Content uploaded by Maurice J. Elias
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maurice J. Elias on Apr 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Social and Emotional Learning
Joseph E. Zins
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Maurice J. Elias
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
BACKGROUND AND
DEVELOPMENT
High-stakes tests. Substance abuse. Suicide. Academic
standards. Delinquency. Media and technology. Teacher
retention. Interpersonal violence. Dropouts. Changes in
families. The list of issues facing today’s educators and
students is daunting. But genuinely effective schools—
those that prepare students not only to pass tests at
school but also to pass the tests of life—are finding that
social–emotional competence and academic achieve-
ment are interwoven and that integrated, coordinated
instruction in both areas maximizes students’ potential
to succeed in school and throughout their lives. Schools
are now seen as ‘‘an important if not central arena for
health promotion [and] primary prevention . . . in addi-
tion to the education of students’’ (Roeser, Eccles, &
Samoroff, 2000, p. 467). These findings are not surpris-
ing, as shown in the work of Wang, Haertel, and
Walberg (1997). They examined 28 categories of influ-
ences on learning, which they based on reviews of 179
handbook chapters, 91 research syntheses, and surveys
of 61 national experts. Wang et al. found that 8 of the
11 most influential categories involved social and emo-
tional factors (e.g., student–teacher social interactions,
classroom climate, and peer group). Further, according
to the National Center for Education Statistics (2002),
among the major reasons cited for dropping out of
school several involve social and emotional factors: not
getting along with teachers or peers (35.0% and
20.1%, respectively), feeling left out (23.2%), and not
feeling safe (12.1%). Thus, it is understandable that
Wang et al. concluded that ‘‘direct intervention in the
psychological determinants of learning promises the
most effective avenues of reform’’ (p. 210), which sup-
ports providing social and emotional learning in
schools.
Social and Emotional Learning Defined
In simple terms, social and emotional learning (SEL) is
the capacity to recognize and manage emotions, solve
problems effectively, and establish positive relationships
with others, competencies that clearly are essential for
all students. Thus, SEL targets a combination of be-
haviors, cognitions, and emotions. As described by the
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL), SEL is the process of acquiring and
effectively applying the knowledge, attitudes, and skills
necessary to recognize and manage emotions; developing
caring and concern for others; making responsible deci-
sions; establishing positive relationships; and handling
challenging situations capably. Similar to the way stu-
dents learn academic skills, they learn, practice, and
apply SEL skills by engaging in positive activities in and
out of the classroom. Initial skills that they have learned
become enhanced, nuanced, and better integrated over
time to address the increasingly complex situations chil-
dren face in terms of academics, social relationships, citi-
zenship, and health (Elias et al., 1997; Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL],
2003).
SEL largely evolved from research on prevention and
resilience (see Consortium on the School-Based
Promotion of Social Competence, 1994), and interest in
SEL sparked in the mid-1990s with the publication of
Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (1995) and Gardner’s
Multiple Intelligences (1993). A high level of interest
1
continues today, with research showing an increasing
number of positive outcomes of SEL, and states and
school districts adopting requirements for teaching SEL.
Indeed, growing numbers of educators and parents rec-
ognize the relationships between academic and social–
emotional learning, particularly within the context of
schools’ systems of support.
Systems of Support
Instruction in SEL is provided in the context of caring,
safe, well-managed, and participatory classroom, school,
and other learning environments. These learned skills are
then reinforced in the school, home, and community. All
children might benefit from social–emotional instruc-
tion, including those who are at risk, those beginning to
engage in negative behaviors, and those already display-
ing significant problems. The focus of most SEL pro-
grams is universal prevention and promotion—that is,
preventing behavior problems by promoting social and
emotional competence—rather than direct intervention.
Smaller numbers of students may require moderate to
intensive treatment that focuses on social–emotional
competence, but SEL programming is intended to
enhance the growth of all children, to help them develop
healthy behaviors, and to prevent their engaging in mal-
adaptive and unhealthy behaviors.
