Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL). Donna Lord Black

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 standards 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 comprehensive, whole‐child approach to the problem‐solving process. Using interconnected 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 continued “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 comprehensive SEL programs?The lack of availability of SEL curriculum programsEducators’ failure to implement programs with fidelityThe lack of technology resources to support program implementationAn 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:determining which SEL framework to implement.gaining stakeholder buy‐in.staff training in SEL.deciding on a SEL program and curriculum.

      3 While there are a multitude of SEL frameworks, the most widely adopted framework is:Developmental Assets.Building Blocks for Learning.Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.Emotional Intelligence.

      4 The CASEL framework focuses on the following core SEL competencies:Self‐awareness, self‐management, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision makingSelf‐awareness, self‐motivation, self‐management, relationships, responsible behaviorSelf‐awareness, self‐purpose, social awareness, student engagement, responsible decision makingSelf‐purpose, self‐management, social skills, relationship‐building skills, responsible decision making

      5 Most teacher preparation programs in the United States include comprehensive training in SEL.TrueFalse

      6 Most educators and parents believe the primary benefits of SEL are toteach students critical social skills.achieve better classroom management and discipline.improve academic achievement.increase student performance on state assessment measures.

      7 Critics of SEL argue which of the following?The research on SEL is not convincing and has been oversold by proponents of SEL.The concept of SEL is ambiguous and confusing.SEL standards are destined to become the non‐academic version of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.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:Establish a common language; establish a common perspective or understanding of the issues; establish a common, or shared, vision.Identify a group of stakeholders; conduct a research of evidence‐based SEL programs; identify which SEL program will be purchased and implemented.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.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:survey staff and parents to gain a better understanding of how each group perceives the benefits of SEL.thoroughly examine the school’s or district’s infrastructure to ensure it can sustain SEL efforts.identify the SEL program that will be implemented.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.TrueFalse

       Answers: 1, d; 2, c; 3, c; 4, a; 5, b; 6, b; 7, d; 8, a; 9, b; 10, a.

REFERENCES

      1 Boss, S. (2011). Social and emotional learning: What experts say. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/social‐emotional‐learning‐experts

      2 Collaborative