-informed practices
♦♦ Behavior intervention strategies
♦♦ Effective classroom management
♦♦ Safety and crisis planning
♦♦ Social justice
♦♦ Implicit bias and microaggressions
♦♦ Mental health conditions
♦♦ Other:
♦♦ Other:

The decision-making process was data informed
Decisions were identified for five levels:
1. Identified the conceptual framework for making decisions:
• Identified what needed to be improved
• Defined what it would look like when improved
• Intervened with strategies for improvement
• Evaluated the improvement that was needed

∘∘ Identified data to be collected and reviewed
♦♦ Student progress-monitoring data
∘∘ SEL
∘∘ Academic
∘∘ Behavior
♦♦ Student discipline data
♦♦ Program-monitoring data
♦♦ Staff development data
♦♦ Other data:
∘∘ Identified the method of data collection
♦♦ Direct
♦♦ Indirect
∘∘ Frequency of collection was established
∘∘ Staff involved in collection were identified
2. Identified the process for reviewing and adjusting the plan
• Frequency for informal review was determined
• Method for monitoring the progress of the plan was determined
• Criteria for making minor adjustments or changes to the plan were decided
• Formal review process and timeline was identified
3. Identified policy and procedural additions or changes that were needed
4. Identified process for allocating/reallocating resources
5. Identified process for communicating results to stakeholders
• Method and frequency for sharing or communicating results was determined
CONCLUSION
Getting started with an SEL initiative is not an easy task, but the payoff can be
enormous. As stated, it is not intended as an added burden for schools and staff,
but as a process for making the types of system-level changes that provide
improved outcomes for students and schools, greater job satisfaction for staff,
and equitable opportunities for all students. In the interest of transparency, how-
ever, it is important for schools to understand that the work is often intense and
requires a high level of commitment from staff, with an even higher level of com-
mitment and support from school leaders. When implemented systematically
using the multiphase approach described in this chapter, the process is achievable
and offers sustainable change for schools and school systems.
Change at the system level, however, requires a clear understanding of the bar-
riers that impact learning outcomes, and how they lead to inequitable treatment
and decreased opportunities for certain groups of students. Breaking down these
barriers and improving learning environments require a common language, a

common understanding of the issues, and a common perspective on potential
solutions. Only then can schools begin laying a foundation for success with SEL,
which begins with a positive school culture and climate that views education
through a lens of equity. With a SEL framework, schools can work toward align-
ing policies, programs, pedagogy, and practices to achieve sustainable results.
Using multiple sources of data and information to inform decision making,
schools can not only achieve continuous improvement but also experience
forward-thinking progression that promises a system-altering upgrade. For an
example of how the multiphased approach can help schools achieve success with
SEL, see Rapid Reference 7.9.
Rapid Reference 7.9

Using the Multiphase Approach to Develop a Plan for SEL:
A Case Example
Shady Plains School District is a small school system that serves a rural,
agricultural community about 20 miles from a city where a large university is
located. There are about 2,200 students enrolled in the district, which consists
of two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. District
demographics reveal the student population is 48% Hispanic, 13% African
American, 38% White, and 1% Other. Approximately 51% of the student
population is considered at-r isk for dropping out of school, 13% are identified
with an educational disability, and 8% are English language learners. Special
education services for students with educational disabilities are provided
through a shared services arrangement. The district also services children living
in a homeless shelter, as well as children who live in a county foster care facility
due to abuse or neglect from a caretaker. There is also a military base in a
neighboring county, so some students have parents who serve in the military.
Many families in the school community are migrant workers; therefore, the
district experiences a high turnover rate in student enrollment.
Concerns for behavior and discipline problems have increased, and there has
been a rising number of suspensions and expulsions in the district. Reports from
the state board of education indicate the district has exceeded the state’s average
for disciplinary actions and will be monitored by the state in the coming school
year. District leaders have explored several possible solutions and, after
considerable discussion, have decided to implement SEL using the multiphase
approach. The district decides to start the process during the summer break to
allow time to assemble a steering committee and begin the preliminary work
prior to the start of the next school year. Before forming the committee, however,
the superintendent meets with campus leaders for a 1-week retreat designed to
increase their level of understanding of SEL and to convey the importance of
strong leadership in the success of the district’s efforts. Following this retreat,
the superintendent and the campus leaders form a districtwide SEL steering
committee that takes about 2 weeks to finalize. The multiphase approach of the
committee’s work is described in detail as follows.
Phase 1: Foundations
The districtwide SEL steering committee includes one administrator from each
campus, one general education teacher from each campus, one special education
teacher from the shared services cooperative, a district-level school psychologist,
one student from each campus, one parent, one representative from the home-
less shelter, one representative from the county foster care facility, one represent-
ative from the university’s program for social workers, and one representative
from the school counselors’ association. The committee meets for an initial,
full-day meeting in July. The meeting is facilitated by the superintendent, who
focuses on building consensus. The committee’s first task is to work toward
understanding how language and terminology surrounding SEL have contributed
to confusion about the issues and have inhibited successful intervention. The day is
spent discussing SEL terminology before consensus about a common language is
reached and a full picture of the issues begins to emerge. This is followed by a
consensus about “big-picture” solutions and a discussion about the amount of
work that will be needed.
The committee meets again for a full-day meeting during the same week to
discuss the district’s core values and determine if they are reflected adequately
in the district’s vision and mission statements. The superintendent guides a
lengthy discussion of this topic, after which it is determined that there is a
disconnect between what stakeholders value the most and what is reflected in
the district’s vision and mission statements. The committee expresses concern
that the statements place too much emphasis on academic performance and
very little emphasis on social and emotional development. While the committee
agrees that academic performance is valued, they also feel there is value and
importance in SEL, but this is not reflected in the district’s vision or mission
statements. Thus, changes are recommended, and the committee drafts new
statements for which there is consensus. The superintendent explains that this
will need to be discussed with the district’s administrative leadership and with
the district’s board of education for their consideration and approval. Since it is
fundamental to the committee’s work, it will be presented to the district’s
leaders as a priority.

The committee meets again the following week, and the superintendent explains
the triangulated approach to SEL before the group begins the process of
self-reflection. A campus administrator who is knowledgeable about district
policies, procedures, and state accountability data facilitates the self-reflection
process. Using the SELFI, the team begins collecting district‑ and campus-level data.
The aggregated data are then disaggregated by grade level, student ethnicity,
instructional program, and at-risk classification. The committee also collects
anecdotal data regarding the numbers of enrolled students living in foster care,
the numbers residing with a parent in the military, and the numbers living in
single-parent homes. In addition, they collect data from school nurses at each
campus regarding the numbers of students receiving medications for chronic
conditions, including mental health conditions, while attending school.
Once the data are collected and disaggregated, they begin the review and
analysis process to identify patterns and concerns. The school psychologist
facilitates this activity because of her knowledge and understanding of data. Key
concerns are identified by the team, and potential connections between policies,
procedures, and practices are documented for further review. Analysis of the data
shows that about 14% of the student population are receiving daily medications
for the treatment of various mental health conditions, such as anxiety, depression,
and bipolar disorder. This suggests that staff may need training on the implications
of mental illness in the classroom. The data also reveal clear patterns of dispro-
portionate disciplinary actions for Hispanic and African American students at all
grade levels. A recommendation for further assessment of each campus’ learning
environment is agreed to by the team. The assessment will provide further
information regarding staff training needs as they relate to behavior management,
classroom management, instructional processes, and environmental management.
The team acknowledges that this would not occur until the start of the school
year, so the data would not be available until it is completed.
The superintendent facilitates a policy review to identify areas where policies
promote inequities and areas where SEL is already included in policy but may
need to be expanded or connected through other processes, such as the strategic
planning process. The committee examines all policies (i.e., legal requirements,
local mandates, procedural policies, and those relating to district forms, notices, or
resolutions). After thoroughly analyzing and reviewing the policies, it is decided
that there is inconsistent language or language that does not clearly reflect the
intent of SEL in policies; thus, they are being implemented inconsistently across
the district. The committee decides to recommend that a separate set of SEL
policies be developed by the district, and that actionable strategies to address
these policies be included in the district’s SIP as well as in each campus’s SIP.
Policies that promote or create inequities, such as those related to student

discipline and conduct, will need to be revised and aligned with the SEL policies
and the SEL framework that the team selects. The policies then will need to be
presented to the school board for adoption.
The four campus administrators facilitate a review of programs and resources
at each campus. The review reveals two programs at the high school, one at the
middle school, and one at the elementary school where services are being
duplicated and where gaps in programming exist. The review also reveals four
other programs, one at each campus, that have consistently produced poor
outcomes despite being adequately funded and staffed for the past 2 years. It is
agreed by the committee members that these programs should be appropriately
discontinued, since the services are available through other programs. The
elimination of these programs will allow the funds to be reallocated to address
the gaps that have been identified or to support the SEL implementation plan.
The superintendent meets with the committee for a full-day meeting to discuss
the needs and priorities that have been identified and to introduce the need for a
logic model, which will serve as a roadmap for the district’s SEL initiative. The
superintendent reports that the district’s vision and mission statements have been
adopted by the education board and will be used to guide the district’s strategic
plan. With the superintendent’s guidance, a logic model is developed by the
committee, and the CASEL framework is selected as the district’s SEL framework.
This will guide the district in its decisions about the SEL instructional program and
curriculum, which will need to be aligned with the framework. The school
psychologist stresses the importance of using assessment data to steer the
process of alignment. Thus, assessment of students’ SEL competencies will need to
be included as part of the districtwide plan.
Developing the Plan
The committee then focuses on a long-term plan for SEL. Results of the compre-
hensive review process have revealed several areas where the needs are great,
but the most critical area appears to be the school culture and climate at all
campuses. The committee decides that the plan for the first year should focus on
campus learning environments, and this should begin in the coming school year.
This will help establish the foundation needed for successful implementation of
SEL in the subsequent years. Thus, the first-year plan developed by the committee
targets improvements in school culture and climate and includes the development
of a formal MTSS process, along with the following key activities:
• Collect school climate surveys from all stakeholders at the start and end of the
school year; use the data to identify areas where improvement is indicated.
• Use the ICEL framework to guide an assessment of the learning environment

in each classroom and in the common areas of each campus.
• Develop formal MTSS procedures, and provide staff training.
• Provide staff development on the following topics:
∘∘ Evidence-based strategies for promoting and teaching positive behavior (e.g.,
teaching expectations, proximity control, silent signals, quiet corrections, posi-
tive phrasing, etc.)
∘∘ Effective classroom management (establishing routines and expectations,
differentiating instruction, managing the environment, etc.)

∘∘ Implications of mental illness in the classroom

∘∘ Trauma-informed practices
∘∘ Restorative practices
∘∘ Implicit bias and microaggressions
∘∘ SEL: overview, pedagogy, and practice
• Promote relationship-building activities for staff and students during meetings,
assemblies, extracurricular events, and so on.
• Establish traditions and events that encourage school engagement and pride in
the school community.
• Teach and model appropriate behavior for all students (e.g., use students and
staff to develop videos that demonstrate expectations).
• Look for opportunities where students are behaving as desired, and reinforce
their behavior at a high frequency using a positive reward system.
• Collect and analyze discipline data every 6 weeks to monitor for success. Revise
plan as needed.
The committee recommends that instructional staff receive 4 days of staff
development on the topics identified and that all staff receive 1 day of training on
SEL. It is further recommended that the trainings be developed and presented in
district so that all staff receives the same training, but if this is not feasible, then
external trainings could be obtained through professional organizations or other
approved sources. The superintendent agrees with the recommendations and will
designate training days to the recommended topics on the district’s training
schedule for the coming school year.
The superintendent conducts an extensive review of the budget to determine if
the funding requirements for the first-year plan can be met. It is suggested that the
campus programs previously identified as providing duplicated services or having
ineffective outcomes could be eliminated, and the funds then could be reallocated
to cover many of the costs in the plan. Eliminating the programs would require a
coordinated approach, along with proper notifications, but the funds then would be
available to address other identified areas of need. Combined with funds from
other areas in the budget, the activities identified in the first-year plan could be
implemented. In addition, the additional funds that the district will receive from the
state to address the school discipline concerns could be used to support school
climate improvement efforts. The committee agrees, and, with funding sources
identified and approved by the superintendent, the first-year plan is finalized by the
committee,S and implementation is slated for the upcoming school year.
Implementing the Plan
Once the year begins, the committee continues to meet monthly to review and
align policies, programs, and practices with the chosen SEL framework, and to
develop the plan for the next 2 years. One of the first activities is a discussion
about the SEL curriculum. The teachers on the committee facilitate a discussion
about the staff ’s SEL competencies and suggest that an assessment of the staff will
need to be part of the year 2 plan. This will help inform the committee about any
supports and training that may be needed. An assessment of student SEL
competencies also will be necessary. The primary purpose of the student
assessment will be to provide guidance on developmentally appropriate instruc-
tion of SEL. Thus, the tool selected will need to be norm-referenced to allow
comparison of results with students of the same age. Furthermore, if the tool
could be used for monitoring student progress, that would be even better. The
committee agrees that a norm-referenced screener aligned with the CASEL
competencies would be the ideal tool, and this will be included as a targeted goal
for the year 2 plan (CASEL, 2020a). The assessment will need to be administered
at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year, and teachers will be responsi-
ble for completing the screener for each of their students.
The teachers then facilitate a discussion about the SEL curriculum. The
committee agrees to develop a district curriculum that can be used for explicit
instruction of SEL competencies. The curriculum will need to be developed and
ready for the year 2 plan. Close attention will be paid to developing a curriculum
that is culturally fair and developmentally appropriate for each campus. Staff,
including support and ancillary staff, will need to receive training on the curricu-
lum and on strategies for integrating SEL into all facets of the school day at the
beginning of year 2. The committee also agrees to research existing SEL programs
to determine which ones might be aligned with the CASEL framework, are
culturally fair, and offer an affordable option for the district. It was agreed that this
needs to be decided before the end of the first semester of year 1 in order to
allow adequate time to prepare and train staff.
The administrator members of the committee facilitate a review and discussion
of existing supports on each campus. The Matrix for a Continuum of Student,
Staff, and Home Supports is used to complete this activity. In addition to identify-
ing several key areas where gaps exist, the matrix reveals the need to develop
collaborative community partnerships. The university representative agrees to take
the lead on this and to work with representatives from other child-serving
agencies to identify potential partnerships and determine how shared
r esponsibility and differential accountability can be incorporated into the multiyear

plan. The committee agrees that this could be a realistic goal for the year 3 plan.
The students facilitate a discussion of ways in which SEL might be incorporated
into school clubs and organizations, as well as how the skills might be taught through
service-learning projects. Several projects are suggested for elementary and
secondary students, and they appear to be aligned with the district curriculum. The
projects also are designed to promote cultural awareness and eliminate biases.
Procedures for implementing the projects are established by the committee but will
need to be approved by the school board before adding them to the year 2 plan.
A discussion of the progressive improvement process is facilitated by the
superintendent, who focuses on identifying how data will be used to inform
decisions for ongoing improvement. The committee agrees that the information
gathered using the SELFI provides a baseline for future comparison as the initiative
moves forward. However, the information will need to be updated regularly and
periodically. Progress monitoring of student performance in academics, behavior,
and SEL competencies will need to be collected every 6 weeks at the elementary
level and every 9 weeks at the secondary level. Other information and data will
need to be collected at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to help inform
revisions to the plan or guide system-level changes. The committee agrees that
the plan’s progress should be communicated to stakeholders every 12 weeks, and
successes should be celebrated whenever possible.
As the first year of the SEL project concludes, the committee reviews all data and
information that have been collected throughout the year, including the school climate
surveys that were completed.The committee is pleased with the substantial progress
that has been made toward setting the foundation for years 2 and 3 of the initiative.
The school climate on each campus has improved significantly, and discipline referrals
have been reduced across the district, although the district continues to be under
state monitoring. Staff training and support for SEL have been well-received. and the
district is prepared to move forward with the plan for years two and three.The
superintendent has identified funding support within the district’s budget, and state
funds will continue to be received in support of school climate improvement.
Short-term, midterm, and long-term goals for each year have been identified, along
with anticipated timelines for beginning and completing the activities.The committee
will continue to meet monthly to review the plan and make minor adjustments when
indicated by the data. A formal review of the plan will occur at the end of each school
year, and any changes or adjustments to the plan will be made at that time.The
frequency and methods through which successes will be recognized and celebrated
are also included in the plan, along with a schedule for communicating results to
stakeholders.The logic model will be used to guide ongoing progress with the plan.
TEST YOURSELF
1. The purpose of SEL is to replace existing efforts with a newer, and

better, process through which students learn social emotional skills, as
well as academic skills.
(a) True
(b) False
2. Which of the following is not considered a component of the system
change process?
(a) Building consensus
(b) Strategic planning
(c) Plan implementation
(d) Review and revision for continuous improvement
3. The multiphase approach to SEL is intended to provide a systematic
process for implementing SEL that is a lockstep, sequenced approach.
(a) True
(b) False
4. Ensuring success at each phase of the multiphase approach to SEL,
requires these two integral components:
(a) Common language and common perspective
(b) Direct and indirect data sources
(c) System transparency and communication
(d) Leadership support and stakeholder buy-in
5. Members of the SEL steering committee should include key stakeholders,
including students. What is the primary role of the student on the
committee?
(a) Provide assistance with data collection
(b) Give input about student groups and organizations
(c) Provide student voice from the student’s perspective
(d) Give feedback on efforts that may be perceived negatively by students
6. Phase 2a of the multiphase approach to SEL offers a triangulated
approach to data collection and review.The three fundamental
components that form the core of the model are what?
(a) System-level policies and procedures
(b) Programs and practices
(c) The learning environment
(d) The school’s mission, vision, and SEL framework
7. What is the purpose of a learning environment assessment?

(a) To determine if conditions for teaching and learning promote positive
outcomes and success for all students
(b) To identify areas where teachers need support with student behavior
(c) To identify barriers to learning
(d) To determine areas where student behavior is problematic
8. Assessing a school’s support systems can identify areas where supports
are lacking or insufficient. Which of the following is a key area where
schools need to provide a continuum of supports?
(a) School safety and crises
(b) Instruction
(c) School-community partnerships
9. Using data to assist with decision making is a common practice in
education. Which of the three approaches is best for making decisions
that rely strictly on data?
(a) Data-driven decision making
(b) Data-inspired decision making
(c) Data-informed decision making
(d) None of the above
10. A logic model can help the SEL steering committee view SEL imple-
mentation from a big-picture perspective. It provides clarity and
direction for the initiative but is not intended to provide detailed steps
for implementation.
(a) True
(b) False
Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. b; 4. c; 5.c; 6. d; 7. a; 8. d; 9. a; 10. a
REFERENCES
Berg, J., Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Yoder, N. (2017). The intersection of school
climate and social and emotional development. American Institutes for
Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/
Intersection-School-Climate-and-Social-and-Emotional-Development-
February-2017.pdf
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
(2020a). What are the core competencies and where are they promoted? https://
casel.org/sel-framework/
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2020b).

Guide to schoolwide SEL: Focus area 2, reflecting on personal SEL skills. Personal
assessment and reflection: SEL competencies for school leaders, staff, and adults.
https://schoolguide.casel.org/focus-area-2/learn/reflecting-on-personal-sel-skills/
Denham, S. (2018). Keeping SEL developmental: The importance of a develop-
mental lens for fostering and assessing SEL competencies (Measuring SEL: Using
data to inspire practice). Establishing Practical Social-Emotional
Competence Assessments Work Group, Frameworks Briefs, Special Issues
series. https://measuringsel.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/
Frameworks-DevSEL.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.
Ecological Approaches to Social Emotional Learning Laboratory (EASEL).
(n.d.). Explore SEL: Navigate the complex field of social and emotional learning.
http://exploresel.gse.harvard.edu
Harris, J., Davidson, L., Hayes, B., Humphreys, K., LaMarca, P., Berliner, B.,
Poynor, L., & Van Houten, L. (2014). Speak out, Listen up! Tools for using
student perspectives and local data for school improvement (REL 2014–035).
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory West. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Hosp, J. L. (2006). Implementing RTI: Assessment practices and response to
intervention. NASP Communiqué, 34(7).
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://
doi:10.3102/0034654308325693
Long, D. (2019). School leaders’ roles in empowering teachers through SEL.
State Innovations, 24(1), 1–4. National Association of State Boards of
Education. https://www.nasbe.org/
school-leaders-role-in-empowering-teachers-through-sel/
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2016). ESSA and
multitiered systems of support for decision-makers. https://www.nasponline.org/
research-and-policy/policy-priorities/relevant-law/the-every-student-succeeds-
act/essa-implementation-resources/essa-and-mtss-for-decision-makers
The Search Institute. (2021). The Developmental Assets® framework. https://
www.search-institute.org/our-research/development-assets/
developmental-assets-framework/
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Use of education data at the local level:
From accountability to instructional improvement. Office of Planning,
Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Wang, Y. (2019). Is data-driven decision making at odds with moral decision
making? A critical review of school leaders’ decision making in the era of
school accountability. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 14(2),
1–9. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_facpub/29/
Yoder, N. (2014). Self-assessing social and emotional instruction and competencies:
A tool for teachers. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders at American
Institutes for Research. https://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/
SelfAssessmentSEL.pdf
Eight
TOOLS,TEMPLATES,
AND CHECKLISTS
INTRODUCTION
The development of a campus-, district-, regional-, or state-level SEL initiative is

an intense process that must be customized to meet the individual needs of each
school community. As was discussed in Chapter 7, there is not a “one-size-fits-
all” model for SEL. A successful initiative must be tailored to meet the unique
needs of the students, staff, families, and communities in which the schools exist.
The process is not a “top-down” or “bottom-up” approach, as it sometimes is
construed. Rather, it is a systemwide, whole-school approach that incorporates all
aspects of the educational environment and is intended to create more cohesion
and less fragmentation for school organizations, and thus improved outcomes for
the system and the students served by the system.
When developing the initiative, schools should strive to create a model that views
young people as whole individuals with unique developmental needs, and not just
as academic learners or students with behavioral needs. A “whole-child” approach
that focuses on early intervention and prevention efforts can support the healthy
development of all students, including their academic and behavioral development,
which in turn can better prepare them for success in life and in the workforce.
In pursuing and advancing an SEL initiative, schools first must have insight
into their current state of affairs so they can have clarity about where they need
to be. A self-portrait of the school or school system can help facilitate this process,
but it requires an examination of all relevant data, and it must be approached
with transparency and open-mindedness. As stated in Chapter 7, developing an
267
SEL initiative is hard work, and the decisions made along the way must be
informed by data, not merely intuition or impulse. Therefore, a data-informed
decision-making process is essential to identifying goals and objectives that can
help move the initiative forward. A coordinated set of activities that can help
direct these efforts include the following:
• Identifying barriers that may be impacting student learning, staff perfor-
mance, and system outcomes
• Collecting, reviewing, and analyzing school and student data (aggregated
and disaggregated)
• Evaluating existing programs, resources, and supports for efficiency and
effectiveness
• Establishing procedures for school- based problem- solving teams (e.g.,
multitiered systems of support)
• Identifying evidence-based pedagogy and practices that support SEL
• Determining staff development needs that help build capacity and ensure
successful integration of SEL
• Evaluating policies, procedures, and practices to ensure they do not create
barriers to learning or promote inequities for subgroups of students
• Identifying SEL instructional needs (explicit and integrated)
To assist with these efforts, the Social Emotional Learning Foundations
Inventory (SELFI) was developed. It contains a set of tools, templates, and
checklists, all of which are provided in this chapter. They are intended as a guide
to the self-reflection process and are structured in a way that offers a comprehen-
sive view of the systems that drive teaching and learning. In some cases, sets of
questions are provided to stimulate thoughts and ideas about eliminating barriers
to learning and creating equitable opportunities for all students. The tools, tem-
plates, and checklists included in the SELFI may be used and reproduced as
many times as needed, so long as credit is given to the source and is referenced on
each document. To visualize the SELFI and how it is used to help develop the
SEL plan, refer to Figure 8.1.
SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING FOUNDATIONS

INVENTORY (SELFI)
The first step in the data-informed, decision-making process is to identify the
sources of data available to schools. Data sources vary among different countries, so
some schools may have access to data that ranges from a national level to a local
level, while others may have only local data. Schools can use different levels of data
TOOLS, TEMPLATES, AND CHECKLISTS 269
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING FOUNDATIONS INVENTORY