Such efforts should be viewed within the context of
systems of support that provide a comprehensive contin-
uum of services based on student needs. The continuum
involves three system levels that support the academic
and social–emotional development of all students. A dia-
gram illustrating these relationships is shown in Figure 1,
which closely parallels the conceptual framework of
Adelman and Taylor (2000). The different sizes of the
circles represent numbers of children served by each sys-
tem, the overlapping signifies the interrelationships
among the three systems, and the bottom box indicates
that school–family–community partnerships are the
foundation for promoting the development of all stu-
dents. Additionally, the costs associated with providing
the necessary support at each level are spread out across
many students at the prevention and promotion level,
which results in a relatively small cost per student; how-
ever, the costs rise as the intensity of the support
increases. Hence, the cost per student is much higher for
early intervention and treatment, particularly for the
latter.
As a system of support, SEL is a unifying concept for
organizing, coordinating, and integrating school-based
prevention and promotion programs that minimizes
fragmentation and reduces marginalization of these
efforts. The most effective, sustained approaches involve
students, parents, educators, and community members as
partners in planning, implementing, and evaluating SEL
efforts. Systematic social and emotional education begins
in preschool, continues through high school, is inten-
tionally linked to academics, and is an integral compo-
nent of the school curriculum (Elias et al., 1997;
CASEL, 2003).
PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
In today’s society, children face countless situations that can
have a negative effect on their social–emotional and aca-
demic development and ultimately on their happiness in
life. For example, the United States arguably is more deeply
divided and confused today than it has been since the civil
rights and Vietnam War eras, as we grapple with issues such
as preemptive war, civil liberties, and personal freedoms ver-
sus national security, abortion, the definition of marriage,
affirmative action, and immigration. Inequities between the
richest and poorest households continue to widen and are
the widest since these data were first recorded in the 1960s
(Wollman et al., 2003). In the past, menaces to world peace
were well-known; now they may be anonymous, fanatical
terrorists who don’t discriminate between soldiers and civil-
ians, who hide within the general populace, and who might
be the person sitting next to you on a plane or walking by
you at the mall, which can lead to a generalized sense of
insecurity and fear.
Systems of Prevention and Promotion
All Students
Systems of Early Intervention
Students At-Risk
Systems of Treatment
Students With Problems
School, Family, & Community Partnerships
Figure 1. Integrated and coordinated systems to support the
development of all children.
Children’s Needs III
2
Fifty years ago social institutions and political leaders
were highly respected and influential. Children did not pick
up the morning paper to learn about sexual abuse by reli-
gious leaders or the lurid details of the president’s marital
indiscretions. The evening television news was not filled
withstoriesofbusinessexecutivesandculturaliconsbeing
sent to prison because of their unethical, illegal behavior
that betrayed and harmed the future of thousands of their
employees and investors; allegations of their sexual relation-
ships with young children; and charges of rape and murder.
Previous generations of parents did not have to be
Internet savvy. ‘‘Dangerous strangers’’ supposedly lurked
around the corner or on the other side of town, but they
didn’t exist in children’s bedrooms or the family room via
Internet chat rooms and easily accessible pornographic web-
sites. Video games such as Grand Theft Auto had not been
invented, and the media weren’t as notorious about deliver-
ing messages that encourage unhealthy behaviors. In the
past, children’s sporting events weren’t scheduled every day
of the week and from morning to late evening on week-
ends, thereby putting tremendous pressures on families and
their values. Today many role models are tarnished, unethi-
cal behavior is commonplace, and new opportunities to
develop and engage in negative behaviors abound. More
than ever, students are faced with uncertainty in their daily
lives and in their futures, and many feel a sense of insecur-
ity, disenfranchisement, disillusionment, and even fear. For
all of these reasons, SEL is perhaps more important than
ever as an essential component of school reform (Zins,
Walberg, & Weissberg, 2004).