(SELFI)
PART 1 PART 2
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
System Learning Assessment Consolidated

Review and Needs Target SEL Plan
of Support Findings
Analysis Assessment Goals
system Report
Self-Reflection Focus for Improvement Plan of Action
Figure 8.1 Overview of the SELFI in the SEL plan development process.
to see how they are performing when compared with a broader range of students.
This can help identify areas where accountability concerns exist, but it also can help
target areas where additional efforts may be needed. Most countries have a central
website where educational data and statistics are available. For example, the United
Kingdom has a website called Explore Education Statistics (EES). It provides
national and regional statistics for a variety of indicators, including those for public
school, early education, employment and training, and higher education, among
others. Canada has a similar website where data and statistics are available for all
Canadian provinces and territories. Since Canada’s compulsory age for school
attendance differs by province, as does the curriculum, website users are cautioned
about comparing data between provinces. Similar precautions can be offered for
other countries as well. Since SEL is not a “one-size-fits-all” model, comparisons
between local, regional, and national data will have limitations. Thus, whenever
comparisons are necessary, it should be noted that they offer only a single piece of
information, and the appropriate limitations should be acknowledged.
The tools contained in the SELFI were designed to assist schools as they con-
duct a comprehensive review and analysis of the various mechanisms that drive
their educational system. The SELFI was created primarily for use by U.S.
schools, but it may be adapted for use by schools in other countries. Most schools
in the United States have ready access to accountability and demographic data
through their respective state boards of education, but other data might require
additional research. There are a variety of sources where educational data might
be available at the national level. Some of these are listed below, but this is by no
means an exhaustive list:
• Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System: Offers national-, state-, and
district-level data on at-risk behaviors of adolescents in the United States.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/results.htm
• National Center for Education Statistics: Offers statistics for a number of

areas and also publishes the Digest of Education Statistics (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2020), which is a compilation of statistical infor-
mation covering education from prekindergarten through graduate school.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
• U.S. Department of Education: Offers a variety of data and resources
related to education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). https://
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/landing.jhtml?src=ft
• The National Report Card: Compares individual states’ performance with
the nation’s performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP, 2002b) in mathematics, reading, writing, and science at grades 4, 8,
and 12. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
The SELFI is divided into two parts. Part 1 is a set of templates and tools that
are grouped into three separate areas, each representing an overarching theme in
the school’s picture. The three groups and their overarching themes are illustrated
graphically in Rapid Reference 8.1, which uses a framed portrait to represent a
self-reflection of the school. Each thematic group captures data and information
that, when used in combination, reflect a comprehensive self-portrait of the
school.
Part 2 of the SELFI is the SELFI Consolidated Findings Report, which helps
guide schools in their review and analysis of data through a series of questions
designed to prioritize issues and identify critical needs. The findings then are
summarized so that goals can be targeted for the development and implementa-
tion of the SEL plan. A description and template for the report are provided and
discussed later in this chapter.
The next section provides descriptions and copies of the various templates
and tools included in both
parts of the SELFI. Part 1
describes and illustrates the DON’T FORGET
three groups of tools identified The SELFI is a set of tools and templates
in Rapid Reference 8.1, and that schools or school systems can use to
Part 2 provides a description create their own “self-portrait.” The infor-
and illustration of the SELFI mation then can be synthesized into the
Consolidated Findings Report. SELFI Consolidated Findings Report to help
All templates and tools are prioritize key issues and identify critical
areas of need in the development of the
available as fillable forms on
SEL plan. The forms are available as fillable
the book’s companion website. forms on the book’s companion website.
Rapid Reference 8.1 The Social

Emotional Learning Foundations
Inventory (SELFI): Part 1
The first part of the SELFI contains three groups of tools and templates designed
for self-review, self-reflection, and self-analysis. Each group is designed to gather
information that reflects three overarching themes. Together, these themes paint a
“self-portrait” of the school. The three groups of tools and their overarching
themes are depicted here:
School SELFI
Group 1: System review and analysis

1. Data collection, review, and analysis
• Demographic information OVERARCHING THEMES
• Academic wellness
• At-risk factors Group 1
• Health factors School Structure, Governance, and
• Behavioral health factors Management
• Other behavioral health data (not collected
by schools)
2. Policies and procedures Group 2
School Learning Environment
Group 2: Learning needs assessment
1. Review and analysis of programs and
resources Group 3
2. Assessment of the learning environment Supports for Students, Staff, and
Families
Group 3: Assessment of support systems
1. Problem-solving process
What’s needed to complete
2. Continuum of supports
the picture?
3. Informal needs assessment
• Student, staff, and family supports
• Professional development
Part 1: SELFI Templates and Tools

Group 1: System Review and Analysis
The set of tools included in Group 1 of the SELFI are designed to collect data and
information to help schools complete a comprehensive system review and analysis.
Group 1 tools include two components. The first is a set of templates for collecting
and examining system-level data. These include templates for (a) demographic
information, (b) academic wellness, (c) at-risk factors, (d) health factors, (e)
behavioral health factors, and (f ) other behavioral health data typically not col-
lected by schools. The second component is a template for reviewing policies and
procedures. All templates in Group 1 are illustrated in Rapid Reference 8.2, but
Rapid Reference 8.2
(Continued )
(Continued )
(Continued )
(Continued )
(Continued )
they also can be accessed as fillable forms from the book’s companion website, as
mentioned. Once the data and information are collected, each template includes
a summary column for areas in which professional development may be needed
and a summary column for
areas in which goals should be
included in the SEL plan. DON’T FORGET
To assist with the review and
SELFI: Group 1 tools are designed to
analysis of Group 1 data and help schools conduct a system review and
information, Rapid Reference analysis. There are two components:
8.3 offers a set of questions 1. A set of templates for collecting,
designed to stimulate commit- reviewing, and analyzing data
tee discussions. 2. A template for reviewing and analyzing
policies and procedures
Group 2: Learning Needs
Assessment
Group 2 of the SELFI includes
templates and tools designed to complete the learning needs assessment. Like
Group 1, this group also includes two components. The first is a template to assist
with conducting a program review and analysis, which can be viewed in Rapid
Reference 8.4. This is followed by a set of questions to help stimulate discussion
among committee members regarding the data and information gathered during
this process. The questions can be found in Rapid Reference 8.5.
The second component is a template designed to guide the assessment of the
learning environment using the ICEL (Instruction, Curriculum, Environment,
Rapid Reference 8.3 Questions

When Reviewing and Analyzing
School Data
Review the barriers that affect student learning and performance and that were
discussed in Chapter 6 (shown here):
• Poverty
• Social injustice
• Homelessness
• Language
• Adverse childhood experiences
• Abuse and neglect
• Domestic violence
• Family instability
• Drug and alcohol abuse
• Pregnancy
• Truancy
• Human trafficking
• Race, gender, and/or sexual orientation
• Foster care
• Gang involvement
• Juvenile delinquency
• Disability
• Mental health
• Natural disasters
• War and conflict
• Military-related issues
• Incarceration
• Others
1. Which ones appear to be affecting student and system outcomes in your
school community?
2. In which areas do the barriers appear to have the most significant impact (i.e.,
academics, behavior, health, at risk, etc.)?
3. Do the data and information suggest disproportionate outcomes for some
groups of students? If so, which groups (e.g., age, race, gender, etc.)?
(Continued )
4. In which areas are disproportionate outcomes the most significant (i.e.,
academics, behavior, health, at risk, etc.)?
5. Do the outcomes detract from efforts to support other students? If so, how?
6. How do the data impact the campus or school district in terms of the
following?
• Funding
• Performance ratings
• Reputation
• Community support
• Other
Questions When Reviewing and Analyzing Policies

and Procedures
1. Do current policies address any or all areas of SEL competency? If so, which
ones?
2. Are there any policies that conflict with SEL or are not aligned with SEL?
3. Does terminology in the policies consistently describe and reflect SEL and the
core competencies?
4. Do current policies address instruction of SEL competencies that is inte-
grated into all facets of the learning environment and is taught explicitly?
5. Do current policies promote a learning environment that is positive, nurtur-
ing, and engaging for students?
6. Do current policies support opportunities for civic engagement, such as
through service-learning projects or project-based learning?
7. Do current policies support a multitiered model that includes interventions in
key areas of support?
8. Are policies in place that would allow or prevent outside service providers or
agencies from providing services in the schools to address school mental
health and well-being?
9. What, if any, revisions, deletions, or additions to current policies and proce-
dures will be needed to address SEL?
10. Are new policies needed at the campus level or district level? How will they
be developed and approved?
11. What process will be needed to ensure that policies and procedures are
consistently implemented?
Rapid Reference 8.4 Review and Analysis
of Programs and Resources
The purpose of the review and analysis of programs, resources, and supports is to identify areas where redundancies and gaps may exist. As
part of the review, schools are encouraged to examine the cost-effectiveness of these programs and resources to better inform their
decisions about continuing or eliminating these supports. This template can be used to guide this review process.
Name of Start Needs Students Evidence Basis for Monitored or Evaluated How Out- Funding Staff-to- *Dupli- *Gaps
Program or Date Addressed Served Program (How Was for Effectiveness? (How comes Are Source Student cated Identified
Resource This Determined?) and When?) Measured Ratio Service?
*When completing the table, identify areas of need and specific populations of students where services and supports are being duplicated. Highlight these
areas, then consolidate and transfer the information into the “Duplicated Services?” column. This will allow teams to identify areas where gaps in supports or
services may exist, so they can be entered into the last column.

to Guide the Review and Analysis
of Programs and Resources
1. After compiling the list of current programs and resources, do any of these
address barriers to student learning? If so, which ones?
2. What is the evidence base for each of the programs and/or resources (i.e.,
are there current peer-reviewed findings that support the outcomes)?
3. Which students or student groups are being served by these programs and/
or resources?
4. Are there programs and/or resources that provide overlapping or duplicated
services? If so, which ones? Are they serving the same population of students?
5. Are there programs and/or resources that might need to be reallocated?
6. What method is used to monitor or evaluate programs and resources for
continued effectiveness?
7. How are outcomes measured for each program or resource?
8. Has a benefit–cost analysis been conducted on any of the current programs
and/or resources to help justify their continuation?
9. Are programs and/or resources contingent upon grant or supplemental
funding? If YES, is there a funding source identified for after the current
funding is terminated?
10. Are programs and/or resources accessible to all students, or are they limited
to specific students? For any that may be limited, which programs are they?
11. Are programs and/or resources adequately staffed to provide effective
supports and services?
12. Are there identified areas of need where programs or resources are not
currently available (i.e., where do gaps in programming and/or resources exist,
if any)?
13. What additional funds will be needed to address deficiencies or gaps, if any?
and Learner) framework (Hosp, 2006), which can be found in Rapid

Reference 8.6. This also is followed by a set of questions to help stimulate discus-
sion of the results. The questions can be found in Rapid Reference 8.7. Like the
templates provided in Group 1,

the Group 2 templates are avail- DON’T FORGET
able as fillable forms on the SELFI: Group 2 tools are designed to
book’s companion website. evaluate the learning and teaching needs
of a school. There are two components:
Group 3: Assessment 1. A template for reviewing and analyzing
of Support Systems programs, resources, and supports
Group 3 is the third and final 2. A template for assessing the learning
set of tools and templates in the environment
Rapid Reference 8.6 Assessment

of the Learning Environment
Using the ICEL Framework
When assessing the learning environment, the ICEL framework conceptualizes the
assessment into a structured and hierarchical process for gathering information. As
stated in Chapter 7, it is not an assessment instrument. Rather, it is a framework for
organizing data and information that might be gathered during an assessment (Hosp,
2006). The framework focuses on four domains related to learning: instruction,
curriculum, environment, and the learner. Assessment should be conducted in the first
three domains before focusing on a specific student or group of students. The
“Domains of Learning” template can be used as a checklist to indicate which
conditions are present within the four domains of learning. It provides examples of
things that should be considered when examining each domain, but it is by no
means an exhaustive list. It is merely intended to illustrate the various components
in each domain. It is offered as a guide to assessing individual classroom environ-
ments, but it also may be used to assess common areas in a school building, if
adapted appropriately. When adapting the framework for these areas, the instruction
and curriculum domains present a challenge, since academic instruction typically
does not occur in common areas of a school environment. Therefore, these two
domains should be viewed in the context of SEL instruction rather than academic
instruction. Within this context, instruction would be guided by the school’s social
and emotional curriculum rather than by the academic curriculum.
Not only does the ICEL framework help identify areas where barriers and
inequities in the learning environment may exist, but it also helps prevent schools
from assuming that the reasons for a student’s poor performance lie exclusively
within the student. As stated, the framework follows a hierarchy, so it begins with
an examination of the first three domains before focusing on the learner.
Domains of Learning
Examine how content is being taught.
Which instructional practices are being observed in classrooms?
(√)
Instructor uses developmentally appropriate language and
vocabulary.
Leveled texts are available.
Information is presented in a variety of formats.
Concepts are demonstrated with manipulatives and
simulations.
Instructions include visuals and graphics.
Learning goals and intentions are clear.
Instruction is direct and explicit.
Students have flexible options for answering questions.
Feedback from students is welcomed and valued.
Instruction
Extra time is allowed for processing questions and answers.

I
New concepts and information are scaffolded.

Guided practice is provided.
Time is allowed for practicing and repeat practicing of skills.
Activities and lesson plans are based on the Universal Design
for Learning.
Opportunities are provided for small-group learning.
Cooperative learning strategies are employed.
Project-based learning is offered to increase instructional
relevance.
Language and/or cultural differences are considered when
delivering instruction.
Other:
Examine what is being taught.

Which instructional practices are being observed in classrooms?
(√)
Instructional staff has a clear understanding of the curriculum
standards and the order of instruction for the standards;
instruction is aligned with the curriculum.
Students understand what mastery of the standards looks like.
Opportunities are provided for students to bridge learning
between units of instruction.
Curriculum
Instructional materials are available in a variety of formats.

C
Various forms of technology are used to facilitate learning.

Materials are available in a variety of formats.
New concepts and information are scaffolded to support
student learning.
Instructional format accommodates students’ learning styles and/
or language differences.
Other:
Examine the environment where instruction takes place.

Which management practices are being observed in classrooms?
(√)
Visual schedules are provided, and timers are utilized when

needed.
Schedules are consistent and predictable.
Routines and rituals are demonstrated, modeled, and
practiced to ensure students’ understanding of expectations.
Rules and expectations for behavior are clearly defined,
demonstrated, and posted for visibility in a developmentally
appropriate format.
Adult supervision is provided during transition times (in
classrooms, hallways, and other common areas).
Transition signals are used consistently.
Classroom materials and supplies are visually organized and

clearly labeled; color coding provides clarity.
Physical environment is clean, orderly, and organized.
Physical environment is appropriately arranged to avoid
distractions, control for noise, and encourage learning; it is
well lit, and the room temperature is comfortable.
Class activities, such as class meetings, acts of kindness,
shoutouts, and so on, help facilitate community building.
Class activities promote citizenship and encourage a sense of
purpose.
Adults in the environment are responsive to students’ needs
and employ trauma-informed practices, as appropriate.
Class culture and climate are engaging for all students and
Environment
promote belonging.
Students are encouraged to explore their personal, cultural,
E
racial, and academic identities; stereotypes are dispelled.

Restorative discipline practices are used to restore commu-
nity, build relationships, and support learning.
Small-group instruction is provided as appropriate.
Peer learning and project-based learning are encouraged
when possible.
Inconsistent expectations between home and school are not
used to explain or excuse poor performance.
Cultural and/or language differences are not used to explain
or excuse poor performance.
Adult and/or peer mentoring are provided when indicated.
Other:
Examine who is being taught.

Prior to determining that poor performance lies exclusively within a student,
consider these external factors that may have contributed to poor performance
or interfered with performance.
(√)
Has the student had consistent school attendance?
Based on the student’s age, has the student been enrolled
in and attended school for each year that compulsory
attendance was required?
Does the student have a history of numerous school
withdrawals and enrollments?
Does the student’s family move frequently or have a
history of having moved many times?
Is the student currently in foster care? Has the student
had a history of placement in foster care?
Has the student been homeschooled? If so, how long?
Did the student have an opportunity to participate in an
early learning program?
Has the student ever been retained or held back in
school?
Learner
Does the student speak a language other than English or

L
in addition to English?
Are there any language or cultural differences that might
impact the student’s educational performance?
Does the student reside with one or both parents?
Is the student classified as at risk for failure to graduate?
Does the student demonstrate age-appropriate language?
Does the student have a history of vision or hearing
problems, or are there current concerns for vision or
hearing problems?
Does the student have a history of other health issues? If
so, what are they?
Does the student demonstrate age-appropriate behavior?
Does the student have a history of behavior and discipline
problems at school?
Does the student have a history of behavior and discipline
problems at home?
Does the student have friends at school, at home, or in

the community?
Has the student participated in any school programs
designed for struggling students? If so, when, and for how
long?
Is the student’s current grade-level curriculum appropriate
for the student’s developmental learning level?
What is the student’s learning style? Does it match current
instruction?
Does the student have access to alternative formats of
materials?
Other:

to Guide the Assessment
of the Learning Environment
Using the ICEL Framework
Instruction
In observing the delivery of instruction, think about the strategies that were used,
then consider the following:
1. Were a variety of strategies employed?
2. Were any strategies not being used that clearly would have engaged learners
and improved the learning process?
3. Were any strategies used inappropriately or ineffectively?
4. Did learners appear to be actively engaged with learning during the instruc-
tional process?
5. Were there specific strategies that addressed language barriers or cultural
differences when delivering instruction?
6. In what way could SEL contribute to or enhance student learning
through instruction (e.g., improve student engagement, help develop problem-
solving skills, contribute to the development of positive relationships, etc.)?
Curriculum
When observing instruction, think about how the curriculum was used to guide
the instruction, then consider the following:
1. Did the instructor have a firm knowledge of the curriculum?
2. Did the instructor follow the appropriate scope and sequence?
3. Was the instructor able to gauge when students were struggling with new
concepts and needed information to be scaffolded?
4. Did the instructor provide curriculum accommodations for students with
language and cultural differences?
5. In what way could SEL contribute to or enhance student learning through the
curriculum (e.g., improve problem-solving skills, provide practical applications
for learning new concepts or ideas, improve comprehension of concepts, etc.)?
Environment
When observing the learning environment, think about the overall influence of
the environment on student learning, then consider the following:
1. Was the physical environment clean, well-organized, and orderly?
2. Was the atmosphere warm, inviting, and accepting?
3. Did the instructor manage routines and expectations to prevent disengagement?
4. Did the instructor employ practices and strategies that promoted relationship
building, citizenship, a sense of community, and acceptance and belonging?
5. Were behavior and discipline issues handled immediately by the instructor, or
were they delegated to someone external to the learning environment?
6. In what way could SEL contribute to or enhance student learning in the
learning environment (e.g., improve the classroom climate, build relationships,
promote a sense of community, etc.)?
Learner
When observing learners, think about prior and current opportunities that
students have had for learning, then consider the following:
1. Were there any student-specific issues that would have prevented or
interfered with learning, such as poor attendance, frequent school moves, or
sociological issues? If so, what were they?
2. Were there cultural and/or language differences that might have influenced
student performance?
3. In what way could SEL help mitigate at-risk factors faced by some students
(e.g., develop coping skills, support learning through relationships, increase
acceptance and belonging, etc.)?
SELFI. It was developed for the purpose of assessing the school’s support systems.
There are three components in Group 3. The first focuses on the school’s problem-
solving process and includes a checklist to assist schools in evaluating their exist-
ing process or for developing a new process. The checklist can be found in Rapid
Reference 8.8 and is followed by a set of questions to guide the committee’s dis-
cussion of this topic. The questions can be found in Rapid Reference 8.9.
The second component in Group 3 is a template intended to help schools
examine seven critical areas where a continuum of supports is needed within the
context of a multitiered intervention framework. The template, a “Matrix for a
Continuum of Student, Staff, and Home Supports,” can be found in Rapid
Reference 8.10 and is followed by a set of questions to help stimulate the
committee’s discussion of its findings. The questions can be found in Rapid
Reference 8.11.
The third component of the Group 3 tools is a template to help guide school
committees with conducting an informal needs assessment. The template can be
used to identify and prioritize what may be missing from the school’s self-review,
or self-portrait. It begins by examining any gaps in supports for students, staff,
and families that may have been identified when completing the matrix of
supports. It also includes a section for capturing any professional development
needs that were identified during the self-reflection process and for prioritizing
them in order of greatest need. The informal needs assessment can be viewed in
Rapid Reference 8.12, and it, too, is followed by a set of questions to stimulate
the committee’s discussion; these can be found in Rapid Reference 8.13. As
stated, all forms and templates of the SELFI are available in a fillable format on
the book’s companion website.
Group 3 is the final component of the SELFI and represents the completion
of Part 1, which is illustrated as Self-Reflection in Figure 8.2. After completing all
Rapid Reference 8.8

√ Checklist for a Solution-Focused, Problem-Solving Process
(School or System Level)
• Policies have been adopted and are applied consistently (i.e., campus-
wide or systemwide).
• Written procedures have been developed to reflect the unique needs
of the school or system and are integrated with the MTSS framework
(e.g., procedures for elementary-level campuses differ from those for
secondary-level campuses).
• Policies and procedures are aligned with the SEL framework.
• Written procedures provide a multistep description of the problem-
solving process:
Step 1: Identification and/or definition of the problem or issue
Step 2: Identification of what is known about the problem or issue
(including baseline data, when appropriate). When the problem or issue
is student specific, the information includes student strengths or assets.
Step 3: Identification of supports, resources, and other possible
solutions, including evidence-based interventions, as appropriate
Step 4: Development of an implementation plan, with targeted goal(s),
a timeline, and effective collection, evaluation, interpretation, and use of
data
Step 5: Review and analysis of results for data-informed decisions
• Written procedures provide, among other things, opportunities for

parents (and students, when appropriate) to participate in the process,
and a method for checking the integrity of interventions.
• Written procedures provide a method for communicating results to
stakeholders (e.g., a deliberations report).
• The problem-solving team structure has been identified and includes
(at minimum) one administrative leader, one mental health specialist,
one instructional representative, and one parent. The student may be
included when appropriate.
(Continued )
• Team members’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined (e.g.,

record keeper, timekeeper, case manager, service coordinator, etc.).
• Team members are provided time to meet and plan.
• Team meetings are documented and reviewed regularly for consistency,
efficiency, and effectiveness.
• Staff are provided training on the problem-solving process at a
minimum of once annually.
• Parents are provided information and/or training about the process at a
minimum of once annually.
Rapid Reference 8.9

Questions to Guide Discussion of the Problem-Solving Process
1. Does the school have a clearly established process for resolving problems,
concerns, or issues and addressing student and staff needs? Are there written
procedures for the process, and is training provided to staff and parents to
facilitate understanding of the process?
2. Is the problem-solving process aligned with the MTSS and SEL frameworks?
3. Are procedures implemented consistently, and are they updated when
necessary to reflect changes in needs?
4. Have staff and parents been informed of the purpose and the need for the
problem-solving process? How was the information provided?
5. Are problem-solving committee members representative of the school and the
areas where problems, concerns, or issues are most likely to arise?
6. What is the process for identifying roles and responsibilities for problem-
solving committee members, and how are the members informed?
7. Are problem-solving committee members provided additional time to meet
and discuss identified problems, concerns, or issues?
8. What method is used to evaluate the problem-solving process and ensure
consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness? How often does the evaluation occur?
Rapid Reference 8.10

Matrix for a Continuum of Student, Saff, and Home Supports
In this matrix, identify all supports that currently exist in each key area for each tier
of support. Examples: “xxx” program is a social skills software program that is offered
to all students, and thus it is a support at the Universal Tier; “yyy” counseling program
is a support for small groups of students who have experienced the loss of a loved
one, and thus it is a support at the Targeted Tier; and “zzz” is an individual transition
support program for students with autism, so it is a support at the Intensive Tier.
Tiered System of Support
Key Areas of Support Universal Targeted Intensive
Instruction (addresses the three
domains of learning, includes systemic
and explicit SEL instruction, and uses
culturally responsive practices)
Engaged learners (emotional,
behavioral, and cognitive engagement;
and opportunities for student voice
and leadership)
Transitions (in-class, schoolwide,
school-to-school, school and home,
school and community, and school and
career/college)
Safety and crises (prevention,
planning, preparation, and response)
Family and home engagement
(parent education and literacy,
parenting education, and parent
involvement in schooling)
School mental health and
wellness (trauma-informed pedagogy
and practices, and mental health
intervention and support)
School–community partnerships
(mentoring; volunteering; opportuni-
ties for recreational, enrichment, or
remedial supports; and increased
access to services)

Questions to Guide Discussion of the Continuum of Supports
1. What process currently is being used to identify where supports are needed
for students, staff, and families? How effective is the process?
2. Are supports available in the seven key areas listed on the matrix? If so, are
there sufficient supports in each area for all three tiers of support?
3. Are supports for SEL available at all levels and tiers? Are they sensitive to
diversity and cultural backgrounds?
4. What method will be used to assess and support the staff ’s SEL needs?
5. Is there a process for identifying the supports needed by staff, and how are
staff involved in the process?
6. When gaps in supports are identified, how are they prioritized and addressed?
7. Are there community partners that offer access to support services for
students and families? What are the procedures for accessing these services?
8. Do community partners provide school-based services for students and
families? If so, are there established procedures to ensure equitable access and
a shared responsibility and accountability for services and outcomes?
9. Do school safety policies address all aspects of safety, including cognitive and
psychological safety?
10. Is the school’s physical environment maintained for safety? Is there respect for
the school’s facilities? Are they clean, orderly, and well cared for?
11. Does the school have a school safety or crisis team? If so, does it include at
least one mental health professional?
12. Has the school’s staff been trained in crisis response protocols? If so, are there
opportunities for practice and follow-up?
13. Is the crisis response model a school-based model or one that was devel-
oped for universal response within a community or clinical setting?
14. Does the school have a crisis response plan? If so, has there been coordina-
tion with community-based responders to ensure efficient access to facilities
and services by providers who are knowledgeable of school operations and
school culture?
15. Is the school aware of support for crisis response that is specifically designed
for schools and is available from local or national providers such as the
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 2020) and the National
Center for School Crisis and Bereavement (NCSCB, 2020)? Does the school
know how to request this support in the aftermath of a crisis?
16. Are community-based crisis responders apprised of school procedures in order
to avoid barriers to accessing resources and supports in the aftermath of a crisis?
Rapid Reference 8.12 SEL Informal Needs Assessment
Key Areas of Need Level of Need
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Significant
Instructions: Please rank in the columns
to the right the level of need for the
following instructional supports.
• Assessing SEL skills to guide instruction
• Adopting a SEL curriculum that
incorporates the four SAFE elements:
Sequenced, Active, Focused, and
Explicit
• Using evidence-based, culturally fair,
freestanding lessons for SEL instruction
• Integrating SEL instruction across the
curriculum and throughout each day
• Connecting social emotional experi-
ences to the learning process
• Differentiating instruction for students
whose SEL skills are impacted by
trauma or other factors
• Using project-based learning to
promote student voices and develop
SEL skills
(Continued )
• Implementing cooperative learning
strategies
• Exploring norms and traditions
through cultural and linguistic
differences
• Promoting civic engagement through
service-learning projects
• Other:
Engaged Learners: Please rank in the
columns to the right the level of need for
the following student engagement supports.
• Creating positive conditions for
learning and teaching through positive
school climate, predictable routines,
and practices that promote the
development of trusting and caring
relationships
• Fostering student belonging and a
sense of purpose through high
expectations for learning
• Encouraging student voice and
leadership through various strategies
• Developing policies that promote fair
and equitable discipline practices, both
schoolwide and in the classroom
• Implementing restorative practices to
promote responsible behavior
• Modeling of social emotional
competencies by adults in the school
environment
• Promoting confidence by encouraging
students to take learning risks
• Other
Transitions: Please rank in the columns
to the right the level of need for the
following transition supports.
• Fostering smooth classroom and
schoolwide transitions by teaching,
modeling, and practicing behavioral
expectations
• Providing supervision in common
areas and during unstructured
transition activities
(Continued )
• Building home–school and commu-
nity–school connections that promote
successful transitions between school,
the home, and the community
• Preparing students for school-to-
school transitions and beyond through
strategies that strengthen confidence,
promote self-advocacy, and encourage
• Other:
Safety and Crises: Please rank in the
columns to the right the level of need for
the following school safety and crises
supports.
• Creating safe learning environments
through positive and accepting
relationships (teacher-to-student,
student-to-student, and
teacher-to-teacher)
• Promoting acceptance and belonging
through fair and equitable practices
• Establishing positive and predictable
school environments
• Developing policies and procedures
for schoolwide crisis prevention,
planning, preparation, and response
• Developing and implementing
school-based crisis and safety teams
• Conducting school-based threat and
risk assessments
• Preparing for crisis response through
systematic planning, preparation, and
practice
• Developing partnerships with
community first responders and
mental health service providers
• Other:
Family and Home Engagement:
Please rank in the columns to the right the
level of need for the following family and
home engagement supports.
• Engaging parents through literacy
support programs, parenting classes,
and strategies that promote parent
participation in school
(Continued )
• Other:
School Mental Health and
Wellness: Please rank in the columns to
the right the level of need for the following
school mental health and wellness
supports.
• Promoting trauma-sensitive pedagogy
and practices
• Using mindfulness and other strategies
to promote social emotional
well-being
• Developing mental health intervention
services and supports
• Understanding mental health needs
and their implications for teaching and
learning
• Promoting social emotional wellness
through mental health education
• Other:
School–Community Partnerships:
level of need for the following school–com-
munity partnerships.
• Identifying community partners
• Developing a common language,
understanding, and perspective of the
issues
• Creating a shared responsibility and
accountability for supports and
services
• Coordinating the provision of services
• Creating opportunities for mentoring
and volunteering
Identifying recreational or remedial
supports for students
• Increasing student and family access to
community services
• Other:
Professional Development Needs:
level of need for the following professional
development topics.
• SEL pedagogy and practice
(Continued )
• Mental health conditions and implica-
tions for the classroom
• Trauma-informed practices
• Diversity and linguistic differences
• Adult SEL
• Restorative practices
• Positive behavior strategies and
supports
• Problem-solving process
• Character education
• Bullying prevention
• Brain-based learning
• Mindfulness and other strategies that
promote emotional well-being
• Other:
• Other:

Questions to Guide Discussion of the Informal Needs Assessment
1. Has there been a formal needs assessment completed for the school? If so,
what were the recommendations regarding supports for students and staff? If
not, does the committee think a formal needs assessment is necessary?
2. Based on the school’s existing supports, what teaching and learning supports
will be critical for ensuring successful buy-in and implementation of SEL?
3. Does the school have a foundation to support the successful implementation
of SEL (i.e., are there a positive school culture and climate)? If not, what
actions are needed to establish this foundation before proceeding with the
SEL initiative?
4. Are there supports that encourage student engagement with extracurricular
activities? For example, is there transportation for students who might not
have access to the activities and thus no opportunity to participate?
5. Are there opportunities to engage all students in leadership roles? For
example, are leadership opportunities available only through programs that
rely on popular election by peers, or are there opportunities to develop
leadership skills through other strategies such as project-based learning and
service learning?
6. Do pedagogy and practice stimulate student engagement through real-life
learning situations, or is it traditional and standards driven (i.e., focused
primarily on preparing students for state assessment)?
7. Are there access barriers to technology for some students, thereby prevent-
ing engagement in some learning opportunities?
8. Are students socially engaged in their school community, and do they
demonstrate a sense of pride in their school? For example, do they show
pride in their school’s traditions, do they attend athletic and scholastic events
and cheer for their team, and/or do they promote the wearing of school
colors and logos? Are there groups of students who are more socially
disengaged? What supports are needed to engage these students?
9. Has the school developed a comprehensive transition plan for students that
includes supports for transitions within the classroom, within the school
building, between home and school, between schools, and between the
school and community? If so, does the plan include supports at each level and
tier of need? How is the plan evaluated for success and improvement?
10. Do school policies support acceptance for diversity and differences? Are
there policies that promote restorative practices in lieu of zero tolerance and
punishment?
11. Are family supports available for struggling students? Is there a process for
identifying these students and the supports that may be needed?
12. Is there a process for developing school–community connections and
partnerships? If not, what supports are needed to pursue this?
13. What topics for professional development will be required in order to ensure
that staff are prepared to successfully implement the SEL plan?
14. What method will be used to solicit staff input for professional development
needs, and how will these needs be prioritized?
templates and checklists in Part

1, the data and information are DON’T FORGET
reviewed, analyzed, and con- SELFI: Group 3 tools are designed to
solidated into a final report evaluate the learning and teaching supports
that provides a comprehensive provided by a school. There are three
“picture” of the school. The components:
report template is introduced 1. A checklist for evaluating the school’s
in Part 2 of the SELFI. problem-solving process
2. A matrix for identifying a continuum of
supports within a multitiered framework
Part 2: SELFI Consolidated 3. An informal needs assessment tool
Findings Report
Part 2 of the SELFI contains
the SELFI Consolidated Findings Report, which is provided in Rapid Reference 8.14.

(SELFI)
PART 1 PART 2

of Support Findings
system Report
Figure 8.2 The completion of the first step in the planning process: Self-Reflection.
Like the other forms in the SELFI, this document is available as a fillable form on
the book’s companion website. The purpose of the final report is to help commit-
tees capture the essential information gathered from each group of data in Part 1,
then synthesize it according to the overarching themes that each group’s tools are
designed to reveal. To help guide the process, a group of focus questions are
included in each section of the report. Once the information from each group of
data is synthesized and summarized, critical needs can be prioritized, and tar-
geted goals and objectives can be recommended for the SEL implementation
plan.
The SELFI Consolidated Findings Report represents the completion of Part 2,
which is the final piece of the SELFI. After completing the report and identifying
target goals for improvement, the committee is now ready to proceed to develop-
ing the SEL plan. Figure 8.3 shows the completion of the SELFI, which is illus-

SELFI Consolidated Findings Report
GROUP 1
Overarching Theme: School Structure, Governance, and Management
System Review and Analysis, Part 1
Data collection, review, and analysis
Focus Questions
Are the core values and beliefs that drive the school’s vision and mission
reflected in the school’s outcome data?
• In the aggregated data:
• Are there barriers in any area that have impacted the overall outcomes for
students and/or for the school? If so, in which areas (e.g., academic
achievement, at-risk areas, health, behavioral health, or other areas)?
• In the disaggregated data:
• Are there barriers in any area that may have impacted subpopulations of
students (e.g., groups identified by age, gender, race or ethnicity, or
socioeconomic status)? If so, which group(s) of students?
• Do the identified barriers create inequities for some students?
• Do the data indicate a disproportionate outcome for any of the subpopu-
lations of students? If so, which group(s) of students, and is the dispropor-
tionality significant (i.e., based on accountability measures established by the
state or national standards)?
Discussion notes and highlighted priorities:

Do the school’s data reflect areas where inequities exist for certain student
populations? How should the disproportionate outcomes be ranked in terms of
critical need (1 = most critical)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
System Review and Analysis, Part 2
Policies and procedures
Focus Questions
reflected in the school’s policies and procedures?
• Are policies and/or procedures aligned with the school’s SEL framework?
• Do policies and/or procedures include efforts to develop SEL
competencies?
• Does the language contained in policies and procedures reflect a clear and
consistent message for SEL?
• Do policies and/or procedures unintentionally create barriers to learning for
some students?
• Are there any policies and/or procedures that reflect insensitivity to the
diversity and unique needs of the student population, including students
who lack access to resources that would allow their participation in
educational opportunities?
• Do policies and/or procedures encourage student engagement by promoting
a positive and safe learning environment for ALL students?
• Are there policies and/or procedures that promote restorative approaches,
or do they encourage inflexibility and zero-tolerance practices?
• Are there policies and/or procedures that need to be eliminated or revised?
• Do any policies and/or procedures reflect ambiguity, inconsistency, or
misalignment with the goals of SEL?
• Are there any policies and/or procedures that need to be developed to help
improve or advance the school’s efforts to develop students’ SEL
competencies?
• What policies and/or procedures are missing?
Are policies and procedures aligned with the school’s SEL initiative? Are there
gaps, inconsistencies, or duplications? Which policies and/or procedures need to
be prioritized (1 = most critical)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Group 1: Summary and Recommendations

After completing the system review and analysis, Parts 1 and 2, the committee has
identified the need for targeted goals and/or objectives in the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
GROUP 2
Overarching Theme:The School’s Learning Environment
Learning Needs Assessment, Part 1
Review and analysis of programs and resources
Focus Questions
reflected in the school’s culture and climate?
• Do programs and resources reflect a culture that values the three domains
of learning (i.e., academic, cognitive, and social emotional)?
• Are the five essential components of school climate embedded in school
programs and resources? For example, do programs and resources include
expectations for:
1. safety (physical, social, emotional, and intellectual),
2. positive relationships,
3. high expectations for teaching and learning,
4. respect for the physical environment, and
5. continuous improvement?
• Do existing programs and resources provide rigorous support for the diverse
needs of the student population?
• Are there areas where programs and/or resources are redundant, thus
needing to be realigned or reallocated?
• Are programs and resources evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency? If so,
by what method, and how often?
Discussion Notes and Highlights:
Are programs and resources aligned with the SEL initiative? If there are areas
where efforts are being duplicated, how can resources be realigned or reallo-
cated? Are programs providing effective results, and are they operating effi-
ciently? What are the most critical needs (1 = most critical)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Learning Needs Assessment, Part 2

Assessment of the learning environment (using the ICEL framework)
Focus Questions
reflected in the school’s learning environment?
• Is there a proactive approach to establishing positive conditions for learning
and teaching?
• Are the conditions for learning and teaching given priority consideration
before assuming that learning problems lie with individual students?
• Do the conditions for learning and teaching include the following?
• High-quality, rigorous instruction that is developmentally appropriate, is
differentiated for diverse learning styles, and employs methods and
strategies for instructing students with language and cultural differences
• A curriculum that is aligned with instruction, has a clear sequence of
objectives, and is delivered in a variety of formats to accommodate
students with learning differences and/or cultural and language differences
• An environment that is clean and orderly, promotes acceptance and
belonging, has clearly established learning routines, promotes a positive
learning community through restorative practices, and is accommodating
to the diverse needs of all students
• Individual learning opportunities are developmentally appropriate, and any
barriers to learning are addressed through supplemental supports and
services. (Barriers may include, for example, physical or health issues,
sociological issues, cultural and language issues, exposure to trauma, and
gaps in learning.)
Does the school have a learning environment that can serve as a foundation
and support for the successful implementation of SEL (i.e., is there a school
culture that values the three domains of learning, and is there a positive and
engaging school climate)? If not, what actions are needed to establish this
foundation before proceeding with the SEL plan?
1.
2.
3.
4.
After assessing the school’s learning environment, Parts 1 and 2, the committee has
identified the need for targeted goals and/or objectives in the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
GROUP 3
Overarching Theme: Supports for Students, Staff, and Families
Assessment of Support Systems, Part 1
Problem-solving process
Focus Questions
reflected in the school’s problem-solving support system?
• Does the school have a clearly defined process through which resolutions to
problems or issues are formulated and needed supports are identified?
• Is the school’s problem-solving process aligned with the MTSS and SEL
frameworks, and does it reflect a “whole-child” approach to addressing
problems and/or areas of concern?
• Does the school’s problem-solving process include representation by
appropriate school staff and opportunities for parent participation?
• Is the school’s problem-solving process implemented consistently and
evaluated periodically for efficiency and effectiveness?
Is the school’s problem-solving process functioning efficiently and effectively, or
is this an area where there are needed improvements? What are the priorities
for improvement, and how should each be ranked in terms of critical need (1 =
most critical)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Continuum of supports
Focus Questions
reflected in the school’s continuum of supports?
• Does the school have a process for establishing a continuum of activities,
resources, and services that address the needs of students, staff, and families
at the universal, targeted, and intensive levels of support?
• Does the school’s continuum of supports address key areas of need at all
three tiers of support? For example, are there activities, resources, and
services available at the universal, targeted, and intensive levels in the
following areas?
• Instruction
• Transitions
• Safety and crises
• Family and home engagement
• School mental health and wellness
• School–community partnerships
• Are the school’s supports for students and their families sensitive to linguistic
or cultural differences?
Is there a continuum of supports, and do they align with the goals of the SEL
initiative? Where are there gaps in supports for any of the key areas and/or at
any of the tiered levels of need? Which ones are most critical (1 = most
critical)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Informal needs assessment
Focus Questions
What resources, activities, and strategies are needed to support the successful
implementation and sustainability of SEL?
• Are existing resources and supports evidence based, aligned with the SEL
initiative, and operating efficiently and effectively?
• What evidence-based resources are needed to initiate and support long-
term sustainability of SEL?
• What are the critical needs for professional development, and how will they
align with the SEL initiative and support successful outcomes?
After completing the assessment of support systems, Parts 1, 2, and 3, the
committee has identified the need for targeted goals in the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SEL Plan: Year 1
Do the school’s core values and beliefs reflect an understanding that social
emotional learning is as important as, if not more important than, academic
achievement? Is this attitude mirrored in the school’s culture and climate? If not,
the committee may wish to develop a plan for year 1 that addresses the
school’s culture and climate, and thus provides the foundation needed for
successful and sustainable implementation of SEL.
or
If the committee concludes that the school’s culture and climate provide the
critical foundation needed for SEL implementation, then the committee should
proceed with developing recommendations for the first-year SEL implementa-
tion plan.
Based on the findings from this SELFI Consolidated Findings Report, the
targeted goals for the first year are recommended as follows:*
1.
2.
3.
4.
* Objectives, strategies, tasks, activities, and resources will need to be identified for
each targeted goal, as well as review processes; progress monitoring for short-, mid-,
and long-term outcomes; and methods for evaluating progress.
SEL Plan: Year 2
Based on the recommendations from each group of consolidated findings in
this report, the committee concludes that the following target goals are needed
as part of the second-year SEL implementation plan:*
1.
2.
3.
4.
SEL Plan: Year 3
as part of the third-year SEL implementation plan:*
1.
2.
3.
4.
SEL Plan: Year 4 (if applicable)

as part of the fourth-year SEL implementation plan:*
1.
2.
3.
4.
SEL Plan: Year 5 (if applicable)
as part of the fifth-year SEL implementation plan:*
1.
2.
3.
4.
trated as the Self-Reflection and Focus for Improvement sections of the model. The
SEL Plan is the remaining step needing to be finalized in the planning process.
SEL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The arduous task of completing the SELFI (Parts 1 and 2) brings with it not
only a sense of triumph and accomplishment but also a sense of satisfaction.
Steering committees can be confident that the SEL plan developed from the
SELFI findings represents a carefully planned and well-thought-out approach
to the implementation of SEL, as well as a major first step toward system
reform and schoolwide improvement. While the resulting implementation plan
is not expected to be perfect, the committee can rest assured that the plan is a

(SELFI)
PART 1 PART 2

of Support Findings
system Report
Figure 8.3 The completion of two steps in the SEL planning process: Self-Reflection
and Focus for Improvement.
significant improvement over one that might have been developed using a less
structured approach.
So, what does an implementation plan look like, and how should the commit-
tee proceed? The first decision will require the committee to determine the plan’s
duration. A comprehensive approach to SEL should require several years, and
while some schools prefer a 5-year plan, others may feel more confident with a
3-year plan. The decision should be based on the school’s needs and on the real-
istic expectations for what can be accomplished during the targeted timeframe,
given the school’s available resources and supports, as well as the staff ’s level of
knowledge, skills, and experiences with SEL and their commitment to its
success.
When developing a multiyear plan, the level of implementation also must be
identified. If the existing culture and climate of the school offer a positive learn-
ing environment in which there are positive relationships, acceptance of differ-
ences, and high expectations for success, then the school clearly has an established
foundation for SEL. In contrast, if a school is struggling with behavior and disci-
pline challenges, has a culture based on punitive beliefs and attitudes, and stu-
dents are often disengaged from learning, then the foundation for SEL will need
to be built first. In this situation, the committee should focus its first-year plan
on developing a positive school culture and climate and gaining commitment for
change.
Other decisions the committee may face in developing the SEL plan include
determining the scope of the plan and the level of resources needed. For example,
the committee will need to decide if the plan will include all grade levels and
campuses, or if it will start with a limited number. Other questions the commit-
tee will need to address include, but are not limited to, the following:
• What goals will be targeted?
• What are the expected outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term)?
• What resources will be needed (including staff resources)?
• How will progress be monitored and evaluated?
• What data will be collected, what method will be used for collecting the
data, who will collect it, and how will it be used?
• How frequently will data be collected, and how will it be analyzed?
• What training will staff need? Who will provide the training, and how will
effectiveness be evaluated?
• What process will be used to revise or adjust the plan, and at what
intervals?
• How will stakeholders be informed of the plan’s progress?
These are just some of the questions the committee will need to consider and
decide when formulating the implementation plan. To facilitate the process, a
suggested template for the SEL implementation plan is provided in Rapid
Reference 8.15.
As illustrated in Figure 8.4, the development of the SEL plan represents com-
pletion of the planning process. As the school moves forward with implementing
the SEL plan, the data and information that were collected using the SELFI can
now serve as a baseline from which change or growth can be considered.
CONCLUSIONS
Developing and implementing a plan for advancing SEL in a school or school

system involves an intense and often cumbersome process that requires self-
reflection and self-review. Only through an internal and external review of the
various facets involved in educating its young people can a school truly “see”
where things are working well and where improvement is needed. The SELFI
helps facilitate this process by offering a systematic collection, review, and analy-
sis of data and information related to a school’s structure, governance, manage-
ment, learning environment, and support systems. Through this systematic
process, a portrait of the school emerges that not only serves to guide the school’s
efforts for improvement but also facilitates the cohesive integration of SEL into
the educational process, thus ensuring a well-rounded approach to educating the
whole child. When a system-level, schoolwide approach to SEL is undertaken in
this systematic manner, it increases cohesion of efforts and offers schools greater
confidence in the likelihood of its success and sustainability.
Rapid Reference 8.15 SEL Implementation Plan
TYPE OF PLAN (√): System level: ____ Campus level: ____ Grade level: ____ Class level ____
Year of implementation: ________ Name of campus: __________ Grade level(s) involved: ____.Teacher: ____________
Annual goal: _____________________________________________________________________________________
SEL framework: __________________________________________________________________________________
AREA: Student and System Outcomes—Goal:

Objective:
SEL Competencies Activities/tasks: Resources Staff Progress Outcomes
Addressed: 1. responsible (method and (short-, mid-, and
2. frequency) long-term)
SYSTEMS
3.
AREA: Governance and Management (i.e., Policies and Procedures)—Goal:
Objective:
SEL Competencies Activities/tasks: Resources Staff Progress Outcomes
Addressed: 1. responsible (method and (short-, mid-, and
3.
AREA: School Culture and Climate—Goal:
Objective:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
SEL Activities/tasks: Resources Staff Progress Outcomes

Competencies 1. responsible (method and (short-, mid-, and long-term)
Addressed: 2. frequency)
3.
AREA: Learning Conditions (Instruction, Curriculum, Programs, and Resources)—Goal:
Objective:
SEL Activities/tasks: Resources Staff Progress Outcomes
Competencies 1. responsible (method and (short-, mid-, and long-term)
Addressed: 2. frequency)
3.
AREA: Instruction—Goal:
Objective:
SEL Competencies Activities/tasks: Resources Staff responsible Progress Outcomes
Addressed: 1. (method and (short-, mid-, and
3.
AREA: Student Engagement—Goal:
Objective:
SUPPORTS

3.
AREA: Transitions—Goal:
Objective:
3.
AREA: Safety and Crises—Goal:
Objective:
3.
AREA: Family and Home Engagement—Goal:
Objective:
3.
AREA: School Mental Health and Wellness—Goal:
Objective:
3.
AREA: School–Community Partnerships—Goal:
Objective:
3.
AREA: Professional Development—Goal:

Objective:
OTHER

3.