ACTIONS FOR PREVENTION
AND PROMOTION
Why Students Should Be Taught SEL
Developing social–emotional competence is a key to suc-
cess in school and in life. We know that emotions affect
how and what we learn, that caring relationships provide
the foundation for lasting learning, and that important
SEL skills and knowledge can be taught. Research shows
that SEL has positive effects on academic performance,
benefits physical health, improves citizenship, is de-
manded by employers, is essential for lifelong success, and
reduces the risk of maladjustment, failed relationships,
interpersonal violence, substance abuse, and unhappiness
(Elias et al., 1997; Zins, Weissberg et al., 2004).
Many of today’s prevention and promotion initiatives
are fragmented, which does not contribute to their
collective effectiveness. Schools nationally implement a
median of 14 practices (among them, metal detectors, advi-
sory periods, recreational activities, architectural features of
the school, school change management practices, and infor-
mational posters and brochures) to prevent problem behav-
ior and promote safe environments (Gottfredson &
Gottfredson, 2001), so it is easy to understand why such
efforts may not be coordinated. The result is lost opportu-
nities to reinforce skills across programs and activities, as
well as competition for resources. However, SEL can serve
as the organizing framework for a broad array of prevention
and promotion efforts (Elias et al., 1997).
Key Components of Effective SEL
Five key competencies are taught, practiced, and rein-
forced through SEL programming (CASEL, 2003):
Self-awareness—Identification and recognition of one’s
own emotions, recognition of strengths in self and
others, sense of self-efficacy, and self-confidence.
Social awareness—Empathy, respect for others, and
perspective taking.
Responsible decision making—Evaluation and reflec-
tion, and personal and ethical responsibility.
Self-management—Impulse control, stress manage-
ment, persistence, goal setting, and motivation.
Relationship skills—Cooperation, help seeking and
providing, and communication.
As noted earlier, these competencies are taught most
effectively within caring, supportive, and well-managed
learning environments. Development of autonomy, self-
discipline, and ethics is more likely in environments in
which mutual respect, cooperation, caring, and decision
making are the norm (Bear, 2005). Such contexts are
structured in ways that encourage students to explore
and try new learning activities, provide them with easily
accessible opportunities to address their personal needs
and problems, and support them in establishing positive
relationships with peers and adults. As a result, students
feel safe and secure and are not fearful of making mis-
takes. Ultimately, a reciprocal relationship exists between
SEL skills and school climate. A positive school environ-
ment promotes SEL, and SEL facilitates a supportive cli-
mate. Because social, emotional, and academic growth
are interdependent, the result is synergistic progress in all
of these areas.
A comprehensive list of 37 guidelines for deve-
loping SEL can be found in Promoting Social and
Chapter 1: Social and Emotional Learning
3
Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators (Elias et al.,
1997). These guidelines, which are summarized in 10
major points in Table 1, describe in detail what effective
SEL instruction entails. For example, it must be system-
atic, provided over multiple years, integrated with the
academic curriculum, and supported by school–family–
community partnerships and a caring supportive envi-
ronment. In addition, nine useful guidelines specific to
school climate, which were developed by the Ohio
Department of Education, are presented in Table 2.
SEL programming should be approached from a risk
and resilience perspective. In other words, children may
acquire risk processes, such as school failure, involvement
with antisocial peers, or family poverty, that make it more
likely that they will develop problem behaviors. The more
risk processes they have, the higher their relative risk,
although having risk processes does not guarantee that a
student will develop problems, and many of them do not.
On the other hand, protective mechanisms or develop-
ment of competencies—such as bonding to school, learn-
ing to consider the perspectives of others, or possessing
adequate social decision-making skills—keep children
from harm’s way or buffer them from the negative effects,
and thus lead to more successful adaptation. These posi-
tive, health-promoting processes may be found within the
child and at the family and community levels.
Evidence-Based SEL
Research support. The past two to three decades have
seen great progress in educational researchers’ and practi-
tioners’ knowledge of how to prevent social–emotional
and other problems, and in how to promote competence
and health-enhancing behaviors. A growing number of
programs, strategies, and techniques are available for pro-
moting healthy development and preventing negative
outcomes, and a stronger empirical base has emerged in
the SEL field (Greenberg et al., 2003). Thus, a number
of evidence-based SEL curricula and programs are avail-
able that lead to outcomes such as the prevention of sub-
stance abuse and interpersonal violence and to the
promotion of mental health, positive youth devel-
opment, and academic achievement (e.g., Catalano,
Table 1 Outline of Effective Social and Emotional
Learning Instruction
Based on theory and research and carefully planned
Interactively teaches SEL skills for applications to daily life
Builds connections to school through caring, engaging classroom
and school practices
Promotes developmentally and culturally appropriate instruction
Leads to coordinated, integrated, and unified programming
linked to academic outcomes
Enhances school performance by addressing emotional and social
dimensions of learning by engaging and interactive methods
Involves school–family–community partnerships
Establishes organizational supports and policies that foster success
Provides high-quality staff development and support
Addresses key implementation and sustainability factors, includ-
ing continuous improvement, outcomes evaluation, and dissemi-
nation factors
Note. Based on Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines
for Educators, by M. J. Elias et al., 1997, Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development; and Safe and Sound:
An Educational Leader’s Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional
Learning (SEL) Programs, by the Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning, 2003, Chicago: Author.
Table 2 Ohio Guidelines for School Climate
Guideline 1. Operational principles for local schools that are gro-
unded in best practices for academic achievement and are
espoused by the community will produce effective systems.
Guideline 2. School–community partnerships enable the provision
of comprehensive services for students and staff.
Guideline 3. Regular, thorough assessment and evaluation result
in continuous improvement.
Guideline 4. High-quality staff development and administrative
support lead to effective program implementation.
Guideline 5. Addressing real and perceived threats to safety and
security enables students to focus on learning and teachers to
focus on instruction.
Guideline 6. A student’s sense of belonging in the classroom encour-
ages classroom participation, positive interactions, and good
study habits.
Guideline 7. Engagement of parents and families in school–home
learning partnerships maximizes the potential for effective
instruction and student learning.
Guideline 8. Youth engagement in forming school policy and pro-
cedures integrates an essential perspective into proposed
solutions.
Guideline 9. High-quality food service supports improvements in
academic performance and behavior.
Note. From Ohio Guidelines for School Climate, by the Ohio Depart-
ment of Education, 2004, Columbus, OH: Center for Students,
Families, and Community.
Children’s Needs III
4
Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Durlak &
Wells, 1997; Gottfredson & Wilson, 2003; Tobler et al.,
2000; Zins, Weissberg et al., 2004). Many of the positive
outcomes found to be associated with SEL interventions
are summarized in Table 3.
Although many research and practice issues still need
to be addressed, the empirical investigations behind cur-
rent SEL evaluation efforts include better study designs,
use of manualized and readily replicable interventions,
more analyses of longitudinal data leading to a better
understanding of the operation of risk and protective pro-
cesses, and improvements in knowledge of pathways and
stages associated with development of maladaptive behav-
iors (Greenberg, 2004; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994).
Consequently, the quality of the research support for
school-based preventive interventions is substantially
stronger (i.e., more than 60 randomized controlled trials)
than four other areas of educational research (e.g., math
education and staff development) examined by the U.S.
Department of Education’s Institute for Education
Sciences (Whitehurst, 2003). A number of organizations
have identified, reviewed, and rated evidence-based pro-
grams (see Table 4), and a National Registry of Effective
Programs and Practices (NREPP; see http://modelprograms.
samhsa.gov) has been established that includes the category
of general substance abuse and treatment programs.
Costs. Evidence shows that effective SEL programs can
provide a good return for their costs; that is, the value of
their benefits exceeds their costs (Aos, Lieb, Mayfield,
Miller, & Pennucci, 2004). For instance, providing the
Seattle Social Development Program (Hawkins, Smith,
& Catalano, 2004) costs $4,590 per student served
annually, but its benefits were $14,426, or $3.14 per
dollar spent per student. Likewise, the Child
Development Project (now known as Caring School
Community; Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 2004) has
benefits of $28.42 for each dollar spent, and Life Skills
Training (Botvin, 1998, 2002) has $25.61 in benefits.