(SELFI)
PART 1 PART 2

of Support Findings
system Report
Figure 8.4 The completion of all three steps in the SEL planning process: Self-Reflection,
Focus for Improvement, and Plan of Action.
TEST YOURSELF
1. Developing a plan for SEL in schools is best approached in which

manner?
(a) Top-down approach
(b) Bottom-up approach
(c) Systemwide approach
2. Advancing an SEL initiative is a data-informed process that involves a
coordinated set of activities, the first of which is to identify barriers that
may be impacting student learning, staff performance, and system
outcomes.
(a) True
(b) False
3. A school’s data can help inform decisions about the SEL process, but
when compared with local, state, regional, or national data, there may
be limitations in how the comparisons are interpreted.
(a) True
(b) False
4. The Social Emotional Learning Foundations Inventory (SELFI) was
designed to help schools with what?
(a) Collecting, reviewing, and analyzing data to help inform the development
of the SEL plan
(b) Creating a “self-portrait” of the school
0005198547.INDD 332 9/13/2021 7:41:44 PM

(c) Determining areas where gaps in supports may exist

5. The SELFI consists of two parts.The first part is divided into three
groups that are designed to capture information about the school in
which of the following three thematic areas?
(a) Policies and procedures, school atmosphere, and learning environment
(b) School structure, governance, and management; school learning
environment; and supports for students, staff, and families
(c) School culture and climate, learning supports, and professional
development
6. The Group 1 tools in the SELFI include which of the following two
components?
(a) System review and analysis, and assessment of the learning environment
(b) System review and analysis, and policies and procedures
(c) System review and analysis, and review of programs, resources, and
supports
(d) System review and analysis, and matrix of supports for students, staff,
and families
7. The Group 2 tools in the SELFI include which of the following two
components?
(a) Review and analysis of programs and resources; system review and
analysis
(b) Learning needs assessment, and system review and analysis
(c) Review and analysis of programs and resources, and assessment of the
learning environment
8. The ICEL Framework is used to assist schools in assessing the learning
environment. What does the use of this framework help prevent?
(a) The use of a developmentally inappropriate curriculum
(b) The inappropriate use of discipline
(c) Assuming that learning is occurring
(d) Assuming that the reasons for poor performance lie within the student
9. The Group 3 tools include an informal needs assessment.The purpose
of this tool is to help schools identify what is missing from the
self-portrait.
(a) True
(b) False
0005198547.INDD 333 9/13/2021 7:41:44 PM

10. Part 2 of the SELFI includes which of the following?

(a) Matrix for a Continuum of Student, Staff, and Home Supports
(b) SEL Implementation Plan
(c) SELFI Consolidated Findings Report
Answers: 1, c; 2, a; 3, a; 4, d; 5, b; 6, b; 7, a; 8, d; 9, a; 10, c.
REFERENCES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, August 21). Youth
risk behavior surveillance, United States, 2019. MMWR. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/
reports_factsheet_publications.htm#anchor_1596725930
Hosp, J. L. (2006) Implementing RTI: Assessment practices and response to
intervention. NASP Communiqué, 34(7).
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2020). NASP direct crisis
support. https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-
and-podcasts/school-climate-safety-and-crisis/direct-crisis-support
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Digest of education statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement (NCSCB). (2020). NCSCB
services. https://www.schoolcrisiscenter.org/services/
U.S. Department of Education. (2020a). Data and statistics. https://www2.
ed.gov/rschstat/landing.jhtml?src=ft
U.S. Department of Education. (2020b). The nation’s report card. https://www.
nationsreportcard.gov
0005198547.INDD 334 9/13/2021 7:41:44 PM

Nine
ALIGNING SEL ASSESSMENT WITH

INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this chapter is to offer guidance on the assessment of

student SEL competencies and on how to use the results to guide instruction
so that it aligns with the curriculum. Assessing SEL competencies allows
schools to establish benchmarks for learning and to measure progress toward
skill development, but if the assessment is not aligned with instruction and the
curriculum, then schools are likely to waste valuable time, resources, and
efforts. The basis for the full alignment of these three elements hinges on assess-
ment, since it steers the entire process and things are likely to run askew if it is
inadequate, inappropriate, or poorly conceived. This chapter will explore the
most salient issues and concerns in assessment and will provide an overview of
the assessment process. It will conclude with information and a discussion
about the use of assessment results to guide instruction and align it with the
curriculum.
Before beginning the discussion, it is important to note that SEL assess-
ment is an emerging field of practice and, although there are a growing num-
ber of instruments and tools available to schools, few of them have undergone
the rigorous validation process that is typical for academic tests and other
types of tests used in education. Understanding how tests are developed and
their purposes, uses, and limitations can inform their appropriate selection
and use. In addition, understanding the assessment process can guide schools
335
in making the most meaningful decisions when interpreting and using the
assessment data.
ISSUES WITH ASSESSING STUDENT SEL COMPETENCIES
Assessing SEL competencies is as important as assessing academic skills, but lack

of knowledge and understanding of these competencies and their role in teaching
and learning have raised a number of issues and concerns with which schools
need to be aware. Prior to beginning an assessment, schools should be cognizant
of how these issues can impact outcomes, especially as they relate to removing
barriers to learning and creating equity in education. These issues are described
and discussed here.
Limitations in Using SEL Assessment Tools

1. Not intended for diagnostic purposes. The measures used to assess
student SEL competencies typically have not been designed for
diagnostic purposes, such as identifying disorders or disabilities, and
therefore should not be used in this manner. Unless a measure was
developed and rigorously validated specifically for this purpose, it
would be inappropriate to use it in this way. Since most SEL measures
have not been subjected to this validation process, then schools should
refrain from using them for this purpose.
2. Not intended for high-stakes decisions. As previously stated, the
reliability of SEL measures has not been rigorously validated, so
results should not be used to make any types of accountability
decisions. Using results for high-stakes purposes, such as evaluating
teachers or determining student placements, would be very
inappropriate.
SEL Assessment From a Developmental Perspective

SEL measures should be developed and used with the intended age groups.
In the same way that academic tests are designed to assess a student’s academic
performance based on grade-level or age-level standards, SEL measures are
designed to assess competencies based on a student’s age or grade level. SEL
skills and teaching tasks naturally will change as children develop. As a result,
raters need to be knowledgeable of the developmental expectations for children
as they grow and mature. For example, an elementary teacher who is not aware
ALIGNING SEL ASSESSMENT WITH INSTRUCTION 337
that a growth mindset does not begin to develop until the early adolescent years
might rate a 7-year-old child inappropriately. This example not only demon-
strates the importance of having developmentally appropriate knowledge and
expectations for young children, but also illustrates how important it is for
assessment measures to contain items or tasks that are developmentally aligned
with the age/s and expectations of the students for which the measures are
intended to be used.
SEL Assessment and Its Influence on Equity

SEL measures should be culturally sensitive and fair. Measures designed to
assess SEL competencies should not be based on cultural beliefs and attitudes.
More importantly, when rating students, raters should be conscientious of their
own implicit biases, such as those related to differences in culture, language,
religion, ethnicity, gender, and/or sexual orientation, among others. These biases
can lead to a failure to recognize students’ strengths, which can, in turn, impact
instruction and lead to further disparities in learning for marginalized
students.
SEL in the Context of a Broad Assessment

There is not a single, definitive measure of SEL competencies. As with any test
or assessment, no single measure can provide a complete picture of a student’s
skills or competencies. Thus, assessment results should be viewed and interpreted
in the context of all other data and information available about the student.
Legal Issues
• Informed consent for SEL assessment. Conducting a universal assessment
for the purpose of determining instructional strategies does not require
informed parental consent. In fact, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 2004 (§300.302) specifically states that conducting a
screening to determine instructional strategies should not be considered as
an evaluation for special education eligibility. Thus, it does not require
informed parental consent. However, some states in the United States may
have state laws requiring informed consent for this type of assessment, so
schools should follow their state’s requirements. In the absence of a state law,
however, schools should view SEL assessment in the same way they view the
screening of academic skills (i.e., to guide instructional strategies).
THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Evaluation, Assessment, and Measurement: What Is the Difference?
Education has long recognized the importance of evaluating students to determine if
learning has occurred, but only in recent decades has there been so much focus on
testing. For the most part, this has been driven by accountability mandates, but it also
has been propelled by the increased recognition of the important role assessment
plays in directing instructional practices. Unfortunately, this also has led to confusion
over the terms used to describe the process. For example, assessment and evaluation
frequently are used interchangeably and, though they are closely associated, their
meanings are distinctly different. When the term measurement gets tossed into the
mix, the lines blur even further. Despite the stream of literature examining and
explaining these concepts, there remains much confusion among educators. Although
it has been acknowledged that these concepts are continually evolving (Adom et al.,
2020), there remain problems with the interchangeable use of the terms. Consequently,
for purposes of this discussion, the terms will be defined as follows:
Evaluation. The process of arriving at a judgment regarding the quality of stu-
dent learning for summative or formative purposes (e.g., diagnosing a disorder
or disability).
Assessment. The process of collecting, measuring, analyzing, synthesizing, and
interpreting information about an area of interest (e.g., SEL competencies)
under controlled conditions and using systematic procedures.
Measurement: The process of quantifying the degree to which a student pos-
sesses specific skills or competencies (e.g., SEL competencies).
The definitions are offered in the hope that they not only provide clarification
but also help facilitate their use in the context of an SEL assessment, which is a
critical component of any school’s SEL implementation plan. As with any educa-
tional assessment, it is important to gather information about students’ skill levels
to guide decisions about instruction. In this case, the skills needing to be assessed
are SEL competencies and the assessment approach should be familiar to educators,
since it is similar to the process of assessing and benchmarking academic skills.
Before beginning, however, the school will need to determine if the groundwork
has been established for moving the process forward. A readiness checklist devel-
oped by XSEL Labs offers a look at the requisite steps that should be considered
before beginning the assessment process. The checklist is provided in Figure 9.1.
Once the school concludes that a foundation for success is in place, the school
is ready to begin the assessment. The following step-by-step guide offers an
organized approach to the process, along with a detailed description and discus-
sion. An overview of the step-by-step guide can be found in Rapid Reference 9.1.
Figure 9.1 SEL Assessment Readiness Checklist Source: Reprinted with the permission
of XSEL Labs, https://xsel-labs.com
A Step-by-Step Approach to the Assessment Process
Step 1: Define Competencies; Verify They Are Aligned to the SEL Framework
and Curriculum
When assessing students’ SEL competencies, the first decision the school should
make is to identify the competencies needing to be assessed. There is a wide
array of competencies that can be categorized as social and emotional skills, and
each of these are described in different, yet similar ways. For example, self-
management might sometimes be referred to as self-control or self-regulation,
and self-awareness might be called self-reflection or optimism. The words used
to describe SEL competencies can create confusion if the skills are not clearly
Rapid Reference 9.1

Assessment of Student Sel Competencies: A Step-By-Step Guide
Step 1 Define the competencies; verify they are aligned to the SEL
framework and curriculum.
Step 2 Identify the type of assessment.
Step 3 Determine the method of assessment.
Step 4 Identify the assessment tool(s).
Step 5 Conduct the assessment.
Step 6 Analyze data for use.
and succinctly defined. Likewise, the skills that get taught may not be the skills
that are assessed, so assessment results may be unreliable and may misinform the
school’s instructional program. Therefore, the SEL competencies identified as
the most important to the school should be clearly defined and should be
aligned with the SEL framework, the curriculum, and the assessment tool cho-
sen to assess the skills.
Step 2: Identify the Type of Assessment

After the competencies have been clearly defined and alignment with the
framework and curriculum has been verified, the next step is to determine how
the assessment results will be used. In other words, what is the reason for the
assessment? Will it be used to inform instruction or monitor student progress
following instruction? Will it be used to target instruction of specific compe-
tencies? Perhaps it will be used to evaluate a program’s effectiveness or to iden-
tify areas where disparities exist between student groups. It also might be used
to convey results of instructional efforts to parents or other stakeholders.
Whatever the reason, identifying the purpose for the assessment is very impor-
tant because it has implications for the type of measure that will be selected,
and the evidence for the measure’s reliability and validity. Here is a list of the
different types of assessment and what each is designed to accomplish:
• Formative: Used to monitor the progress of learning and guide instruction
that might enhance learning; typically occurs more frequently than summa-
tive assessment.
• Summative: Used to measure whether learning occurred at the conclusion

of an instructional course or time period.
• Screening: Used to detect risk factors or identify areas where instruction,
intervention, or support may be needed.
• Curriculum-based: Used to measure performance in a curriculum.
• Criterion-referenced: Used to measure performance on a set of predeter-
mined criteria without regard to the performance of others.
• Norm-referenced: Used to measure a student’s performance on a test when
compared with other students of the same age or grade that took the same
test under the same procedural conditions.
Step 3: Determine the Method of Assessment

After deciding which type of assessment is needed, the next step is to identify
the method in which students will be assessed. SEL competencies can be meas-
ured either directly or indirectly. Direct assessment is a performance-based
approach that directly examines a student’s performance on a specific task or
activity that represents the skill being assessed. Indirect assessment, in contrast,
is a method for gathering information about a student’s performance when
actual performance cannot be assessed or is not available. Indirect assessment is
typically based on the perceptions of a student’s performance by an individual
(e.g., a parent or teacher). When compared to direct assessments, indirect
assessments are less reliable because they are influenced by perceptions and
beliefs, and therefore are subject to personal biases. Nonetheless, they can be
valuable and informative. The following are examples of these two methods of
assessment.
Direct assessment examples
• Course exams and tests

• Work products
• Standardized tests
Indirect assessment examples

• Rating scales
• Surveys
• Interviews
Each type and method of assessment offers advantages and limitations, and
schools should be aware of these prior to making their selections. For a descrip-
tion of each, please refer to Rapid Reference 9.2.
Rapid Reference 9.2

Advantages and Limitations of Assessment Types and Methods
Selecting the assessment type and the method of assessment are important
considerations because they help determine the usefulness of the results and how
they can be applied with specific groups of students. When interpreting results, it
is important to know that there are advantages and limitations to both the type
and the method of assessment. The type of assessment a school chooses should
be guided by the type of information that is needed. For example, if a school
wants information to guide and inform their instructional decisions, then a
formative assessment would be the best choice. On the other hand, if the school
wants to know if students acquired skills after being instructed, then a summative
assessment would be most appropriate. Another example of how an assessment
type will depend on the information needed is in the use of criterion-referenced
assessments. This type of assessment is used frequently by schools to help them
determine how students are performing on a set of standards, such as grade-level
standards. The assessment examines how students perform on the standards
without regard to how other students performed. If, however, the school wants to
see how students perform compared with other students of the same age or
grade, then a norm-referenced assessment would provide this information. In
addition to the type of assessment, the method of assessment that a school
chooses also will have advantages and limitations. Take, for example, a direct
assessment. While this is more likely to provide greater reliability than indirect
methods, it also may require more time and resources to administer. In contrast,
indirect measures that offer comparable validity and reliability may provide a
viable alternative to direct measures of assessment. In some instances, the method
of assessment will be dictated by the type of assessment chosen by the school.
For example, a norm-referenced assessment may be appropriate only for direct
assessment, or a screening assessment may be appropriate only as an indirect
assessment. Understanding the advantages and limitations to the different types
and methods of assessment can improve efficiency and the appropriate use of
assessment outcomes. To explore the advantages and limitations to the different
methods of assessment, please see Table 9.1.
Step 4: Identify the Assessment Tool(s)

Determining which tool (or tools) to use in the assessment process is the next
decision that schools must make, and this can be complicated by the fact that
there are over 200 instruments from which to choose. Not all of them are created
in the same format or for the same purposes, so the decision may be challenging.
While each is designed to measure specific SEL competencies, the ones measured
Table 9.1 Advantages and Limitations of Different Assessment Methods

Method of Advantages Limitations
assessment
Direct • Less reliant on • Often more costly and
assessment subjectivity or time-consuming
• Performance- judgment • Typically administered individually,
based • Approximates actual requiring dedicated staff
measures skills • Requires training on administration
• Greater reliability and and scoring
validity
• Observation • Allows students to be • Observer must be trained in
observed in their observation techniques
natural setting • Target behaviors are subject to their
• Requires a limited occurrence in the natural environ-
amount of training ment, thus may not be observed
• Increases cost- • SEL-related behaviors are subject to
efficiency by observing differences in terminology, therefore
multiple students at results may be highly influenced by
one time interpretations or
• Does not require misinterpretations
students to be willing • Personal biases of the observer can
to participate influence perceptions and interpre-
tations of behavior, thus create
difficulty in making valid
generalizations
• All targeted behaviors are not likely
to occur in one observation
therefore results must be supple-
mented with additional observa-
tions or other assessment methods
(Continued )

assessment
Indirect • Results can provide • Completed by a single observer,
assessment guidance for thus may require ratings from
• Rating scales instruction multiple raters for comparison and
• More efficient than confirmation
direct assessment, • Ratings of multiple observers can
especially when lead to inconsistent and ambiguous
evaluating groups of results with need for clarification
students and follow-up, thus more time
commitment
• More time needed to rate an entire
class of students
• Time commitment multiplied if
used for frequent ratings (i.e.,
progress monitoring)
• Validity may be compromised by
personal biases:
• Confirmatory bias (tendency to
interpret information in a way
that confirms existing beliefs)
• Response bias (desire to make
person look bad)
• In-group bias (favoring
members of one’s own group over
others)
• Anchoring bias (judgments are
formed from an over-reliance on
an initial piece of information
about the individual)
• Halo effect (tendency to let an
overall impression of an
individual influence an
evaluation of a specific trait)
• Attribution errors (behavior
attributed to unfounded
stereotypes, especially for
students with cultural and ethnic
differences)
• Outcomes may be compromised by
rater’s interpretations of behaviors
• Ratings are subject to changes from
environmental influences

assessment
• Self-report • Relies on the student’s • Reading ability required
reporting of self, thus • Validity influenced by rater’s own
provides insight into self-awareness and motivation to
the student’s thoughts, participate
feelings, and • Influenced by biases and response
perceptions styles:
• Reduces the time • Response bias (desire to conceal
demand on teachers problems, issues or concerns)
• Relatively quick • Response set bias (tendency to
method of obtaining rate items in a particular pattern)
information about • Social desirability bias (desire to
individual students or present self as more socially
groups of students desirable)
• Reference bias (memory for
behavior or events may be
inaccurate or distorted)
• Acquiescent responding
(tendency to agree with an item
without thinking about what the
question is asking)
• Extreme responding (giving
extreme ratings of one’s self )
• Interview • Provides greater depth • More costly to administer due to
(e.g., parent, of information added demand on staff ’s time
teacher, or • Information is more • Time demand (e.g., interviewing a
student) likely to be accurate teacher for each student in the class)
and correct • Interviewer must be trained in
• Inaccuracies can be interviewing techniques
addressed through • Interviewee’s level of language and
follow-up and vocabulary comprehension can
clarification questions influence results
• Allows more flexibility • Differences between interviewee
in obtaining informa- and examiner’s language, culture,
tion (as opposed to a and ethnicity can influence
fixed set of questions) reliability and validity of results
(Continued )

assessment
• Provides examiner • Interviewee’s responses are subject
with an opportunity to to the examiner’s interpretations,
observe body lan- misinterpretations, and personal
guage, gestures, facial biases such as those observed with
expressions, and voice rating scales (see above)
tone, cadence, and
volume
• Facilitates recall of
information
• Language can be
adjusted to the
developmental level of
the student
• No reading skills
required by the
student
may not be the ones desired by the school, and they may or may not be aligned
with the school’s chosen framework. Of the variety of SEL instruments available,
many are aligned to a particular theory or framework, while others have been
developed to complement a specific program and thus will be aligned to that
program. In addition, a selected number of instruments have been normed with
a national student sample, while most have not. Furthermore, some have been
designed for screening purposes, while others have been developed as full-length
assessments. Similarly, most are designed for indirect assessment, but a few are
administered directly as a performance-based assessment. Lastly, most instru-
ments are available in a digital format, but some may be available only in a paper-
and-pencil format, which may demand more time for scoring, compiling, and
reporting results.
There also may be school-specific factors that influence the instrument selec-
tion, with cost being the most common concern. While some instruments are
available for free, they may not meet the school’s reporting needs. For example, if
a school wishes to disaggregate results by class level, grade level, and/or school
level, then the school will need to determine if the instrument has the reporting
capabilities to meet these needs. Instruments that are available for a cost typically
charge a per-pupil fee and may charge a setup fee as well, especially if the instrument
requires access to a digital platform. In these cases, schools should be mindful of

potential technology issues, such as integrating the instrument’s platform with the
school’s platform or migrating data between the two platforms. While there may
be technology solutions for these potential problems, such as an application pro-
gramming interface (API), these sometimes can be costly for schools.
The decision about which instrument a school chooses will be driven, to a
great extent, by the purpose and intended uses of the instrument. If the purpose
is to conduct a universal screening of all students for which results will be used to
guide the school’s instructional program, then the need for a rigorously devel-
oped, normed instrument would not be critical. As long as the instrument meets
the school’s criteria (e.g., aligned with the school’s SEL framework, culturally fair,
efficient to administer, determined to have sufficient reliability, affordable, etc.),
then an indirect screener would be suitable.
If, however, the purpose is to identify students who are needing targeted,
small-group supports for SEL, then a full-length instrument may be more appro-
priate, and it, too, would need to meet all the school’s criteria. Likewise, if a
school wishes to identify students who are needing intensive SEL supports, then
the school would want to select an instrument that has been standardized and
rigorously developed for individual, direct administration. In this case, the school
may need to address the need for informed parental consent, as previously dis-
cussed. Also, the developer of the test may require the instrument to be adminis-
tered by someone with a specific credential, so there may be additional decisions
involved.
Once the measure is chosen, other decisions will follow, such as identifying
and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of staff members. Decisions about
who will administer or proctor the instrument will guide training needs, as will
decisions about who will be responsible for scoring and compiling results, who
will be analyzing and interpreting the results (a team approach is recommended),
and who will be reporting the results to stakeholders. Training needs will vary
depending on the format and complexity of the instrument, and any administra-
tion requirements established by the developer of the test. The need for ongoing
technical support also should be considered when identifying training needs, and
the need to address potential biases with raters and self-reporters when instruct-
ing them on how to complete the test.
To assist schools with selecting an assessment tool, a detailed list of current
instruments is provided in Tables 9.2 and 9.3. The first table is a list of instru-
ments developed for indirect assessment (e.g., rating scales), and the second one
contains instruments that are developed for direct assessment (i.e., performance-
based). By no means are these intended to be exhaustive lists. Instruments were
Table 9.2 A Selection of Indirect Measures for Assessing SEL Competencies
Indirect assessment tools
Standardized
Method(s) of
Grades/ages
Framework
assessment
Instrument name
Language/s
published
Length
Cost
Year
ACT Tessera 2018 6th–12th Digital No 93 items Fee None English,

(From http://www.act.org/content/act/en/ Spanish,
learning-solutions/social-emotional- etc.
learning.html)
Attitudes and Behaviors Survey 2017 6th–12th Digital No 160 items Fee Developmental English
(From https://www.search-institute.org/ assets
surveys/choosing-a-survey/ab/)
Behavior Intervention Monitoring 2011 Ages 5–18 Digital Yes 34 items Fee None English
Assessment System (BIMAS-2) and paper
(From http://www.edumetrisis.com/
products/282-bimas-2)
California Healthy Kids Survey—Social – 5th–12th Digital No 46 items None None English
Emotional Health Module and paper
(CHKS-SEHM)
(From https://calschls.org)
0005172816.INDD 348 9/13/2021 7:47:45 PM

Core Districts Social-Emotional 2016 4th–12th Paper No 25 items None None English
Learning Survey
(From https://coredistricts.org/our-
improvement-data/
social-emotional-learning-well-being-and-
school-culture/)
Delaware Social-Emotional Competency 2017 3rd–12th Digital No 16 items None CASEL English,
Scale (DSECS-S) Spanish
(From http://wh1.oet.udel.edu/pbs/
technical-manual-for-school-climate-
surveys/)
Developmental Assets Profile – Ages 8–18 Digital Yes 58 items Fee Developmental English,
(From https://www.search-institute.org/ and paper assets Spanish,
surveys/choosing-a-survey/dap/) etc.
Devereaux Student Strengths 2011 K–8th Digital Yes 8 items Fee CASEL English,
Assessment-Mini (DESSA-Mini) and paper Spanish
(From https://apertureed.com/products-
solutions/dessa-system-2/dessa-overview/)
Devereaux Student Strengths Assessment 2014 K–8th Digital Yes 72 items Fee CASEL English
(DESSA) and paper
(From https://apertureed.com/products-
solutions/dessa-system-2/dessa-overview/)
(Continued )
0005172816.INDD 349 9/13/2021 7:47:45 PM