Examples of demonstrated benefits include improved
educational outcomes (e.g., test scores, graduation rates),
reduced crime, lowered substance abuse, and decreased
teen suicide attempts. However, such programs do not
result in positive benefits across the board, as some gen-
erate more costs than benefits. For example, Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) costs $99 per student
served but resulted in no benefit according to the criteria
used (Aos et al., 2004). As with other areas of education,
SEL programs must be examined carefully before being
adopted.
Table 3 Examples of SEL Outcomes Related to Success in
School and Life
Attitudes
Higher sense of self-efficacy
Better sense of community (bonding) and view of school as
caring
Stronger commitment to democratic values
More positive attitudes toward school and learning
Improved ethical attitudes and values
Higher academic motivation and educational aspirations
Greater trust and respect for teachers
Improved coping with school stressors
Increased understanding of consequences of behavior
Behaviors
More prosocial behavior
Fewer absences and suspensions; maintained or improved
attendance
More likely to work out own way of learning
Reductions in aggression, disruptions, and interpersonal
violence
Fewer hostile negotiations, lower rate of conduct problems,
better conflict resolution skills
More classroom participation and higher engagement
Greater effort to achieve, more frequent reading outside of
school
Better transitions
Less drug, tobacco, and alcohol use and delinquent behavior
Decreases in sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, suicide
More involvement in positive activities (e.g., sports)
Performance
Improved math, language arts, and social studies skills
Increases in achievement over time (elementary to middle
school)
Higher achievement test scores and no decreases in scores
More progress in phonological awareness
Improved learning-to-learn skill
Better problem solving and planning
Improved nonverbal reasoning
Note. Reprinted from ‘‘Facilitating Success in School and in Life
Through Social and Emotional Learning,’’ by J. E. Zins, M. J. Elias,
and M. T. Greenberg, 2003, Perspectives in Education, 21(4), pp. 59–
60. Copyright 2003 by Perspectives in Education. Reprinted with per-
mission. See also Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of
Social Competence (1994); Elias et al., (1997); Fredericks (2003);
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2002); and
Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka (2001).
Chapter 1: Social and Emotional Learning
5
Use. Evidence-based practices are not used as widely
and effectively as they could be (Biglan, Mrazek,
Carnine, & Flay, 2003), and we do not know enough
about how to influence teachers, educational leaders,
and schools to adopt and maintain such practices
(Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999). As discussed later, the
manner in which social–emotional instruction is deliv-
ered is also important (e.g., with fidelity to how it was
Table 4 Examples of Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs
Ratings Organization
Program
Center for
Substance
Abuse
Prevention
Collaborative
for Academic,
Social, and
Emotional
Learning
National Institute
on Drug Abuse
Office of Juvenile
Justice and
Delinquency
Prevention
U.S. Department
of Education
Al’s Pals: Kids Making
Healthy Choices
Model Promising
Caring School Community Select Effective Promising
I Can Problem Solve Promising Select Promising Promising
Life Skills Training Model Effective Blueprints Model Exemplary
Lions-Quest Skills Model Select Promising
Michigan Model for
Comprehensive School
Health Education
Select Promising
Olweus Bullying
Prevention
Model Blueprints Model
Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies
Effective Select Blueprints Model Promising
Project Achieve Model Select
Project Northland Model Promising Exemplary
Second Step: A Violence
Prevention Curriculum
Model Select Exemplary
Resolving Conflicts
Creatively Program
Select
Social Problem Solving/
Social Decision Making
Promising Select Promising
Note. These ratings are subject to change as programs are revised and reassessed.
Children’s Needs III
6
planned), and we need to learn more about what rein-
forces the adoption of, adherence to, and sustainability
of these interventions (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, &
Weissberg, 2003). Significant ‘‘person power’’ issues
also exist; far fewer personnel have been trained in
SEL approaches than are needed for widespread dis-
semination. Although some progress is being made in
making SEL part of the preparation of professionals
such as school psychologists, counselors, and educators,
efforts in these directions must be more extensive if
they are to touch the many children who need them
(Zins, 2001).
The Implementation Process
This section contains a brief overview of key implemen-
tation issues. The following are examples of activities for
school psychologists and other support staff members
who wish to be involved in implementation efforts (these
are discussed in more detail in Elias et al., 2003):
Conduct school and community risk and needs assess-
ments for program planning. Determine the need and
readiness for social–emotional programming. Identify
specific issues that could be addressed and examine
what already is in place.
Consult with school personnel. Assist in exploring,
adopting, implementing, and continuing SEL pro-
gramming. Support educational leaders who are
involved in implementing and integrating SEL into
the school culture and organizational routines.
Be a champion for SEL. Be a leader and promote the
case for SEL instruction. Help create a safe, caring
learning environment at school, in the home, and in
extracurricular activities.
Promote organizational support. Help develop policies
and practices that will enhance SEL so that adequate
support and resources are devoted to these efforts.
Encourage the adoption of SEL in district curriculum
standards.
Act as a liaison to coordinate and integrate school–
family–community SEL efforts. Work with parents and
community members to ensure continuity and coordi-
nation of prevention messages and services, and to
avoid redundancy and conflicts over resources.
Help ensure maintenance and sustainability. Examine
the integrity with which SEL programs are adopted
and monitor the adaptations that occur to promote
high quality. Ensure that support and resources will
continue to be devoted to these efforts.
Engage in program monitoring and evaluation services.
Assess the extent and quality of SEL program imple-
mentation using identified benchmarks, and evaluate
formatively and summatively whether goals are
attained.
Before examining more specific implementation
issues, we must express two caveats. First, the field is a
long way from systematically preparing school-based
professionals to engage in the activities that make up
SEL programs. Even with qualified personnel, the pro-
cess of implementation takes time. It is common for
adoption and institutionalization to take 3 to 5 years, so
expectations about outcomes must be tempered based on
that reality (Elias et al., 1997; Lippitt, Langseth, &
Mossop, 1985).
Readiness and sanction. To begin, how does a school
know if it is ready to devote more efforts and resources
to SEL? And if it is ready to adopt specific programming?
The school will have many considerations, but among
the first is to understand its organizational motivations
and the need for change, as well as the outcomes it hopes
to achieve. A first step is to perform an organizational
analysis, involving interviews, observations, question-
naires, rating scales, examination of permanent products
and records, and so forth, that targets staff members, stu-
dents, parents, and community members. The data col-
lected will help the participants understand issues such as
organizational climate and health, communication proc-
esses, boundaries, roles, leadership styles, and external
influences. Of particular importance at this early stage is
an understanding of current related efforts and how new
programming might help to better meet identified needs
by either supplementing or replacing what is being done
(Lippitt et al., 1985; Zins & Illback, 1993).
Once participants determine the school’s readiness,
they should identify program goals and reach consensus
about which goals to address. In addition, sanction for
implementation must be gained at the administrative,
staff, and parent–community levels. Having champions
of the cause within the organization is important, but
beyond those individuals the position taken by edu-
cational leaders such as principals is critical to ensuring
sufficient support for role changes, ongoing staff
development and coaching, scheduling, program moni-
toring and evaluation, and resource allocation. Ongoing
staff development and coaching, for instance, are likely
to lead to high-quality programming, fidelity, and
sustainability.
Chapter 1: Social and Emotional Learning
7
Programming. Among the challenges at this point is to
select appropriate evidence-based programming from the
myriad of potential approaches. Fortunately, several pro-
gram reviews are available that include ratings of effec-
tiveness. Examples of overall ratings of several selected
programs are shown in Table 4. These reviews help pro-
mote standards for quality SEL programming and enable
educators to compare and select appropriate programs,
based on the match between local needs and program
effectiveness, goals, intervention techniques, strengths
and limitations, costs, and so forth.