Standardized
Method(s) of
Grades/ages
Framework
assessment
Instrument name
Language/s
published
Length
Cost
Year
Holistic Student Assessment (HSA) 2017 4th+ Digital Yes 61 items Fee Clover Model English,
(From https://www.pearinc.org/ Spanish,
holistic-student-assessment) etc.
Measuring Mindsets, Essential Skills, and 2014 5th–12th+ Paper No 25 items None NA English
Habits (MESH)
(From https://transformingeducation.org/
resources/measuring-mesh/)
Panorama Social-Emotional Learning 2014 3rd–12th Paper No 52–61 items None NA English
Questionnaires Measure
(From https://panorama-www.s3.
amazonaws.com/files/sel/SEL-User-Guide.
pdf )
Panorama Teacher Perceptions of 2017 3rd–12th Paper No 10 items None NA English
Students’ SEL
(From https://panorama-www.s3.
amazonaws.com/files/sel/Teacher-
Perception-Student-Guide.pdf )
0005172816.INDD 350 9/13/2021 7:47:45 PM

Personal Skills Map -Long (PSM) 2019 K–12th+ Digital Yes 244 items Fee NA English
(From https://www.conovercompany.com/
conover-online/success-profiler/)
Social-Emotional Learning Skills 2021 Ages 2–21 Digital Yes 10 items Fee CASEL English,
Inventory-Screener (SELSI® Screener) Spanish,
(From https://pages.wpspublish.com/sel) etc.
Social Skills Improvement System 2017 Ages 3–18 Digital Yes 10–25 min Fee CASEL English,
Social-Emotional Learning Edition and paper Spanish
(From https://www.pearsonassessments.
com/store/usassessments/en/Store/
Professional-Assessments/Behavior/
SSIS-Social-Emotional-Learning-
Edition/p/100001940.html#tab-details)
Social-Emotional and Character 2013 Elementary Paper No 28 items None NA English
Development Scale (SECDS)
(From http://people.oregonstate.
edu/~flayb/MY%20PUBLICATIONS/
Positive%20Action/Ji%20etal13%20
SECDS%20scale%20development%20
and%20validation.pdf )
Tauck Family Foundation and Child 2014 K–5th Paper No 12 items None NA English
Trends Teacher Survey
(From https://www.childtrends.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014-
37CombinedMeasuresApproachandTable
pdf1.pdf )
(Continued )
0005172816.INDD 351 9/13/2021 7:47:45 PM


Standardized
Method(s) of
Grades/ages
Framework
assessment
Instrument name
Language/s
published
Length
Cost
Year
Tripod Social and Emotional 2018 Upper Digital No 19 items Fee CASEL English
Competency Survey (Tripod SEL-C) elementary
(From https://www.tripoded.com/surveys/) and
secondary
Washoe County School District Social 2018 5th–12th Digital No 40 items None CASEL English,
and Emotional Competency Assessment and paper Spanish
Long-Form (WCSD-SECA Long)
(From https://www.washoeschools.net/
Page/10932)
Washoe County School District Social 2018 5th–12th Digital No 17 items None CASEL English,
and Emotional Competency Assessment and paper Spanish
Short-Form (WCSD-SECA Short)
(From https://www.washoeschools.net/
Page/10932)
0005172816.INDD 352 9/13/2021 7:47:45 PM

Table 9.3 A Selection of Direct Measures for Assessing SEL Competencies

Direct assessment tools
Standardized
Grades/ages
Framework
Instrument name
assessment
Language/s
Method of
published
Length
Cost
Year
SELweb® 2017 Ages 3–18 Digital No 30 min Fee CASEL English,

(From https:// Spanish
xsel-labs.com/
assessments/selweb/)
Zoo U 2016 2nd–5th Digital No 30 min Fee NA English
(From https://www.
centervention.com/
zoo-u-sel-game/)
selected based on the following criteria: (a) They were developed for use in
schools; (b) they were designed to assess strengths or assets; (c) they are intended
to assess interpersonal skills, intrapersonal skills, and SEL competencies; and (d)
they are relatively new (i.e., published within the past 10 years).
In addition to the assessment resources listed in Tables 9.2 and 9.3, the Rand
Corporation has developed an online tool that allows users to research and com-
pare SEL and SEL-related instruments. The Rand Assessment Finder lists more
than 200 assessments with key information about each tool. It includes measures
of social (i.e., interpersonal) and emotional (i.e., intrapersonal) competencies,
measures of higher order cognitive competencies, and measures of school engage-
ment. In addition, the Rand guide provides information on measures that have
been developed for research purposes, including evidence of validity and reliabil-
ity for each measure (Rand Education and Labor, 2021).
Step 5: Conduct the Assessment

Once a decision has been reached about the assessment tool, and participants
(i.e., staff, students, parents, etc.) have been appropriately trained, the school is
ready to proceed with the assessment. The first order of business is to identify
the timeline and frequency for the assessment. Many schools choose to conduct
the assessment at the start of the school year (formative assessment), followed by
a midyear assessment for progress monitoring, and an end-of-year assessment
for summative purposes. Each school’s decisions will look different, but the pro-
cess should be the same. If not previously addressed, it may be necessary to
inform stakeholders and communicate the purpose of the assessment prior to

beginning the process, but it is suggested that this be done well in advance of the
chosen start date. This will ensure that everyone has an opportunity to ask ques-
tions and that staff have a chance to address any issues that may arise, including
access to technology if the instrument is in digital format. It also provides an
opportunity to consider any special needs for students with disabilities or lan-
guage differences, or students and parents with low reading abilities. In addi-
tion, schools should determine how they will assess students who may be absent
at the time of testing and ensure they have an opportunity to participate when
they return. When all preparations are complete, the school is ready to conduct
the assessment and compile the results according to the parameters established
at the onset of the process. It is recommended that data reports be compiled for
aggregated data and for disaggregated data, as previously discussed.
Step 6: Analyze Data for Use

The final step in the process involves reviewing and analyzing the data, then
determining how it will be used to inform decisions, particularly those regarding
SEL instruction for students and staff. This is perhaps the biggest challenge in the
assessment process, because data can be quite overwhelming and can make it dif-
ficult to know where to begin. To assist schools in identifying their readiness for
this phase in the assessment process, XSEL Labs has developed a “SEL Data
Review Readiness Worksheet,” which is provided in Figure 9.2.
As the assessment data are collected, it should be organized for easier analysis
and decision making. For example, if rating scales were completed by teachers,
parents, and students, the team should examine the results for the whole group
before organizing them into separate groups. Data for individual groups then can
be separated by grade levels and by skill levels. This approach allows the team to
examine results from a whole-school perspective before drilling down to the class
or individual levels. Many SEL instruments provide users with digital report
options. This means the results may be tabulated and compiled digitally into
school-level, grade-level, and/or class-level reports. Some instruments do not
offer these options and must be hand scored. Depending on the volume of data,
this task can be rather daunting so the organized approach that was suggested
earlier will help streamline the process.
Each SEL instrument will have its own method for assigning a value to the
ratings, but most rating scales use a Likert scale. For example, a universal screener
may ask raters to rate skills from a level 1 to a level 3, with 1 being not well devel-
oped, 2 being moderately well developed, and 3 being well developed. When using
this type of data to plan the SEL instructional program, the team can group the
Figure 9.2 SEL Data Review Readiness Worksheet. Source: Reprinted with the per-
mission of XSEL Labs, https://xsel-labs.com.
results into the areas where explicit instruction is most needed. In this example,
the primary targets for instruction would be the skills identified at level 1, fol-
lowed by those identified at level 2. Some tests also offer cut scores that indicate
when the overall rating has reached a level of significance. Cut scores also can be
helpful for targeting critical areas where instruction is needed. When organizing
the data, the team also may want to look for any patterns of responses to help
determine if there were any consistencies or inconsistencies in the ratings. It also
is suggested that the team look at the percentage of raters who rated the compe-
tencies similarly. The higher the percentage, the more reliable the results. An
example of how data might be organized into a table for easier viewing is illus-
trated in Table 9.4. The form is also available on this book’s companion website
Table 9.4 SEL Data Organization Chart
Teacher ratings Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: ALL
Competencies • Self-awareness
• Social awareness
• Self-management
• Relationship skills
• Responsible decision
making
Parent ratings Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: ALL
• Self-management
making
Student ratings Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: ALL
• Self-management
making
P, Primary instructional target; S, secondary instructional target.
0005172816.INDD 356 9/13/2021 7:47:46 PM

as a fillable form. Instructions for organizing the data and completing the form
are as follows:
Instructions for Identifying Primary and Secondary Targets for

Explicit Instruction
Step 1: Disaggregate results by raters and by grade level (e.g., sixth-grade teachers,
sixth-grade parents, and sixth-grade students).
1. Determine which competencies were rated by the highest percentage of
raters in each group as being a significant area of need (based on the
instrument’s value ratings). In the appropriate grade-level column for
that competency, label it with a “P” for primary target of instruction.
For example, if self-management was rated as the highest area of need
by most sixth-grade teachers (i.e., the highest percentage), then under
the teacher ratings for self-management, place a “P” in the column for
the sixth grade.
2. Determine which competencies were rated by the highest percentage
or raters in each group as the second most significant area of need
(based on the instrument’s value ratings). In the appropriate
grade-level column for that competency, label it with an “S” for
secondary target of instruction. For example, if responsible decision
making was rated as the second-highest area of need by most
sixth-grade teachers (i.e., the highest percentage), then under the
teacher ratings for responsible decision making, place an “S” in the
column for the sixth grade.
Step 2: Combine or aggregate all results for each group of raters for all grade
levels (i.e., all teachers, all parents, and all students).
1. For each group (teachers, parents, and students), determine

which competency was rated as the greatest area of need (based
on the instrument’s value ratings) by the highest percentage of
raters. For example, if ALL parents (includes all grade levels)
rated self-management as the highest area of need, then under the
parent ratings for self-management, place a “P” in the column
marked “ALL.”
2. For each group (teachers, parents, and students), determine which
competency was rated as the second-greatest area of need (based on
the instrument’s value ratings) by the highest percentage of raters. For
example, if ALL parents (includes all grade levels) rated self-

management as the second-greatest area of need, then under the
parent ratings for self-management, place an “S” in the column
marked “ALL.”
Results: All items marked with a “P” or an “S” are areas where explicit instruction
should be targeted. Blank cells indicate no group of raters rated this competency as
an area of need. Cells containing a dash indicate no rating was completed in this area.
Note: This chart may need to be adapted if there are several competencies
identified as needing explicit instruction. In these cases, the competencies should
be rank-ordered starting with the greatest area of need (as determined by the
instrument’s rating values). The competencies then can be grouped into primary
and secondary areas for targeting explicit instruction.
After analyzing the data, the team can identify the areas where explicit instruc-
tion is needed the most, along with the action steps that are needed to align the
assessment results with the SEL curriculum and the program of instruction.
These steps should include the identification of developmentally appropriate
tasks and activities that support the instruction of competencies at the students’
respective age or grade levels. If the school already has an SEL curriculum, this
may not be as challenging as it would be if there were no curriculum, so long as
the school’s curriculum aligns with the competencies that were assessed. If the
school is developing its own SEL curriculum, the assessment results should be
aligned with the SEL standards and the instructional activities in the curriculum.
Further exploration of this alignment process will be provided in this chapter,
along with several examples of how popular SEL programs have been aligned
with one measure of assessment.
As the team reviews the assessment data, they also should examine any pat-
terns that may suggest common concerns across classrooms or grade levels.
Disparities between student subgroups should be examined closely, and actions
recommended for addressing these disparities and eliminating any potential bar-
riers. Not only will this assist with identifying critical areas for instruction, but
also it will target areas that may need to be addressed at the systems level (i.e., as
part of the whole-school approach to SEL).
Lastly, as teams review their school’s assessment results, they should look for
opportunities where student engagement can be increased. Involving students in
the analysis process (especially at the upper grade levels) might provide opportu-
nities for increased student involvement and improved student engagement.
When students are involved in the process and their voices are heard, they are
much more willing to become partners in promoting and advancing SEL.
Summary of the SEL Assessment Process

One of the goals of this chapter is to establish an understanding and appreciation
for the important role that assessment plays in guiding and shaping a school’s
decisions about its SEL program. The assessment process, which has been
described in six steps, is intended to answer the following critical questions:
1. What is it that needs to be measured (i.e., what constructs)?
2. What is the purpose for measuring these constructs?
3. How should the constructs be measured?
4. In what way will results guide decisions and actions?
A detailed description of these questions, as applied to an SEL assessment, is
Rapid Reference 9.3

SEL Assessment Process
In any assessment, there are several overarching questions that help conceptualize
and guide the process. Four of these questions are illustrated here using an SEL
assessment as an example.
1. What is it that needs to be measured (i.e., what constructs?) For
an SEL assessment, the constructs needing to be measured are SEL compe-
tencies. Many terms have been used to describe these competencies, and
they often have different meanings and are interpreted differently by different
groups. To ensure the desired SEL competencies are the ones being meas-
ured, they must be clearly defined before they can be measured.
2. What is the purpose of measuring these constructs? Measuring SEL
competencies can serve many purposes, including:
• Aiding and guiding SEL instruction and curriculum development
• Measuring student progress toward a targeted goal
• Identifying target groups of students that need intervention
• Identifying disparities in SEL competencies between student subgroups
• Determining program effectiveness and/or areas that need improvement
• Elevating student voices for increased student engagement
• Communicating findings to relevant stakeholders
• Aiding and guiding school improvement efforts
• Gathering data for research or grant opportunities
• The purpose of the measurement will help determine the type of assess-
ment needed (i.e., formative, summative, criterion referenced, norm
referenced, etc.).
3. How should the constructs be measured? Once the purpose has been
determined, the method of assessment (i.e., direct or indirect) can be identified.
Measuring the constructs will depend on several factors, including cost, time
commitment, age of students being assessed, size of target group, access to
appropriate measures, number of available staff, and so on. These factors will
guide the selection of the method for measuring the constructs.
4. In what way will results guide decisions and actions? Once
assessment results are compiled, analyzed, and interpreted, they can be used
to inform decisions and determine the actions needed for the purpose(s) that
were identified in Question 2.
The decision to conduct an SEL assessment can be made for a variety of rea-
sons. Whatever these may be, it is important to understand that the process and
results serve as the compass for other decisions. When used to inform instruction
and develop the curriculum, the results can ensure alignment between the two
and help schools avoid the pitfalls that occur when simply guessing or randomly
choosing strategies and interventions. The “Aligning SEL Assessment With
Instruction and the SEL Curriculum” section focuses on the alignment process
and the factors that may affect outcomes and influence cohesion.
ALIGNING SEL ASSESSMENT WITH INSTRUCTION

AND THE SEL CURRICULUM
Laying the Groundwork
Before moving into a discussion about aligning assessment with instruction and
the curriculum, it is important to review the conditions in which learning occurs,
since these establish the foundation for all instruction, regardless of whether it is
social-emotional instruction or academic instruction. All learning, including SEL,
occurs in the context of social relationships and the environment, including the
cultural environment. These are the conditions in which skills develop, so SEL
needs to be integrated with every aspect of this environment. As illustrated in
Chapter 7, there are three operational components in schools that work in tandem
with one another to ensure the elements of instruction and learning are cohesively
linked with the environmental conditions for learning. Together, these three com-
ponents can ensure equitable educational opportunities for all students:
1. Systems: Governance and management are aligned in support of SEL

through policies, practices, and operating guidelines. Trust and
credibility in leadership are established through transparency and open
communications.
2. Learning needs: Core values form a foundation where beliefs and
actions establish a school culture and climate that are safe, positive,
accepting, and engaging. Strong relationships permeate all aspects of
the school community. SEL instruction is embedded throughout all
facets of the school community, and explicit instruction is Sequenced,
Active, Focused, and Explicit (S.A.F.E.).
3. Supports: Multitiered systems of supports for students and staff are
identified in seven key areas: instruction, school engagement, safety
and crises, transitions, family and home engagement, school mental
health and wellness, and school–community partnerships.
In addition to the conditions for teaching and learning, there are 10 teaching
practices that support SEL. Six of these are instructional practices, and the other
four are social teaching practices. Although these 10 practices are not an exhaustive
list, they represent the most important strategies for supporting SEL instruction
(Yoder & Gurke, 2017):
Instructional practices
Cooperative learning
Classroom discussions
Self-assessment and self-reflection
Balanced instruction
Academic press and expectations
Competence building, modeling, practicing, feedback, and coaching
Social teaching practices
Student-centered discipline
Teacher language
Responsibility and choice
Warmth and support
To help schools determine the level at which these practices are supporting
SEL in classrooms, a rubric can be found in Figure 9.3. It is important to note,
however, that the rubric has not been validated in a rigorous research study and
Figure 9.3 Rubric for 10 teaching practices that support SEL. Source: Yoder, N., &
Gurke, D. (2017). Social and emotional learning coaching toolkit. Crystal City, VA:
American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/
downloads/report/Social-and-Emotional-Learning-SEL-Coaching-Toolkit-August-2017.
pdf. Material reprinted with permission.
should not be used for any high-stakes decisions, but can be used to guide discus-
sions between administrators, teachers, and SEL coaches (Yoder & Gurke, 2017,
pp. 10–15).
Alignment With a Developmental Curriculum

Once the foundations for learning and instruction are established and the SEL
assessment is completed, expected outcomes must be determined; thus, a cur-
riculum is needed. So how does a school identify or develop an SEL curriculum,
and how can the school know that the SEL lessons will correspond with the
assessment results? Some states in the United States have adopted SEL standards,
but many have not. Therefore, a growing number of schools and school systems
are developing their own. Undertaking such a task can be quite a challenge
because it requires a broad understanding and a depth of knowledge about the
developmental progression of SEL competencies. Recall the discussion in
Chapter 1 in which SEL was described as a process. This process is marked by the
developmental changes in skill acquisition. Like academic skill development,
SEL competencies also develop over time. For example, self-awareness develops
throughout the lifetime, but early development begins with the infant’s first rec-
ognition of her reflection in a mirror. As the child grows and develops, self-
awareness progresses into the child’s ability to recognize how she is perceived by
others, followed by learning how she sees herself in relation to others. Thus, tasks
and activities must be designed according to the expected developmental skill
progression. Successful achievement of early developmental tasks will lead to suc-
cess with later tasks (Denham, 2018). Therefore, the SEL curriculum and the
instruction of tasks and activities must be approached from a developmental per-
spective. Figure 9.4 shows an example of how one curriculum standard might
progress through the school years using a developmental approach.
Understanding competencies from a developmental perspective is another rea-
son why SEL cannot be successful if instructional strategies are not aligned with
skills progression. In essence, cherry-picking activities and tasks wastes time and
resources and makes the SEL framework and curriculum useless. The reality is
that developmental tasks and activities underlie every aspect of SEL instruction.
They are the undercarriage that supports the framework, and they help move the
curriculum forward so that competencies can develop in their intended progres-
sion. However, translating the competencies into developmental tasks and activi-
ties can be a challenge. Rapid Reference 9.4 illustrates what a prekindergarten
curriculum for self-awareness, aligned with the CASEL competencies, might
look like.
High School Demonstrates an understanding that

emotions regulate our behaviors and
how others view and accept us.
Middle School Demonstrates an ability to regulate

emotions in adherence to societal norms
in order to gain social acceptance
Early
Elementary Demonstrates an understanding that
emotions connect with behaviors
Figure 9.4 An example of how social awareness might progress developmentally

through the school years.
For schools that prefer a commercial SEL curriculum, attention should be

given to whether the program is based on a developmental framework to
which tasks and activities have been aligned. For some commercial programs,
it may be necessary to align the school’s assessment instrument with the com-
mercial program so that lessons correspond with the findings from the assess-
ment. For example, SELweb® is a direct assessment tool that was developed by
xSEL Labs. It assesses emotion recognition, perspective taking, problem solv-
ing, and self-control. The instrument’s developer has aligned these competen-
cies with several evidence-based SEL programs using a crosswalk that aligns the
competencies assessed by the instrument with the instructional lessons offered
by each program. Figure 9.5 illustrates how SELweb® aligns with the SEL
program called Getting Along Together®, which was developed by the Success
for All Foundation.
Summary of the SEL Alignment Process

Developing an SEL program in which instruction is aligned with the curriculum
not only ensures cohesion in the school’s efforts but also increases the likelihood
Rapid Reference 9.4

Example: How Self-Awareness Competencies Translate Into
a Self-Awareness Curriculum for Prekindergarten
Self-Awareness (PK) Self-Awareness Curriculum

CASEL Competencies Standards
Integrating personal and Share personal information about self (e.g., first and
social identities last name). Identify personal characteristics of self, with
prompt. Share interests in personal likes and dislikes,
with prompt.
Identifying personal, Recognize self as being different from others.
cultural, and linguistic assets Recognize self as a member of a group (e.g., class and
family).
Identifying one’s emotions Recognize and label basic feelings in the self. Use
appropriate words to describe feelings in the self.
Appropriately express a range of emotions.
Demonstrate a beginning understanding of the
connection between emotions and behaviors.
Demonstrating honesty Show support for others through sharing and helping.
and integrity
Linking feelings, values, and Show confidence in completing tasks. Demonstrate
thoughts pleasure with one’s own work. Be willing to try new
things, although they may not persist.
Examining prejudices and Speak out to defend oneself when appropriate.
biases
Experiencing self-efficacy Persist with completing tasks. Request help when
needed.
that outcomes will be successful and effective. Using assessment data to inform
decisions about the curriculum and instructional program preserves the integrity
of the process and improves the reliability of results. When implemented within
a developmental framework under the appropriate conditions for learning, and
with teaching practices that support SEL, the chances of success are multiplied.
Figure 9.5 SELweb® and Getting Along Together® alignment. Source: Reprinted with
the permission of XSEL Labs, https://xsel-labs.com.
An illustration of how the assessment process guides the alignment process can be
found in the case example provided in Rapid Reference 9.5.
Rapid Reference 9.5

Case Example
SEL Assessment and Program Alignment

The Young Beginners Elementary School located in the Big City School District
services students in kindergarten through the third grade.The school began imple-
menting an SEL plan at the start of the school year. As part of the plan, an assessment
of SEL competencies was needed to help guide the development of the school’s SEL
instructional program and align it with an SEL curriculum.The SEL leadership team
met to plan the details of the assessment using the step-by-step assessment guide.The
decisions made by the team at each step in this process are as follows:
Step 1: Define competencies.Verify they are aligned to the SEL framework and
curriculum. The team’s first step was to define the SEL competencies they
needed to measure. Since the CASEL framework had been chosen by the
school to guide their SEL efforts, the competencies that were aligned with the
framework were identified as:
• Self-awareness
• Self-management
• Responsible decision making
These competencies, as defined by CASEL, were the competencies the school
would need to assess.
Step 2: Identify the type of assessment. In the second step, the team decided that a
formative assessment was needed to gather initial data about their students’
competencies, and this should be completed after the fourth week of school. It
would be followed by a progress monitoring assessment at the midpoint of the
school year, then conclude with a summative assessment during the last month
of the school year.
Step 3: Determine the method of assessment. The third step of the process was to
determine the method of assessment. The team agreed that an indirect
measure, such as a rating scale, was preferred, and it should be one that could
be completed quickly by teachers and parents but had evidence of validity and
reliability and was culturally fair. A student self-report also was desired, but due
to the young ages of their students, it was decided that this may not be an
option, so it should not be a determining factor in the selection of the instru-
ment. In addition, the instrument would need to meet their budget parameters.
Step 4: Identify the assessment tool(s). The fourth step in the process was to
identify the instrument. After researching the various tools that were available,
they found an instrument that met all their criteria and was within their budget
for the three administrations. The team reviewed the instrument’s statistical
information and was satisfied that it was culturally fair, had been validated with a
large sample of students, and had reliability ratings that were reasonably high.
The instrument consisted of 10 items aligned to the CASEL framework, and it
could be completed digitally by a teacher or parent in about 1–2 minutes per
student. In addition, a student self-report was available for third-grade students.
The instrument also provided several reporting options, including school-level,
grade-level, and class-level reports. Results also could be separated by rater, so
teacher ratings could be compiled separately from parent ratings. The instru-
ment could be used for formative and summative assessment, and for progress
monitoring. Thus, the instrument was chosen for the school’s assessment.
Step 5: Conduct the assessment. Prior to administering the instrument, the team
provided three short training sessions for the raters. One was for teachers, one was
for parents, and the other was for the third-grade students.The sessions provided
instructions for completing the instrument and included a discussion for teachers
and parents about the potential for personal biases when rating students, so parents
and teachers would be better informed.The training for the third-grade students
focused on basic information about the purpose for the ratings (i.e., to guide plans
for instruction) and how to complete the ratings as accurately as possible.
Step 6: Analyze data for use. After the formative assessment was completed, three team
members were designated as the analysis team, and the school psychologist was
assigned as the team leader.The team met to complete the sixth step in the process,
which was to analyze and interpret the results.They disaggregated the ratings by
grade level and by raters before combining all results.The disaggregated findings
showed no significant differences between the grade levels or the groups, although
there were some minor differences.These differences were noted, however, so that
tasks and activities could be strengthened at specific grade levels, if indicated.
Combined ratings of teachers and parents consistently showed self-awareness and
self-management as the primary areas where instruction was needed, while social
awareness was identified as a secondary area of need.The third-grade students’
ratings were consistent with those of parents and teachers for self-awareness, but
not for social awareness and self-management, which were rated as secondary areas
of need. Ratings for the other two competencies, relationship skills and responsible
decision making, were consistently average for all three groups of raters.Thus, there
were no instructional targets identified for these two competencies.
Based on the overall ratings, the schoolwide primary instructional targets were
identified as self-awareness and self-management, while the secondary instructional
target was identified as social awareness.
The overall results are shown in Table 9.5.
Table 9.5 Social-Emotional Learning Skills Rating Results
Teacher ratings Grade: K Grade: 1 Grade: 2 Grade: 3 ALL
Competencies • Self-awareness P P P S P
• Social awareness P S S S S
• Self-management P P P P P
making
Parent ratings Grade: K Grade: 1 Grade: 2 Grade: 3 ALL
Competencies • Self-awareness P P S P P
• Social awareness S S P S S
• Self-management S P P P P
making
Student ratings Grade: Grade: Grade: Grade: ALL
Competencies • Self-awareness P P
• Social awareness P P
• Self-management S S
making
P, Primary instructional target; S, secondary instructional target.
0005172816.INDD 376 9/13/2021 7:47:54 PM

Aligning Results With Instruction and the Curriculum

The analysis team then met with the SEL leadership team to review the results
and begin the alignment process. The first decision was to determine if the
conditions for learning were present. The school had spent the previous 2 years
working on improving its school culture and climate, and efforts had been very
successful. In addition, several school policies had been revised to align with
the school’s SEL framework, including revision of policies related to student
discipline. The team felt the foundation had been established for moving for-
ward. The staff also had been trained in the top 10 teaching practices to sup-
port SEL, and the team noted that all classroom teachers were implementing
the practices consistently. The next decision was to determine a curriculum.
Since the district had not developed an SEL curriculum, the team would need
to develop their own or research commercial programs. The school psycholo-
gist suggested the Second Step® curriculum published by the Committee for
Children. This curriculum is a universal, classroom-based program and is
aligned with the CASEL framework. It also meets the S.A.F.E. recommenda-
tions for evidence of effectiveness and is available for kindergarten through the
third grade. After further discussion, the team agreed that the Second Step®
program met their criteria, so they aligned their assessment results with the
curriculum and decided to implement this as their explicit program of SEL
instruction. Teachers would be provided instruction on how to use the pro-
gram prior to its implementation. Table 9.6 illustrates how the original assess-
ment results were aligned with the curriculum to identify primary and
secondary targets for SEL instruction.
Summary of Assessment
After aligning the assessment results with the curriculum and program of instruc-
tion, the team discussed the process for measuring progress. The midyear assess-
ment with the chosen assessment instrument not only would provide updated
information about students’ competencies, but also would need to evaluate the
learning environment to ensure ongoing implementation of the teaching prac-
tices that support SEL. The Rubric for Ten Teaching Practices That Support SEL
would be used to observe and evaluate each classroom. To determine if teachers
were implementing the Second Step® curriculum with fidelity, the team would
develop a fidelity checklist to guide their assessment. The evaluation of the learn-
ing environment and the fidelity of implementation, along with the end-of-year
assessment data from the chosen assessment instrument, would then be included
as part of the school’s summative assessment.
Table 9.6 Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Alignment of curriculum, SEL competency
instruction, and assessment
Second Skill focus Self- Self- Social
Step® awareness management awareness
program
Brain builder • Executive functions P P
games
Skills for • Attention P P
learning • Focus
• Identity and self-talk
• Assertiveness
• Remembering directions
• Staying on task
• Ignoring distractions
Empathy • Identify and understand P S
one’s own and others’
feelings
• Build vocabulary of
feeling words
• Listen to others
• Have empathy
• Show compassion
Emotion • Identify and understand P P
management one’s own feelings
• Recognize strong
feelings
• Calm down strong
feelings
• Use the Ways to Calm
Down
Problem • Friendship skills S
solving • Calm down before
solving problems
• Describe the problem
• Think of many
solutions
• Explore the conse-
quences of the solutions
• Pick the best solution
P, Primary; S, secondary.
CONCLUSIONS
As schools face decisions about how to implement SEL, one of the primary issues
they are likely to confront is in determining an appropriate curriculum and
instructional program. Using assessment data to inform this process offers cohe-
sion and improves the fidelity of the school’s efforts, but there are limitations in
how results should be interpreted and used. If used inappropriately, they can
exacerbate existing problems with educational inequity, and lead to ineffective
instruction and intervention. Therefore, schools must approach the assessment
process with an understanding of these limitations. While they must recognize
the important role of assessment in guiding the school’s decisions, they also must
be armed with knowledge of what the assessment can and cannot do for them.
Although it can serve as a compass that guides and informs their decisions about
instruction and the curriculum, it also must be used in the context of other,
equally important factors, such as the conditions for learning, the developmental
progression of skill attainment, the teaching practices that support SEL in the
classroom, and the SEL curriculum. Only when all components are appropriately
addressed can the school’s efforts be successfully aligned.
TEST YOURSELF
1. Assessing students’ SEL competencies has benefits, but there also are
limitations to avoid.These include which of the following?
(a) Not to be used for high-stakes decisions
(b) Not to be used for diagnostic purposes
(c) Can be influenced by personal biases
2. An assessment is defined as the process of arriving at a judgment
regarding the quality of student learning for summative or formative
purposes.
(a) True
(b) False
3. What is the first step in conducting an assessment?
(a) Identifying the type of assessment
(b) Defining the constructs to be measured
(c) Identifying the assessment tool
4. Which type of assessment is used to determine if learning occurred at

the conclusion of a course?
(a) Summative assessment
(b) Criterion-referenced assessment
(c) Screening
(d) Formative assessment
5. Which of the following types of personal biases occur when a judgment is
formed from an overreliance on an initial piece of information about an
individual?
(a) Halo effect
(b) Reference bias
(c) Anchoring bias
(d) Attribution bias
6. What is an advantage of interviews?
(a) Information is more likely to be accurate and correct.
(b) It provides greater depth of information.
(c) It facilitates recall of information.
7. The assessment process answers what question?
(a) What needs to be measured?
(b) What type of measure should be used?
(c) What limitations should be avoided?
8. The three components that ensure the conditions for learning and
establish the foundation for all instruction are:
(a) Systems, learning needs, the environment
(b) Systems, learning needs, supports
(c) Systems, instructional program, supports
(d) Systems, learning needs, management
9. Which of the following is considered a social teaching practice?
(a) Cooperative learning
(b) Classroom discussions
(c) Teacher language
(d) Self-assessment and self-reflection
10. Developing an SEL curriculum requires a depth of knowledge and

understanding of what?
(a) SEL frameworks
(b) SEL and social development
(c) SEL theory
(d) SEL from a developmental perspective
Answers: 1, d; 2, b; 3, b; 4, a; 5, c; 6, d; 7, a; 8, b; 9, c; 10, d.
REFERENCES
Adom, D., Adu Mensah, J., & Atsu Duke, D. (2020). Test, measurement, and
evaluation: Understanding and use of the concepts in education.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 109–119.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20457
Denham, S. A. (2018, November). Keeping SEL developmental: The importance
of a developmental lens for fostering and assessing SEL competencies (Framework
Briefs, Special Issues Series). CASEL. https://casel.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/04/Keeping-SEL-Developmental.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). 34 C.F.R.,
§300.302. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title34-vol2/
pdf/CFR-2011-title34-vol2-part300.pdf
Rand Education and Labor. (2021). The Rand Assessment Finder. Rand
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/education-and-labor/projects/
assessments.html
Yoder, N., & Gurke, D. (2017). Social and emotional learning coaching toolkit:
Keeping SEL at the center. American Institutes for Research (AIR). https://
www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Social-and-Emotional-
Learning-SEL-Coaching-Toolkit-August-2017.pdf
Ten
SEL: A ROADMAP FOR A WORLD

AT HOPE
INTRODUCTION
When the idea for this book was conceived, there was no COVID-19, no pan-
demic, no racial unrest, no sociopolitical turmoil, and no deaths of isolation for
millions of people around the world. These things have transpired over the course
of one year, and to say these are unprecedented times is the understatement of the
century. The world has never witnessed a time when the need for SEL is as clear as
it is now, and, as the pandemic continues to hold the world in its grip, the need
becomes more pressing. The recognition that the social and emotional health of
young people is equally as important as their academic health now has many
schools questioning how they can effectively meet the needs of the whole child. It
turns out that this thing called social emotional learning is not just a nice, add-on
service, but is the critical foundation to everything schools do to educate children.
So, the focus appears to have shifted from acknowledging the need for SEL to
questioning how it can be assimilated into the fabric of education.
The pandemic’s impact on children and young people has been far-reaching and
profound. While they have not been as vulnerable to the effects of the virus itself,
the efforts to control COVID-19 have impacted them significantly. Furthermore,
383
the detriments have been far more pronounced for disadvantaged children and
those in vulnerable situations. To be clear, the impact of the pandemic extends far
beyond academic development. It has afflicted children’s health (including mental
health), nutrition, safety, socialization, family finances, socioeconomic status, and
general well-being. As a result, schools must begin the process of healing and get-
ting children back to learning by prioritizing their social and emotional develop-
ment. This will require a commitment from everyone, not just schools but families,
communities, and policy makers as well. In other words, the responsibility should
not rest solely on the shoulders of the education system but must be supported by
everyone.
In many ways, the lessons from the pandemic have taught the importance of
connections, communications, and teamwork. In no other place has this been
illuminated more than in educa-
tion. Educators have long stressed
CAUTION
the importance of family and com-
munity involvement in educating The responsibility for SEL belongs to
children, and the pandemic has everyone, which includes schools, fami-
lies, communities, and policy makers. It
shown the world just how critical
should not rest solely with schools.
this is. It cannot be understated
that, moving forward, this will
remain as critical as it is now.
Moving forward with SEL offers schools an opportunity to embrace the kind of
systemic reform that will be needed for the long, hard path to recovery that lies
ahead. If implemented intentionally, supported at all levels, and embraced by every-
one (i.e., schools, families, communities, and policy makers), SEL can become the
greatest equalizer ever witnessed in schools. As a roadmap for the future, it can
transform schools into places where students feel safe, accepted, and purposeful, and
where learning is measured by something more than passing a test. COVID-19 may
have shaken the world’s optimism, but it has not destroyed its hope for the future.
The need for SEL is clear, the time is
now, and the children can wait no DON’T FORGET
longer. Schools must act now, and When implemented intentionally, sup-
communities, families, and policy ported at all levels, and embraced by
makers must empower them through everyone, SEL can become the great-
their support. est equalizer ever witnessed in schools.
This chapter will explore the
areas in which young people’s lives have been afflicted, along with possible impli-
cations for schools, families, communities, and policy makers as they move for-
ward to address children’s needs using SEL as their roadmap. A discussion of how
SEL: A Roadmap for a World at Hope 385
families, communities, and organizations can support schools through collabora-

tive partnerships will be offered, along with examples of promising practices.
IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON CHILDREN

Education
School Closings
“COVID-19 has created the largest disruption of education systems in history,
affecting nearly 1.6 billion students in more than 190 countries” (World Health
Organization, 2021). In many parts of the world, children have been out of school
for 9 months or more, and the longer they stay out, the higher the risk of them drop-
ping out of school. Since the start of the pandemic and the closing of schools, con-
cerns about children’s academic decline and their social and emotional development
have made it abundantly clear that children must return to school. The important
role that schools play in children’s growth and development (not just their academic
development) has brought to light a host of other reasons for why children must be
back in school. Issues with their safety, nutrition, health, and social emotional devel-
opment are among the most critical areas of concern. The implications of these
issues are that schools must act quickly to get children safely back to school.
Evidence has shown that the risks of transmitting the virus in schools can be
mitigated by implementing infection prevention measures, by improving school
ventilation, and through ongoing risk assessment (American Academy of
Pediatrics [AAP], 2021). Teaching children proper handwashing techniques and
how to properly wear and maintain face masks, along with physical distancing
and ongoing testing for the virus, can reduce transmission in schools. Pedagogical
strategies for health and self-reporting of symptoms, along with contingency
plans for when the virus is detected, also will help reduce transmission. When
these measures are implemented consistently and with fidelity, there is no greater
risk of infection in schools than in any other public place. The benefits of these
precautions can far outweigh any costs of the protective measures.
Academic Achievement
A recent U.S. study of academic performance examined the impact of the pan-
demic on student achievement. The study suggested that scores in math are fall-
ing behind for all students in grades 3 through 8, but differences are more
pronounced in racial/ethnic groups (Kuhfeld et al., 2020). Although the differ-
ences were not enough to draw definitive conclusions, the study noted this was
likely due to missing data from disadvantaged and lower socioeconomic student
groups. These groups did not participate in the study due to impacts of the pan-
demic; therefore, the authors cautioned against drawing any conclusions from
the study and suggested that the impacts of COVID-19 on student achievement
were likely underestimated (Kuhfeld et al., 2020, p. 8).
Clearly, the evidence suggests that schools need to prioritize the declining
math skills, but getting students back into an educational routine is the first step.
The longer the school is disrupted, the wider the achievement gaps become, and
they likely will be worse for students who already were struggling. Schools will
need to ensure equitable access to high-quality instruction with mixed-level
grouping between and within classes. Differentiating support for individual stu-
dents and allowing them to move in and out of flexible interventions will help
close the gaps in math and in other academic areas (Kuhfeld et al., 2020, p. 9).
Marginalized and Disadvantaged Students

The crisis caused by the pandemic has disproportionately impacted vulnerable
populations, particularly those who have experienced a history of discrimination
and marginalization. This should come as no surprise since history has repeatedly
shown that when disasters occur, the most vulnerable populations are those who
are harmed the most. Consider what happened when Hurricane Katrina devas-
tated New Orleans, Louisiana, in 2005, or when Hurricane Harvey ravaged
Houston, Texas, in 2017. In both disasters, those who suffered the most were
those marginalized communities of lower socioeconomic status who had the least
access to resources. So, when the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the world, once
again those who were most disadvantaged became the most vulnerable. Why?
The answer is simple. Not only did these individuals have the least access to
resources, they also were more likely to have the highest rates of health problems
and lack the healthcare they needed. With COVID-19, the problem of vulnera-
bility has surfaced once again.
Higher risk for marginalized populations is not an issue of genetics; it is an
issue of vulnerability. Factors contributing to their vulnerability include, but are
not limited to, living conditions, economic circumstances, access to healthcare
and nutrition, and availability of transportation. Many marginalized individuals
are more likely to live in crowded living conditions, such as multifamily homes
with shared living spaces, and to work in low-income occupations, which often
get eliminated when there is an economic crisis. For those who remain employed,
they may work in areas considered essential services and may not have the option
of working from home to socially distance themselves. Marginalized individuals
also are less likely to own a vehicle, so they depend on public transportation to
access needed resources and places of employment. These are just some of the
challenges that marginalized individuals face with COVID-19, and without
doubt, these have contributed to its devastating impact, especially on communi-

ties of color. The death rate for Black Americans since the start of the pandemic
has been three times higher than the rate for White populations, and the hospi-
talization rate has been slightly more than 3.5 times higher. According to
Gaylord-Harden et al. (2020), “Black Americans are more likely to be underin-
sured, receive low-quality healthcare, live in food deserts, and be exposed to
indoor and outdoor environmental toxins, all of which are linked to underlying
health conditions that heighten risk for COVID-19.” A similar impact has been
observed in the Latino community, where the death rate has been approximately
three times higher than that of White populations, and the hospitalization rate
has been four times higher (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC],
2020a). Latinos have the highest uninsured rates of any racial or ethnic group
within the United States, and a high rate of chronic health problems such as
obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and liver disease. These
factors make Latinos particularly vulnerable to the impact of the virus on their
health, and it increases the likelihood of mortality.
Native Americans also were hit hard by the pandemic. At the time of this writ-
ing, COVID-19 infection rates were almost two times higher than those of White
populations, and the mortality rate was 2.6 times higher (CDC, 2020a). In
October 2020, the Navajo Nation, which is the largest reservation in the United
States, had a higher per capita COVID-19 death rate than any U.S. state. The
reservation, which stretches across the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah,
has 156,000 residents, and children are 3.5 times more likely to live in poverty.
Large portions of the Navajo Nation lack access to basic needs, with approxi-
mately 30% of homes having no running water and 27% having no electricity.
Furthermore, with only 13 grocery stores spanning the 27,000 square miles of
the reservation, access to food is a real challenge (Wagner & Grantham-
Philips, 2020). With high rates of health problems, conditions of poverty, and a
healthcare system that has chronically been underfunded, the Native American
community was ill-equipped to handle the number of COVID-19 cases it
received. The disproportionate support for healthcare from the U.S. government
only underscored the intensity of the problem.
Systemic disparities and discrimination have long been challenges for Native
Americans. In 2016, healthcare expenditures for this population were $2,834 per
person compared with $9,990 per person for the rest of the nation. Likewise, in
2017, expenditures were $3,332 per person compared with $9,207 per person for
others (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2018). Economic relief for Native
Americans also illuminates the deep disparities that exist. For example, when the
U.S. Congress passed a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus package to help U.S. citizens
with economic relief, Native Americans had to sue the federal government to get
their relief. The U.S. Treasury Department had allowed Alaska Native corporations,
which operate for profit, to apply for a portion of the $8 billion that were designated
for tribal governments. As a result of the suit, a federal court issued a temporary
injunction ordering the U.S. Treasury to stop the transfer of funds to these corpora-
tions (Walker & Cochrane, 2020). Native Americans did not receive their stimulus
funds until months later, long after the rest of the nation had received theirs.
Children who live in marginalized communities are more likely to suffer nega-
tive effects to their physical, social, and emotional well-being. For students who
also are non-English speaking or have a disability, the impact is likely to be com-
pounded. For schools, this is likely to mean there will be an increased need to
ensure access to basic resources such as food, clothing, shelter, and safety. The
need for emotional supports and/or mental health services also should be a prior-
ity, followed by creating conditions for optimal learning. Only then can schools
begin to address any gaps in achievement.
Children With Disabilities
Children with disabilities have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic. For these
students, school closings have translated into a loss of structure and routine, which
is a critical need for many of these students. It also has resulted in a change to the
direct services the students were receiving. In the United States, schools have
remained legally obligated to service these students, but many of the services were
designed for a typical learning environment, not a virtual environment. Thus,
adaptations were made to students’ programs to allow services to be delivered virtu-
ally. In many cases, this translated into a reduction in the frequency and amount of
services the students had been receiving. Only in the most severe cases were services
likely to remain the same and be delivered in a face-to-face environment, which was
most likely the student’s home. The implications of these changes are that students
may not have progressed as would be expected, despite their disability, and this
places schools at risk of having to defend their decisions through legal proceedings.
Schools also may be at risk of legal recourse due to having completed fewer evalua-
tions of students suspected of having a disability. In large part, this was due to the
nature of evaluation tests, which primarily are designed for in-person administra-
tion. The implications are that schools are more likely to have a backlog of cases,
which potentially will delay services for many students yet to be identified. This
backlog can make schools more vulnerable to legal recourse from parents.
Attending to Student Voices

Soliciting young people’s input is another area in which schools, families, com-
munities, and policy makers would be advised to attend. Allowing students to
express their concerns about the pandemic not only helps schools know what
areas students view as most critical, but also sends the message that the students
are valued and their voices are being heard. As an example, student feedback was
solicited by the World Health Organization (2020) at a virtual, high-level meet-
ing, and it provided insight into the areas in which young people are most wor-
ried. What was discovered at the meeting was that students are worried not only
about the immediate impact on their learning and well-being, but also about
their long-term plans. Their preparation for the workforce, college entrance
exams, and attendance at college has been negatively affected. Similarly, they feel
pressured to complete their learning in a shorter amount of time and without
adequate instruction. Many have reported a lack of access to technology and
internet connection, and thus do not feel properly educated. For schools, this
translates into a need to evaluate each student’s needs, ensure access to the needed
resources, and develop programming that reflects the most essential require-
ments. Engaging students in the process will offer additional insight and ensure
a proactive approach.
Mental Health
The crisis of the pandemic has taken a toll on mental health, and young people
are among the most afflicted. The CDC reported that the proportion of chil-
dren’s mental health–related visits to hospital emergency rooms increased at the
beginning of April 2020 and remained elevated through October 2020. When
compared with the rates in 2019, the proportion of mental health–related visits
for children aged 5–11 years increased approximately 24%, while the increase for
children aged 12–17 years increased by about 31% (Leeb et al., 2020). The men-
tal health crisis that existed prior to the pandemic appears to have intensified for
this population, and the need for expanded supports and services, particularly
suicide prevention services, is more critical than ever. Not only is there a need to
ameliorate children’s emotional distress, but also there is a serious need to pro-
mote resiliency and improve their coping abilities.
While the pandemic has been traumatizing for all children and youth, not all
will have experienced the same level of trauma and to the same degree. In crisis
situations, individuals tend to respond differently to traumatic events, so the
degree of impact will be determined by how threatening the individual perceived
the event to be, and their level of physiological and psychological reaction to the
event. If the event was perceived as physically or psychologically threatening,
then the response was likely more significant, and the trauma was likely more
severe. Certain variables can mitigate the trauma’s impact, including having a
stable and supportive environment and having access to support resources. For
schools, this will require staff to be trained in how to recognize the signs of
trauma and how to implement trauma-informed teaching practices. Schools also
will need to ensure that the learning environment is supportive and nurturing,
and that children feel they belong and are safe, both physically and psychologi-
cally. Routines and expectations will reduce uncertainty for these students and
lessen their anxieties. It also is important for schools to remember that many
students have lost family members and loved ones from COVID-19 and may be
grieving these losses for some time. Mental health services should be a critical
priority in schools.
Health, Safety, and Mortality