An excellent resource for ratings is Safe and Sound:
An Educational Leader’s Guide to Evidence-Based Social
and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs (CASEL, 2003).
The guide contains reviews and comparisons of 80 pro-
grams across 17 variables of interest, including the five
key SEL skills listed earlier. To be included in the review,
programming had to be school based and pertain to gen-
eral education; consist of multiyear, sequenced instruc-
tion or an organizational structure to promote lessons
beyond the first year; be systematic and comprehensive;
have at least eight lessons in one program year; and be
nationally available. The programs were rated on out-
come effectiveness; how well the five key SEL skills are
addressed; the availability of student assessment mea-
sures; if it includes support for school-wide, family, and
community involvement; and whether professional
development is offered. Of this group, 21 were identified
as select because they met CASEL standards for high-
quality SEL instruction, ongoing professional develop-
ment support, and evidence of effectiveness based on
well-designed evaluations. Within the programs that
included methods to promote the integration of SEL
with academic curricula and teaching practices, an
impressive 83% produced academic gains.
The core, active elements of the intervention (i.e., spe-
cifically what will be implemented; what are negotiable
versus non-negotiable aspects of program integrity; how
can differences compared with current practices, systems,
and values be resolved) must be well understood by those
seeking to adopt a program. Visiting a site to see the pro-
gram operating, or talking with current users, usually pro-
vides insights that cannot be obtained elsewhere.
Furthermore, all programs have limitations; schools must
be wary of programs that are oversold by overzealous
champions who build unwarranted expectations for them.
Rather, by being aware of the strengths and limits of pro-
grams, and being able to predict many roadblocks and
sources of resistance, schools often can learn to manage and
address these problems (e.g., resistance, fear of failure,
changing roles, scaling-up too rapidly, more ecological
intrusion that results in unanticipated challenges) so that
implementation may proceed more smoothly.
Ownership. Programs have associated values that must
be supported by and compatible with relevant school
policies, practices, and goals if they are to succeed.
Buy-in from constituencies at different organizational
levels, including parents and the community, must be
ascertained and their commitment established. School
leadership and high-status individuals need to be
involved early in the implementation process, and ulti-
mately, ownership needs to be created among all
constituencies.
Roles and functions of stakeholders may be altered,
but SEL program planners should recognize that the
same job can be done in different ways. For instance,
school psychologists do not have to spend the majority
of their time conducting psychoeducational assessments
and developing individual interventions. Instead, they
may focus more energy on systems change by imple-
menting SEL programs, which may decrease the press for
direct services (Zins, 2001). Parents too can be true part-
ners in deciding how SEL programming is delivered to
their children, rather than being uninvolved or passive
recipients.
Another implementation challenge is dealing with
competing agendas. Elements of the organization may
have different priorities, but consensus must be achieved
to avoid battles over resources and direction of efforts,
because such competition increases fragmentation and
marginalization. The organization should review poten-
tial areas of conflict and fragmentation, such as for
resources, roles of staff, boundaries, time allocation, pri-
orities, and overlap (Novick, Kress, & Elias, 2002).
Likewise, when the staff overspecializes or focuses too
much on one area, such as Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports or conflict resolution, rather
than being broad based, too much energy may inadver-
tently be devoted to providing services rather than
empowering individuals within the school.
Application. Numerous opportunities exist for the
application of SEL concepts, such as the following (see
Zins, Weissberg et al., 2004):
Adopt specific SEL curricula (e.g., Second Step
program).
Infuse SEL activities into regular academic curricula
(e.g., literacy, history).
Children’s Needs III
8
Develop supportive, caring learning environments
(e.g., improve school climate).
Alter instructional processes (e.g., cooperative
learning).
Reinforce SEL skills as part of the informal curriculum
(e.g., lunch, playground).
Promote school–family–community partnerships.
Engage students actively and experientially in the
learning process (e.g., service learning).
Reflect SEL in behavior management and discipline
practices and policies.
Integrate SEL methods into extracurricular activities
(e.g., sports).