The risk of infection with COVID-19 has remained low for children, and the
hospitalization rate for those that have been infected has remained far lower than
the rate for adults. In the United States, less than 1% of all deaths from the virus
were individuals under the age of 21, but approximately 75% of those deaths
were among children of color (CDC, 2020b). While the virus has not directly
infected children to the degree it has infected adults, it has had an indirect impact
on their health. The economic crisis from the pandemic has forced families living
in poverty to eliminate nonessential healthcare expenses. Children living in pov-
erty have had their healthcare disrupted because these families have been forced
to eliminate noncritical care. Children in underdeveloped countries have been
affected the most, and any progress that has been made in these countries will
likely be undone. It is projected that an additional 2 million deaths of children
under the age of 5 could occur in just 12 months due to reductions in routine
healthcare and immunizations (Roberton et al., 2020).
Malnourishment is another area in which the pandemic has threatened chil-
dren’s health. Food banks in the United States have dispensed free meals and food
supplies to families of more than 17 million children since the start of the pan-
demic, which is 6 million more than the number of hungry children prior to the
pandemic (Feeding America, 2020). Many of these children lost access to free
lunches when schools closed.
Issues of child safety also have been an area of grave concern. Many children
are at increased risk for experiencing or witnessing violence in their homes from
prolonged lockdowns and school closures. As caregiver stresses increase, so does
the risk of violence to children. Furthermore, child protective services are weak-
ened when schools are closed. In a report issued by UNICEF (2020), it was noted
that 1.8 billion children currently are living in 104 countries where violence
prevention and response services have been disrupted due to the pandemic.
Getting children back in school and prevention services back in operation should
be a top priority for state and local governments. Partnering with trauma-
informed service providers to develop recovery efforts and identify children who
may have been afflicted is essential.
DEVELOPING COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
One of the fundamental concepts of an effective SEL program is that everyone is

responsible for the social and emotional development of children. Not just teachers,
counselors, or parents, but everyone. Schools should not bear this responsibility
alone, nor should families. It must be a collaborative and coordinated effort with
shared responsibility between families, communities, and policy makers. Realistically,
no individual school can provide a full continuum of programs, services, and sup-
ports because this transcends any one system’s capabilities. It truly does take a village.
If students are to become self-sufficient and contributing members of the commu-
nity, then schools, communities, and families must work together to accomplish
this, and policy makers must develop policies to support them.
Developing collaborating partnerships begins when community and family
representatives are included in the school’s SEL efforts. Representatives might
include mental health professionals, agencies, faith-based organizations, and
members of community mental health programs, juvenile justice, and child pro-
tective services. It also might include service organizations, nonprofit organiza-
tions, and businesses with a philanthropic interest in supporting the school’s and
community’s efforts.
Building a collaborative partnership will require shared accountability with
responsibilities differentiated between stakeholders. To ensure there is no duplica-
tion of services or overlap in domains of responsibility, efforts should be coordi-
nated through a systematic process that addresses the following key steps:
1. Establish a common language.

a. Ensure consistency in the understanding and use of SEL terminology.
b. Align all behaviors and actions with the school’s core values.
c. Confirm that all efforts align with the school’s vision and mission.
2. Build a common understanding.
a. Clearly articulate roles and responsibilities of all partners and what
they look like within the context of the educational setting.
b. Develop and implement communication guidelines and reporting
procedures.
3. Establish a common perspective.

a. Determine exemplary characteristics of a “best practices” model of
service delivery.
b. Identify goals and desired outcomes, and how success will be meas-
ured, shared, and celebrated.
c. Develop procedures for ongoing review and improvement.
Communication is a critical component for school–community–family part-
nerships and should be addressed as part of the systematic process. Schools should
establish clear procedures and methods for sharing information, along with an
understanding of what is to be shared and communicated, and with whom.
Fundamental to the success of any collaborative partnership is the relationship
between the partners. Therefore, time invested in developing the relationships
will increase the likelihood for continued success.
PROMISING PRACTICES
Efforts to support schools and communities with the implementation of SEL are
being embraced by many different groups and organizations. Since the onset of
the pandemic, an increasing number of efforts have been identified throughout
the United States, largely because of an increased awareness of the need for SEL
in schools. Some of the activities being witnessed have been ongoing for years,
while others are new to the SEL arena. The number of activities is continually
increasing, but the goal of this writing is not to cover all of them. Rather, the
purpose of this section is to provide a sampling of activities to illustrate how col-
laborative partnerships can strengthen and support educational efforts. A sam-
pling of national efforts will illustrate how groups are providing statewide and
districtwide support, and a sampling of local efforts will illustrate how commu-
nity groups are supporting specific school efforts.
The most notable efforts at the national level have been those of the Collaborative
for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) and the Social Emotional
Learning Alliance for the United States (SEL4US). These two organizations’
efforts will be described first, and will be followed by a showcasing of two local
efforts designed to promote and support local schools’ implementation of SEL.
National Efforts
For several years, CASEL has been supporting SEL efforts through two separate
initiatives. One is the Collaborating Districts Initiative in which the organization
has partnered with 20 school districts across the United States. The purpose of
the initiative is to support and ensure that SEL is central to the educational pro-
cess. The goal of the initiative is to support districts’ efforts to systemically imple-
ment high-quality SEL districtwide and to share efforts with others. CASEL’s
second initiative is the Collaborating States Initiative in which more than 30 U.S.
states have joined, representing more than 11,850 school districts, 67,000
schools, 2 million teachers, and 35 million students, from preschool through
high school (CASEL, 2021a, 2021b). Each state in the initiative has developed a
customized SEL plan that identifies SEL activities designed to create statewide
conditions so that educators can be effectively equipped and encouraged to sup-
port their students’ social and emotional development. In addition to these two
initiatives, CASEL supports schools and districts with a host of resources that are
made available to the public through its website.
The SEL4US has been providing support to states for several years. The
organization works to support SEL implementation in schools through an alli-
ance network of more than 20 states. Each state is committed to sustaining and
spreading the use of high-quality, equity-focused SEL at the state and commu-
nity levels by raising awareness of the benefits of SEL, promoting and supporting
effective SEL implementation, and advancing SEL-related policies and funding
(SEL4US, 2021). By connecting with one another, the state’s leaders are able to
share resources, connect to a broad network of schools and communities through-
out the United States, and promote high-quality SEL pedagogy and practice
within each member state. The organization also has a volume of resources that
are made available to the public through its website.
Local Efforts
Inspiration Ranch in Magnolia, Texas, has developed a unique, one-of-a kind
experiential program that supports a local school’s efforts to prevent students
from dropping out of school. The program integrates SEL with equine-assisted
learning (EAL) in education and is offered to at-risk students to help them prac-
tice SEL skills in an authentic setting using horses as partners. A detailed descrip-
tion of the program is provided in Rapid Reference 10.1.
The University of North Texas (UNT) Dallas College of Law in Dallas, Texas,
offers an innovative approach to legal studies that combines instruction with expe-
riential education, learning, and collaboration. Through this innovative approach,
not only do students learn legal concepts and practical aspects of the law, but also
their development of sound legal judgment is enhanced. Through engagement
with various sectors of the community, the law school provides students with an

Using EAL in Education to Promote and Support SEL in Schools
The following information is based on personal communications with D. Blackmon,

February 7, 2021.
Equine-assisted learning (EAL) in education is a promising new practice that is
well suited for helping students learn and practice social and emotional skills.
Unlike typical school-based approaches, EAL is an experiential learning program
that offers students opportunities to learn and practice SEL skills alongside a safe
relationship partner (i.e., a horse). EAL is a unique and exciting approach that
holds tremendous promise for helping students apply SEL skills to their everyday
relationships, whether at school, at home, in the workforce, or in the community.
A description of EAL is provided below and is followed by the showcasing of a
promising practice program that integrates EAL with SEL. At the time of this
writing, the program serviced high school students only, but there are other
student groups with whom the program can be applied as well. This program is
offered merely as an example of how community-based practitioners can provide
services to support a school’s SEL efforts. Although EAL programs might not be
available to many schools, there are other types of programs that could offer
creative possibilities, such as music, art, or recreational programs. Collaborative
conversations between schools and community-based practitioners are encour-
aged and might even prove beneficial.
EAL in Education
Horses have been used to deliver a variety of human services for many decades,
but the services often are widely misunderstood. Recent efforts to clarify these
services and establish common terminology were proposed by Wood et al.
(2021), and currently are being considered for adoption by the Professional
Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship* (PATH International). For the
purposes of this discussion, the newly proposed terms will be used.
Several types of services fall under the broad umbrella of equine-assisted
services (EAS), but the program described in this example is one of three distinct
types of services focusing specifically on learning. The service is termed equine-
assisted learning in education, and it is distinguished from other types of learning
services because it focuses on providing services in the context of schools and
school systems. Henceforth, EAL in education will be referred to simply as EAL. It is
described as a nontherapy service that promotes academic and character
development, along with the development of relevant life skills such as problem
solving and critical thinking (Wood et al., 2021, p. 92). Professionals who provide
these services not only must be trained and knowledgeable in learning theory and
pedagogical practices, but also must be appropriately certified in these areas.
EAL and SEL
Integrating EAL with SEL is a unique approach to learning that currently is being
provided at Inspiration Ranch in Magnolia, Texas. The program includes a certified
PATH International equine specialist in mental health and learning, and two mental
health and learning professionals. It offers a 6-week curriculum that was devel-
oped and aligned with the SEL framework of the CASEL. The five core compe-
tencies identified in the framework serve as the curriculum’s roadmap, and the
program of instruction is aligned through weekly activities and tasks that employ
both EAL and SEL strategies. The overarching goal of the EAL program is to
establish and maintain relationships through connection with equine partners and
the learning team. All activities are aligned with this goal and guided by the CASEL
core competencies.
The program is under the professional direction of Mental Health Program
Coordinator Debbie Blackmon, who is licensed as a mental health service
provider for independent practice and as a specialist in school psychology. She is
also a certified teacher, a certified teacher of the deaf, and a certified early
childhood educator. In addition, she has been trained in trauma-informed practices
and EAP. Her 30-year background, experiences, and knowledge of pedagogy and
practice offer a unique perspective for the program.
Through a collaborative partnership with the local school district, the program
offers services for a fixed duration (i.e., 6 weeks) to students who are at risk for
dropping out of high school. Six students are selected to participate, and they
each attend the program once a week until completion. The counselor at the high
school serves as the school’s main point of contact as well as the case manager
for the students. Weekly communication of the students’ progress is provided to
the counselor by the EAL program coordinator, who also provides direct EAL
services to the students and serves as their case manager for the program.
EAL and SEL in Action
The program at Inspiration Ranch is trauma informed, and is grounded in research
on SEL, EAL, and the neurobiological impact of trauma. One of the purposes of
the program is to help students better understand the five core competencies of
SEL as they relate to relationship building and to give them an actual experience
to intentionally practice the skills with a safe relationship partner (their chosen
horse). The key characteristics of the program are described below and are
followed by a description of the 6-week program of instruction.
Program Characteristics
• Trauma informed:
A trauma-informed practice is based on an understanding of how trauma
affects the brain and body. Two impacts of trauma are that: (a) It results in a
breakdown of the ability to regulate internal states, and (b) the physiological
effects of trauma result in pervasive problems in relationships with self and
others (Jobe et al., 2021).
The underlying principles of trauma-informed practices are blended into

every aspect of the EAL program. Trauma-informed practices do not focus on
what may be wrong with a client. The emphasis is on what has happened to the
client, and what the client needed to do to survive. The awareness of when an
individual (human or equine) is functioning from a place of survival rather than
from a fully integrated brain is core to the EAL and SEL program. The program
incorporates the concept of neuroception, which is a term used to describe
how humans respond to situations they perceive as safe, dangerous, or
life-threatening (Porges, 2011). One of the objectives of the program is to
teach students to identify how their nervous systems are responding to the
interactions with the horses. In a practice that began during the self-awareness
part of the curriculum, students are supported while they take note of whether
they and the horses are in a state of safety, danger, or life threat, and the impact
each state has on the relationship.
• Equines as relationship partners
The EAL program at Inspiration Ranch is designed to provide students with the
experience of building a healthy relationship with an equine partner through
the application of specific SEL skills and an understanding of specific relationship
principles. Equines are well suited to the trauma-informed EAL and SEL
program in several ways.
1. The mammalian nervous system is similar across species. Horses’ nervous
systems respond in ways that are like those of humans. Sympathetic,
parasympathetic, and blended responses can be seen and recognized in both.
2. Horses, like humans, are highly social with their own social rules and
communication and interaction styles. They rely on a herd to survive and
demonstrate the mammalian need for connection very clearly. Horses are
identified as an example of cultural diversity in this program.
3. Horses are generally authentic in their responses and will allow for repair
after a relational rupture. The experience of making a mistake in a relation-
ship, then repairing it for the good of the relationship, is a very powerful one.
• Relationship principles
Instruction and learning are the focus of the EAL program, not therapy. The
program is a blend of the core relationship principles of Natural Lifemanship,
which is a trauma-focused psychotherapy and trauma-informed learning model
(Jobe et al., 2021). Natural Lifemanship is a relational model that emphasizes
that connection is always the goal. Three of the core principles of Natural
Lifemanship are incorporated into the program:
1. A good principle is a good principle, regardless of where it is applied. Good
relationship skills, such as the SEL core competencies, help build and
strengthen relationships with horses and humans.
2. What is good for only one is eventually not good for anyone. We are careful
not to interact in ways that meet our needs at the expense of others.
3. Healthy secure relationships are the vehicle for growth and change. The need
for connection is recognized as paramount and is well demonstrated by
horses’ connections with each other and their willingness to connect with
humans.
• Bottom-up model for regulation
The bottom-up approach to regulation is based on the Neurosequential Model
of Therapeutics developed by psychiatrist Bruce Perry. The basic principle
underlying the model is that the reasoning part of a child’s brain cannot be
reached if it is dysregulated and disconnected. So, the model proposes that
reasoning occurs only after the child is calm, regulated, and connected through
an attuned and sensitive relationship (Perry, 2019). The team at Inspiration
Ranch has applied their understanding of this model by emphasizing the
importance of rhythmic, predictable, patterned sensory input to help organize
the survival parts of the brain so that it can connect to others and then think
and solve problems. This is incorporated into the portion of the curriculum that
emphasizes self-management.
Six-Week Program of Instruction
• Week 1: General overview: Week 1 provides an overview of the program,
what to expect, and how skills will be taught. Students meet the horses and
learn basic information about horse culture, communication, and behavior, Prior
to the first meeting, students complete a questionnaire about where they think
they are with each of the five core competencies. This, along with teacher
ratings, is used for baseline data.
• Week 2: Self-awareness: Defined as physical awareness, and awareness of
thoughts, feelings, sensations, and state (i.e., safe, dangerous, or life-threatening).
Interactions during week 2 focus on getting acquainted with the program,
understanding expectations, developing a social contract for how students will
interact with each other and with the horses for emotional and social safety,
and selecting an equine relationship partner through a felt sense of connection.
Students are taught to be aware of where their body and feet are in relation to
the horse as an entry point into self-awareness. They also are taught to notice
their physical sensations, and their thoughts and emotions, as they enter and
exit interactions with horses. They are supported to be aware of congruence,
which is the match between what is happening inside a person and what is
showing on the outside.
• Week 3: Self-management: Defined as finding rhythm and continuing to
develop congruence. Week 3 interactions focus on continuing to build the
relationship that began with the selected horse. The importance of moving and
acting in a rhythmic and predictable manner is emphasized. Students are
encouraged to notice the impact of rhythm and predictability on their own

nervous system and the developing relationship. Noticing and creating congru-
ence continue to be emphasized during this session. Students are encouraged
to share, not hide, their feelings with their equine relationship partners. They
are taught that horses experience hidden feelings as predatory energy; this can
rupture the relationship in the same way it can with humans.
• Week 4: Social awareness: Defined as perspective taking. At this point in the
program, students have been with their horses three times, and a relationship has
begun. So, the next three sessions are a combination of social awareness, relation-
ship skills, and responsible decision making because they are interconnected skills.
The concept of diversity is introduced in week 4, and the horses are used to
illustrate this.The horse culture, with its different language, social rules, and social
expectations, is used as an example of cultural diversity. Students are taught to
recognize and see things from the horse’s point of view (i.e., perspective taking) and
to learn how to communicate with the horse using the horse’s language (i.e., body
language). Additional time is spent in the pasture observing herd dynamics this
week. Students are encouraged to be aware of all relationships in the pasture,
including human–human, horse–horse, and horse–human, and to understand that
each relationship impacts the overall dynamic.This concept is directly tied to social
environments in a school, such as a classroom or the school cafeteria.
• Week 5: Relationship skills: Based on Natural Lifemanship principles
(Jobe et al., 2021, p. 25). Interactions during week 5 incorporate principles from
Natural Lifemanship to create a framework for interacting with others. Students
are taught that relationships begin with a request. Requests must be fair and
communicated clearly. Additional principles are taught to enable students to
have a reciprocal interaction with horses following a request in which each
partner can make decisions and express an opinion.
• Week 6: Responsible decision making: Based on Natural Lifemanship
principles. This is the last session of the series. By this time, students have had
several interactions with their chosen relationship partner, and this relationship
has grown. The emphasis of this week is based on the Natural Lifemanship
principle “What is good for one is eventually not good for anyone” (Jobe et al.,
2021, p. 25). Students are encouraged to think about the requests they make
and the decisions they make about interactions based on what is good for the
relationship. They are encouraged to notice when they are making decisions
based solely on their needs and preferences or solely on their perception of
the horse’s needs and preferences.
*The Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship International (PATH

International) is a federally registered 501(c3) nonprofit organization. It is the credentialing
organization that accredits equine centers and certifies instructors and equine specialists.
It was formed in 1969 as the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association to
promote EAS for individuals with special needs.
array of opportunities to learn and apply skills as they address issues related to the
practice of law. As part of the experiential program, the law school has developed
collaborative relationships with several school districts within the Dallas metro-
plex. Through these relationships, law students are afforded a unique opportunity
to work directly with juvenile clients, while also learning about SEL and school
culture. To learn more about the UNT Dallas College of Law experiential pro-
gram as it relates to schools, please see Rapid Reference 10.2.

Integrating SEL Into Jurisprudence and Juvenile Court Cases
The following information is based on personal communications with A.
Downes, February 11, 2021.
Rationale for the Program

Student involvement with the legal system has increased significantly over the past
several decades. From 1960 to 2013, juvenile court delinquency caseloads more
than doubled (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2015). In 2013, more than 31 million
youth were under juvenile court jurisdiction. Of these 31 million, 79% were
between the ages of 10 and 15, 12% were age 16, and 9% were age 17 (p. 8), and
males made up 72% of all cases (p. 12). By race, the total delinquency case rate
was highest for Black juveniles, with a rate of 74.3 (per 1,000). This was more than
double the rate of 27.4 (per 1,000) for White juveniles (p. 20). Case rates for
Black males were higher than those for all other racial groups, regardless of
offense (p. 26).
Although juvenile arrests have declined since 2009 (down by about 60%), there
remain a high number of juveniles that encounter the legal system each year. For
example, in 2018, there were 728,280 children arrested in the United States
(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018). When arrested,
children often are interrogated by police without representation of an attorney,
and many times they plead guilty without fully understanding the consequences of
doing so. They also face fines and fees that, for children in poverty, lead to financial
strain for the parents who may also be made responsible for payment. In some
circumstances, juvenile offenders may be ordered to a detention center when
other rehabilitative methods have been exhausted. Typically, these children enter a
criminal justice system in which navigation is extremely overwhelming for the
children and their families, and for which policies and legal practices are discrimi-
nately unfair, particularly for children of color.
To address some of these issues, the experiential program at the UNT Dallas
College of Law provides law students with guidance and mentoring as they apply
learned skills in working with juvenile clients in the community. Under the
supervision of licensed attorneys in the clinical faculty, the students provide a
much-needed legal service to juveniles and their families, and to the schools that
service them.
About the Program
The UNT Dallas College of Law Experiential Education program encompasses
the clinical programs and provides law students with opportunities to work with
actual clients through the Community Lawyering Center and the Joyce Ann
Brown Innocence Clinic. Students enrolled in the law school are required to
complete the community engagement program and provide monthly volunteer
support to community and legal nonprofit partners. The director of the
Experiential Education program is Cheryl Wattley, and the assistant director is
Angela Downes, both professors at UNT Dallas College of Law.
In addition to her role as assistant director, Professor Downes also serves as a
municipal court judge in a Dallas-area community. It is in this role that she
frequently encounters juveniles who have been arrested, with a large percentage
of them being children of color (i.e., Black and Latinx). The cases frequently involve
an assault for pushing or fighting, with a Class C misdemeanor ticket being issued
as a result. The assaults may or may not have occurred at school, but regardless of
where they occurred, schools are often involved. Consequently, there also may be
some type of disciplinary action on the school’s part, depending on the type of
assault. For a large majority of the cases, there are extenuating circumstances
related to the assault. Most of these young people, through no fault of their own,
are living in difficult situations in which supervision is inadequate and conditions
are poor. The behaviors that get them arrested are simply manifestations of other,
underlying issues such as mental illness, environmental conditions, or poverty. For
many of the children, they lack social and emotional skills; thus, SEL is an area that
receives a great deal of focus from Professor Downes and her students. SEL is
seen as an approach that can help get these young people back on track and out
of the school-to-prison pipeline. The key to making that happen, however, is
getting an attorney involved with each juvenile’s case.
The Program in Action
The juvenile justice system can be an overwhelming and frightening experience for
juveniles and their families. One of the goals of the college’s program is to provide
legal support for these individuals and help them navigate through the often
complex legal process. Although there generally is agreement that children should
be held accountable for their behavior, the intent of the juvenile justice system is not
viewed through a lens of punishment. Rather, it is viewed primarily through a
rehabilitative lens. The punishable offense committed by the juvenile is viewed as an
opportunity to address the issues that may be underlying the behavior. It is from this
perspective that the UNT Dallas College of Law’s experiential training program
operates. Law students in the program work closely with families and schools to
help identify the underlying issues and help shepherd the juvenile along a different
path. They employ different strategies in this process, including conflict resolution,
mediation, and restorative practices. They work with schools to keep them informed
of the juvenile’s case and of any needs that may have been identified for which the
school can assist. They also recognize that the situations in which these juveniles are
involved often are fragile, and their family resources and coping abilities are
frequently stretched very thin. Consequently, they may work with the school and
the courts to identify additional supports for the student.
Program Benefits
In addition to the benefits already discussed, the program works closely with
schools to provide guidance on changes in laws that impact education. For
example, in 2015, the Texas legislature passed new legislation that changed how
schools can address truancy. The new statute prohibited schools from issuing Class
C misdemeanor tickets to students. Instead, truancy became a civil offense called
truant conduct. The implications of the new law meant that schools in Texas had
to change their attendance and discipline policies and practices, and develop
truancy prevention programs. The UNT Dallas College of Law provided guidance
to schools on interpreting and applying the new law, to ensure their compliance
with its requirements, thus eliminating the inappropriate and illegal practice of
issuing Class C tickets on school property.
Judges who have had interactions with the UNT Dallas College of Law’s
Community Lawyering Center have given positive reviews and sometimes have
appointed the clinic to work with juvenile clients. These judges like having an
avenue through which young people can get assistance, particularly when it comes
to giving them legal advice because they (i.e., the judges) are unable to do so. The
assistance provided by the program ensures judges that these young clients and
their families are getting the legal assistance they need and are getting help with
navigating the court system.
Of all the benefits offered by the program, however, perhaps the most powerful
is the support provided to the parents/guardians of the juveniles. Many of these
individuals are sole providers for their children, so taking off work to attend court
hearings costs them income they cannot afford to lose. They also must struggle
with other challenges, such as securing childcare for siblings or obtaining transpor-
tation to the court hearing. These challenges are in addition to that of finding
money to pay any legal fines or fees. Furthermore, the stress caused by the
uncertainty and fear of the situation has them stretched to a point where they feel
powerless. They often report that no one in the legal system seems to care about
their challenges and has never asked about their needs, that is, until they met the
law students at the UNT Dallas College of Law Community Lawyering Center.
CONCLUSIONS
Clearly, the impact that COVID-19 has had on children’s lives has been far-reaching,
and the full impact is not likely to be known for decades, or perhaps generations, to
come. For now, one thing is certain: Children will not leave these problems behind
when they come into the classroom. Whether it is a physical classroom or a virtual
classroom, the problems will permeate the learning environment. Schools must be
prepared to address these problems because the extent of what they will encounter has
yet to be fully realized. They cannot do this alone, nor should they. Families, com-
munities, and policy makers must step forward and help. They must support schools
and children with the resources they will need to lift them beyond the trauma and
suffering, and into a future where they can flourish and thrive. As John Richardson
Jr., professor in international development, once stated, “When it comes to the future,
there are three kinds of people: those who let it happen, those who make it happen,
and those who wonder what happened.” This is not a time for complacency. Everyone
must step forward and make things happen for these children.
TEST YOURSELF
1. The responsibility for SEL rests primarily with whom?

(a) Teachers
(b) Schools
(c) Families
(d) Everyone
2. COVID-19 has created the largest disruption to education in history.
The longer schools stay closed, the higher the risk for what?
(a) Students dropping out of school
(b) Students losing job skills
(c) Schools losing parent support
3. The Kuhfeld et al. (2020) study examined the impact of the pandemic
on achievement, and found that the area in which students in grades 3
through 8 were falling behind the most was what?
(a) Reading
(b) Language arts
(c) Math
(d) Science
4. Marginalized students, especially students of color, are more likely to

have higher rates of health problems from COVID-19 because of their
genetic makeup.
(a) True
(b) False
5. Marginalized students are more likely to suffer the negative effects of
the pandemic, and these can be compounded by what?
(a) Poverty
(b) Exposure to violence
(c) Language
6. In the United States, school closures meant that schools were not
obligated to provide services to students with disabilities.
(a) True
(b) False
7. When students provided feedback regarding their concerns about
school closings, they were mostly concerned with what?
(a) Not being prepared for college entrance exams
(b) Not being prepared for entering college
(c) Not being properly educated
8. The pandemic has been traumatizing for all students but to different
degrees. Consequently, teachers are likely to need training on trauma-
informed practices.
(a) True
(b) False
9. Children’s safety has been threatened by the pandemic primarily
because of what?
(a) School closures
(b) Loss of violence and prevention response services
(c) Caregiver stresses
10. Fundamental to the success of any collaborative partnership is what?
(a) Relationships
(b) A common language
(c) Clearly articulated roles and responsibilities
(d) Procedures for ongoing review
Answers: 1, d; 2, a; 3, c; 4, b; 5, c; 6, b; 7, d; 8, a; 9, d; 10, a
REFERENCES
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2021). COVID-19 guidance for safe schools.

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-
infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-
person-education-in-schools/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020a). COVID-19 hospitaliza-
tion and death by race/ethnicity. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/
covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.
html#print
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020b). SARS-CoV-2–associated
deaths among persons aged <21 years. United States, February 12–July 31.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6937e4-H.pdf
(2021a). Collaborating Districts Initiative (CDI). https://casel.org/
partner-district/
(2021b). Collaborating States Initiative (CSI). https://casel.org/
collaborative-state-initiative/
Feeding America. (2020). The impact of the coronavirus on food insecurity in
2020. https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/Brief_
Local%20Impact_10.2020_0.pdf
Gaylord-Harden, N., Adams-Bass, V., Bogan, E., Francis, L., Scott, J., Seaton,
E., & Williams, J. (2020). Addressing inequities in education: Considerations
for Black children and youth in the era of COVID-19. Statement of the
Evidence. Society for Research in Child Development. https://www.srcd.org/
research/addressing-inequities-education-during-covid-19-pandemic-
how-education-policy-and-schools
Hockenberry, S., & Puzzanchera, C. (2015). Juvenile court statistics, 2013.
National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/library/
publications/juvenile-court-statistics-2013
Jobe, T., Shultz-Jobe, B., McFarland, L., & Naylor, K. (2021). Natural
Lifemanship’s Trauma Focused Equine Assisted Psychotherapy (TF-EAP) and
Trauma Informed Equine Assisted Learning (TI-EAL). Natural Lifemanship.
Kuhfeld, M., Tarasawa, W., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Lewis, K. (2020).
Learning during COVID-19: Initial findings on student’s reading and math
achievement and growth. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/
publication/learning-during-covid-19-initial-findings-on-students-reading-
and-math-achievement-and-growth/
Leeb, R., Bitsko, R., Radhakrishnan, L., Martinez, P., Njai, R., & Holland, K.
(2020). Mental health-related emergency department visits among children
ages <18 years during the COVID-19 pandemic–United States, January 1–
October 17. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69, 1675–1680. http://
doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a3
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2018). Law enforcement
and juvenile crime: Juvenile arrests. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/
qa05101.asp?qaDate=2018&text=yes
Perry, B. (2019). The three R’s: Reaching the learning brain [Infographic].
Beacon House. https://beaconhouse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
The-Three-Rs.pdf
Porges, S. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of
emotions, attachment, communication, self-regulation. W. W. Norton.
Roberton, T., Carter, E., Chou, V., Stegmuller, A., Jackson, B., Tam, Y.,
Sawadogo, L., & Walker, N. (2020). Early estimates of the indirect effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child mortality in low-income
and middle-income countries: A modelling study. Lancet Global Health, 8,
e901–e908. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30229-1
Social-Emotional Learning Alliance for the United States. (2021). https://
sel4us.org
UNICEF. (2020). COVID-19 and children. https://data.unicef.org/covid-19-
and-children/
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2018). Broken promises: Continuing federal
funding shortfall for Native Americans. https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-
20-Broken-Promises.pdf
Wagner, W., & Grantham-Philips, W. (2020, October 20). Still killing us: The
federal government underfunded health care for Indigenous people for
centuries. Now they’re dying of COVID-19. USA Today. https://www.
usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2020/10/20/
native-american-navajo-nation-coronavirus-deaths-underfunded-health-
care/5883514002/
Walker, M., & Cochrane, E. (2020, May 1). Native American tribes sue
treasury over stimulus aid as they feud over funding. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/us/politics/coronavirus-native-
american-tribes-treasury-stimulus.html
Wood, W., Alm, K., Benjamin, J., Thomas, L., Anderson, D., Pohl, L., &
Kane, M. (2021). Optimal terminology for services in the United States that
incorporate horses to benefit people: A consensus document. The Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 27(1), 88–95. https://doi.
org/10.1089/acm.2020.0415
World Health Organization. (2020). Youth perspectives in focus at high-level

meeting on schooling during COVID-19 pandemic. World Health
Organization, Regional Office for Europe. https://www.euro.who.int/en/
health-topics/Life-stages/child-and-adolescent-health/news/news/2020/12/
youth-perspectives-in-focus-at-high-level-meeting-on-schooling-during-
covid-19-pandemic
World Health Organization. (2021). COVID-19 and children. World Health
Organization, Regional Office for Europe. https://www.euro.who.int/en/
health-topics/Life-stages/child-and-adolescent-health/covid-19-and-children
INDEX
academic achievement 385–386 equitable educational

academic instruction 3, 5, 130, 230, opportunities 360–361
238, 360 equity 337
add‐on program 5, 9, 16, 383 evaluation 338
adolescents 90–93, 95–96, 161, 269 high‐stakes decisions 336
adverse childhood experience (ACE) indirect assessment 341
11, 42, 95 informed consent 337
American Institutes for Research instructional practices 361
(AIR) 238 learning needs 361
amygdala 67–69, 73–74 legal issues 337
Anchorage School District 11 measurement 338
assessment, aligning primary and secondary
age groups 336–337 targets 357–360
application programming interface self‐awareness competencies
(API) 347 367–374
assessment 338, 340–341 social teaching practices 361–362
assessment limitations 336 step‐by‐step approach 339–341
assessment process 336, 338–339 supports 361
broad assessment 337 systems 361
competencies 336, 339–340, Attentional Teaching Practices (ATP),
348–353 University of Pittsburgh 9–10
conduct 353–354 attention‐deficit/hyperactivity
data analyze 354 disorder (ADHD) 161
developmental curriculum
365–366 behavior
developmental perspectives children with 161
336–337 classroom management 4
diagnostic purposes 336 emotions 58
direct assessment 341 mental health 98
407
408 Index
behavior (cont’d) education 3, 133, 137, 326

positive behavior interventions and mental health 90, 389–390
supports 10 safety issues 390
social behavior 14 trauma 90
strategies 57 youth 30–32
student behavior 142, 151 cognitive flexibility 74–75, 78
Belfield, C. 144 cognitive thinking 74
Bergman, P. 105 Collaborative for Academic, Social,
Blackmon, D. 394–395 and Emotional Learning
bottom‐up approach 397 (CASEL) 5–8, 12, 139–141,
brain 238, 239, 260, 365, 377,
brain stem 67 392–393, 395
cerebellum 76–77 emergence of 45–47
cortex 69–76 collaborative partnerships 391–392
limbic system 67–69 Comer School Development
nervous system 63 Program 45–47
neurochemical aspects 63 Committee for Children 13, 377
stem 67 Common Core State Standards
Building Blocks for Learning Initiative 14
framework 12 communications 66, 218, 392
competencies 11–12, 240
cascading 108 Comprehensive School Climate
cell differentiation 65–66 Inventory (CSCI) 176
cell proliferation 64–65 conceptualization 241
cells, migration of 65 consensus 13–16, 223–224
Center for Reaching and Teaching the convolutions 65
Whole Child (CRTWC), San core values 169–170
Jose State University 9 cortex 69–76
Centers for Disease Control and cost–benefit analysis 136
Prevention (CDC) 36, 93, 161 COVID‐19 pandemic
cerebellum 76–77 academic achievement 385–386
children adversity 41–44
adolescents 90–91, 94 children with disabilities 388
child abuse 11 health 390–391
chronic trauma 68 inflammatory syndrome, young
COVID‐19 pandemic 96, people 30
385–391 local efforts 393–401
diagnosed 20 marginalized and disadvantaged
disabilities 388 students 386–388
Index 409
mental health 389–390 data‐planning process 219

mental illness 31 anticipated outcome 224
mortality 390–391 goal 224
national efforts 392–393 learning needs assessment
partnerships 391–392 227–233
physical safety 31 support systems 233–234
promising practices 392 system review 225–227
re‐opening of schools 32 triangulated approach 224–225
safety 390–391 deaths of despair 42
sanitized environments 32 decision making 5, 224
school closings 385 data‐driven 235
school safety, exclusionary data‐informed decisions 234, 235
discipline practices on 32–41 data‐inspired 235
social isolation 31 responsible 8, 398
student voices, attending dendrites 66
to 388–389 deprivation 85
trauma 41–44 Developmental Assets®
criterion‐referenced assessment 341 framework 236–238
cultural intelligence 62 domestic violence 11
cultural intelligence quotient dorsolateral prefrontal cortex 72
(CQ) 60 dorsomedial prefrontal cortex 72
curriculum 205–206, 228, 230, 301, Downes, A. 399–400
335, 340–341, 358, 360–367
cut scores 355 Ecological Approaches to Social
Emotional Learning (EASEL)
data‐driven decision making Laboratory 236
(DDDM) 235 economics 144–145
data‐informed decisions 219–220 ED School Climate Surveys
anticipated outcomes 234 (EDSCLS) 175
competencies 240 education see also schools
decision making 234 COVID‐19 pandemic impact
framework selecting 236–238 on 385–389
goals 234–236 deprivation 85
instructional program 238–239 equitable educational
logic model 241, 242 opportunities 100–107
priorities 234–236 equity 204–207
staff 239–240 fragmented efforts 115–116
systems alignment 240–241 funding issues 112–115
data‐inspired decision making 235 human capital 88–89
410 Index
education see also schools (cont’d) cerebellum 76–77

inequity 104 cortex 69–76
learning crisis see learning crisis distress 43
mental health 90–96 education 77–78
poverty 85 limbic system 67–69
program 3 stress 76
school safety 96–100 empathy 78
services 19 employee surveys 127
teacher preparation 107–112 engaged learners 305, 308
teacher retention 107–112 environment 228, 230–231, 301
trauma 90–96 Equine Assisted Learning (EAL)
Education for All Handicapped 393–398
Children Act (EAHCA) 114 epigenetic process 63
Education Logic Model (ELM) 150 equality 100
Elias, M. J. 47 equitable educational
emotional intelligence (EI), 10, opportunities 100–107
44–45, 168 see also emotions equity 101, 204–207
abilities 60 Equity and Excellence
academic skill development 57 Committee 106
behaviors 57–58 Every Student Succeeds Act
cognitive ability 57 (ESSA) 145
cognitive domain 58 evidence‐based practices 5, 16
cultural intelligence 62 evidenced support
definition 58–60 definition 137
emotional quotient (EQ) 60–61 economics 144–145
expression of 59 effectiveness 134–137
leaders 168 employee surveys 127
mixed models of 60 Every Student Succeeds Act
neuroscience of 62–63 (ESSA) 145
social‐emotional learning Google 127
(SEL) 60–61 logic model 147–148
social intelligence 61–62 one‐size‐fits‐all model 150
student mental health problems school leaders 139–142
58 social‐emotional skills 127
emotional quotient (EQ) 60–61 student 142–144
emotional triggers 43 teacher 137–139
emotions 78 team‐based approach 146
brain stem 67 universal intervention 128–133
brain, structures 64–66 workforce 125–127
Index 411
World Economic Forum 125–126 hippocampus 69

executive functions 43, 71–72, 74, human capital 88–89
76–78 hypothalamus 68–69
Explore Education Statistics
(EES) 269 Imagination, Cognition, and
external assets 237 Personality 58
Individuals with Disabilities
Finn, C.E. 14 Education Act of 2004
Florida School Safety Policy 39–40 (IDEA) 114
formative assessment 340 inhibitory control 74–75
Fothergill, A. 42 Inspiration Ranch 393–397
foundations instruction 228–229, 300, 305
anticipated outcome 221 instruction, curriculum, environment,
consensus 223–224 and the learner (ICEL)
goal 221 framework 295–301
steering committee 221–223 instructional program 238–239
student membership 222 intentional process 217
fragmented efforts 115–116 internal assets 237–238
free and appropriate public education interpersonal intelligence 62
(FAPE) 114 interpersonal skills 137
frontal lobes 70–71
social‐emotional components Jones, D. 137
of 74 Jurisprudence 399–401
full‐time equivalent (FTE) 102 juvenile justice system 161, 399–401
Gardner, Howard 62 Karapakula, G. 135

glial cells 64 K‐12 students 14
Goleman, Daniel 45, 60
Google 127 language 17–18
governance 88, 165–169 large‐scale implementation 245
gross domestic product (GDP) 102 leadership 165–169
learner 228, 231–232, 301
Harvard University’s Graduate School learning
of Education 12 barriers 160–164
Heckman, J. 135 Building Blocks for Learning
Hess, F.M. 14 framework 12, 24
HighScope Educational Research commitment to 237
Foundation 134 equine assisted learning (EAL)
hijacking 68 393–398
412 Index
learning (cont’d) National Center for Education

focused inputs 88 Research 76
immediate causes 87–88 National Center for Education
learning outcomes 86–88 Statistics 110, 270
needs assessment 227–233 National Commission on Social,
systemic causes 88 Emotional, and Academic
Learning Policy Institute 111 Development 47–49
Lencioni, Patrick 169 national efforts 392–393
limbic system 67–69 The National Report Card 270
little brain 77 National School Climate Center
logic model 147–148, 241, 242 99, 176
Losen, D. 107 Natural Lifemanship 396, 398
nervous system 63
malnourishment 390 neural networks 66
mammalian nervous system 396 neural tube 64
Mayer, John 58–59 neuroception 396
McFarlin, I. 105 neurodegenerative diseases 67
memories, storage of 68 neurogenesis 64–65
mental health 90–96, 389–390 neurons 64
Mental Health Among Adolescents at neuroplasticity 62–63
the Population Level Neuropsychiatric conditions 161
(MMAP) 90 neuropsychological research 45
meta‐analytic studies 128, 131–132 neuroscience 168
mindfulness education 10 neurotransmitters 66
misperceptions 16 New Haven Intervention Project 45
mortality 390–391 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
multiphase approach 235
case studies 255–261 non‐academic domains 12
checklist 250–254 non‐cognitive skills 10
communication 218 non‐school stakeholders 19
data‐informed decisions 219–220 norm‐referenced assessment 341
data‐planning process 219
foundations 219 occipital lobes 70
infrastructure developing 219 one‐size‐fits‐all model 10, 150,
planning 220, 255–261 166, 204
progressive improvement 221 orbitofrontal cortex 72
system transparency 218 Organization for Economic
multi‐tiered systems of support Cooperation and Development
(MTSS) framework 41 (OECD) 49, 101
Index 413
parents 11, 18–19, 23, 31, 44, decision‐making process 248

104–105, 126, 151, 222, 234, goal 247
340, 354, 388 planning 249
parietal lobes 70 SELFI 248
pedagogical practices 206 Promoting Social and Emotional
pediatric multisystem inflammatory Learning: Guidelines for
syndrome (PMIS) 30 Educators 47
Perry, Bruce 397 pruning 66
Perry Preschool Project 133–136, Pullman, J. 14
151
cost–benefit analysis 136 race 14
planning 220, 255–262 Rand Assessment Finder 353
anticipated outcome 244 Rand Corporation 353
goal 244 relationship management 169
implementation 244–247 relationship skills 5, 398
progressive improvement 249 The Republic 44
systematic approach 250 restorative justice 206
policy reforms 168 restorative practices 206–207
Positive Behavior Interventions and Rubric for Ten Teaching
Supports (PBIS) 10, 171, 175 Practices 377
positive identity 238 Rumberger, R. 107
positive values 237
poverty 85, 106 safe school environments 38
prefrontal cortex 71–72 safety
pre‐pandemic perspective 100 crises 310
prepared learners 87 health 390–391
preschool program 134 mortality 390–391
problem‐solving process 74 physical safety 30–31, 100
checklist for 303–304 school safety 32–41
Professional Association of Salovey, Peter 58–59
Therapeutic Horsemanship schools
International (PATH choices 105
International) 394–395, 398 climate 99, 170–204
professional learning community closings 385
(PLC) 9 communities 19, 305
Programme for International Student culture 99, 170–204
Assessment (PISA) 87 engagement 174
progressive improvement 221 environment 175
anticipated outcome 247 equity 204–207
414 Index
schools (cont’d) multiphase approach see

leaders 139–142 multiphase approach
pedagogical practices 206 system change process 217
safety 96–100, 175 World Economic Forum 49–50
service delivery process 22 Social Emotional Learning Alliance
unintended consequences 105 for the United States
violence 35 (SEL4US) 392–393
school‐to‐prison pipeline 37 Social Emotional Learning
screening assessment 341 Foundations Inventory (SELFI)
Search Institute 13 225–226
self‐awareness 5–6, 169, 397 Consolidated Findings Report
self‐control 137 316–326
self‐efficacy 132 Explore Education Statistics
SELFI see Social‐Emotional Learning (EES) 269
Foundations Inventory (SELFI) implementation plan 327–331
self‐management 5–7, 12, 169, 357, learning needs assessment
397–398 290–295
self‐reflection 302 National Center for Education
Sequenced, Active, Focused, and Statistics 270
Explicit (S.A.F.E.) 239, 361 The National Report Card 270
sexuality 14 support systems assessment
Shady Plains School District 255 295–316
shared leadership 223 templates 271–290
Shriver, T. P. 13 tools 271–295
simpler neural connections 64 U.S. Department of Education
skilled management 88 270
social awareness 4–5, 7, 169, 398 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
social cohesiveness 88 System 269
social competence 78, 238 Social‐Emotional Learning Skills
social emotional learning (SEL) Inventory Screener (SELSI®
competence 3–25 Screener)
defining 10–11 social‐emotional skills 127
emotional intelligence see Social‐Emotional Dimensions of
emotional intelligence (EI) Teaching and Learning
evidenced support see evidenced (SEDTL) 9
support social intelligence 60–62
evidence for 44 social justice 204–205
implementation plan 327–331 sociopolitical issue 38–39
instruction 335–381 soft skills 10
Index 415
solution‐focused, checklist for team‐based approach 146

303–304 temporal lobes 70
staff 239–240 Texas Collaborative for Emotional
stakeholders 19, 167 Development in Schools (TxCEDS)
commitment 164–165 background 18
governance 165–169 critical issues 20
leadership 165–169 outcomes 20–25
steering committee 221–223 process 18–20
strategic improvement plan (SIP) 241 Texas School‐Based Social/Emotional
stress 43, 68, 76 Wellness Model 21–23
student membership 222 Texas School Safety Policy 40–41
students 142–144 thalamus 69
with disabilities 36, 37, 58, 106, Thapa, A. 99, 173
114, 204, 205, 207, 354, 388 theory of multiple intelligences 59
malnourished 390 three‐step process 18–25
marginalized and disadvantaged training 111, 132
337, 386–388 transformational change 217
voices 223, 307, 358, 359, 388–389 transformative leaders 167
suicide 161 transitions 305, 309
summative assessment 341 transparency 12, 165–166
support systems 233–234 trauma 43, 90–96
systematic approach 250 trauma‐informed practice 395–396
systemic educational inequities 106 triangulated approach 224–225
system‐level change 165
system review 225–227 UNESCO Institute for Statistics
systems alignment 240–241 (UIS) 100
systems perspective 89 United Nations Children’s Fund
system transparency 218 (UNICEF) 90, 390
University of British Columbia’s
Taxonomy Project 13 Department of Educational and
teachers Counseling Psychology and
preparation 107–112 Special Education 8
retention 107–112 University of North Texas (UNT)
self‐efficacy 132 Dallas College of Law 393,
students 4 399–401
teacher‐preparation programs 8 University of North Texas (UNT)
teaching Dallas College of Law
barriers 160–164 Community Lawyering
effective 87–88 Center 401
416 Index
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 36 whole‐school approach 131

U.S. Department of Education 270 workforce 125–127
working memory 74–75
values 172 World Bank 89
ventrolateral prefrontal cortex 72 World Economic Forum 11, 49–50,
ventromedial prefrontal cortex 72 125–126
World Health Organization 389
Weikart, David P. 134
Weissberg, R. P. 13, 47 Yale Child Study Center 45
Western Psychological Services (WPS), Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
375. (YRBS) 36, 93, 269
white matter 70
whole‐child approach 168, 236 zero tolerance 36, 97
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.

Essentials: Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essentials: Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21 mm 216 x 140 mm

PSYCHOLOGY/Assessment, Testing & Measurement

Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Essentials of 16PF® Assessment Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention

The Complete Guide for Schools and Practitioners

Donna Lord Black

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data

Name: Black, Donna Lord (Psychologist), author.

Cover Design: Wiley

About the Companion Website xv

Section I Emergence of Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

One Defining Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Two Historical Influences on the Emergence of SEL29

Three Emotional Intelligence and its Role in SEL57

Section II SEL – The Missing Link in Education 83

Four Current Challenges in Education 85

Five Evidenced Support for SEL 125

Six Making the Case for SEL 159

Section III SEL as a Sustainable Framework for Success 213

Seven Getting Started: A Multiphase Approach to

Eight Tools, Templates, and Checklists 267

Nine Aligning SEL Assessment With Instruction

Ten SEL: A Roadmap for a World at Hope 383

In Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL), the author captures the

Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, and

This book is accompanied by a companion website:

EMERGENCE OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL

DEFINING SOCIAL EMOTIONAL

ineffective and inefficient m ­ anner. It is not uncommon, for example, for a

Rapid Reference 1.1 CASEL’s SEL

Promote SEL for RELATIONSHIP

Source: Core SEL Competencies, from CASEL. © 2017, CASEL.

Seeking or offering support and help when needed

Rapid Reference 1.2 Exemplary

Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child (CRTWC),

Attentional Teaching Practices (ATP), University of Pittsburgh

self‐regulation strategies to increase their own self‐awareness and recognize their

Establishing the Critical Areas of Competence

which it is difficult to “wrap one’s head around.” As previously mentioned, this

Consensus About SEL

Rapid Reference 1.3 Seven

7. In celebrating “evidence‐based” practices and encouraging further

THE NEED FOR A COMMON LANGUAGE, A COMMON

Rapid Reference 1.4 Three‐Step

Source: An Introduction to Social‐Emotional Wellness in Texas Schools, A Guide for Schools,

APPLICATION OF THE THREE‐STEP PROCESS: A CASE

The following serves as an illustration of just how critically important it is to

Case Example:Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development

Critical Issues Identified

­ olicies, or regulations that might have created limitations, constraints, or unin-

Rapid Reference 1.5 Texas

• Community involvement and civic responsibility

The committee also developed a complete training program and a guidance

2. There are many challenges that schools encounter when implementing

8. The nebulous nature of SEL often leaves schools to perceive it as an

Committee for Children. (2020). What is social‐emotional learning? https://

The knowledge we gain from his-

Rapid Reference 2.1

Influence of Exclusionary Discipline Practices on School Safety

Rapid Reference 2.2

Social and Emotional Learning—Why We Must Act Now

development. She enjoys coming to school and particularly enjoys learning

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

About the Companion Website xv

Section I Emergence of Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

One Defining Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Two Historical Influences on the Emergence of SEL29

Three Emotional Intelligence and its Role in SEL57

Section II SEL – The Missing Link in Education 83

Four Current Challenges in Education 85

Five Evidenced Support for SEL 125

Six Making the Case for SEL 159

Section III SEL as a Sustainable Framework for Success 213

Eight Tools, Templates, and Checklists 267

Ten SEL: A Roadmap for a World at Hope 383

ineffective and inefficient m anner. It is not uncommon, for example, for a

olicies, or regulations that might have created limitations, constraints, or unin-

c. Learning-focused inputs: Although this is only a small part of the learning

coming years. Considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children’s