One of the more common concerns about adopting
SEL programming is how it will fit into an already
packed school day. As seen in the list above, the options
require a range of adaptations, from relatively minor to
more substantial changes in the school ecology.
Introducing a specific SEL curriculum may be difficult in
some schools, but using SEL principles to guide school
discipline and behavior management practices may be
less intrusive to organizational routines and resources.
The goal is to infuse SEL into ongoing activities and pro-
gram delivery systems in schools and communities to
make the intervention sustainable. Likewise, organiza-
tional processes and structures must be established to
ensure high-quality implementation and to promote sus-
tainability (Greenberg, 2004). Without such safeguards,
programs can easily drift from what was planned and
intended, and core program elements inadvertently may
be omitted because of time concerns. Such deviations
from the program may affect outcomes. Often, the core,
active elements of the intervention are not clear, so prac-
titioners, researchers, and program developers must work
together to identify them. Fortunately, many schools
have successfully navigated these dilemmas and can serve
as models for organizations embarking on this work
(Elias, Arnold, & Hussey, 2002; Elias et al., 1997;
Lantieri, 2002).
The issue of adaptation versus fidelity must be
addressed, as there is evidence that it is related to pro-
gram outcomes. Fidelity to program procedures has been
found to lead to better outcomes; conversely, poor fidel-
ity results in decreased effectiveness (Elliott & Mihalic,
2004). For example, Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury, Botvin,
and Diaz (1995) found that the strongest outcomes
with Life Skills Training (Botvin, 1998, 2002) occurred
with students who received a more complete version of
the intervention. Because implementing a program will
almost always involve making adaptations, even with
highly structured, manualized interventions, one way to
view this issue is to examine the quality and nature of the
changes. Support staff members and classroom teachers
should work together to anticipate and plan for modifi-
cations while they work to ensure that core program ele-
ments are maintained. Some adaptations are beneficial in
terms of improving outcomes and facilitating ownership
(and thus durability), whereas others harm program
integrity. Furthermore, programs need to be tailored cul-
turally to ethnic and racial minority children to maxi-
mize the programs’ effectiveness (Botvin, 2004). In other
words, the better the cultural fit is, the more likely that
buy-in and perceptions of the program’s relevance will
occur.
Finally, systems to support SEL must be integrated
across levels of prevention/promotion and treatment
services (e.g., universal to indicated prevention and treat-
ment (Adelman & Taylor, 2000), across student develop-
mental levels, and across school, family, and community
systems, as shown in Figure 1. The fragmentation and
marginalization that characterize the educational and
mental health systems today largely result from a lack of
coordination and integration (Illback, Cobb, & Joseph,
1997); however, the systemwide adoption of SEL can
reduce fragmentation and be a unifying conceptual
scheme (Elias et al., 1997, 2003).
Standards and Accountability
More attention should be devoted to state department of
education instructional standards that include teaching
SEL to further institutionalize and sustain such efforts.
For example, in 2003 Illinois passed the Children’s
Mental Health Act (Public Act 93-0495) in which social
and emotional development are defined as integral to
schools’ mission and essential to students’ academic read-
iness and school success. The act is intended to ensure
that schools incorporate the following:
Regard social and emotional development as integral
to their mission and a critical component of student
academic readiness and school success.
Take concrete steps to address their students’ social
and emotional development.
Have the flexibility to include social and emotional
learning in their school improvement plans.
Develop a policy for incorporating social and emo-
tional development into the district’s educational pro-
gram, including assessing social and emotional skills.
Chapter 1: Social and Emotional Learning
9
Develop a policy for responding to children with
social, emotional, or mental health problems that
affect learning.
Social and emotional development standards are
now included as part of the Illinois Learning Standards,
which means that children’s social–emotional develop-
ment must be addressed in the curriculum.
Consequently, all students in the state receive such
instruction. One result of the Illinois legislation is that
it has made paramount the need to measure social–
emotional skills because every district must have a policy
for incorporating social–emotional development into the
district’s educational program. That policy includes not
only teaching and assessing SEL for all students, but also
responding to children who have social, emotional, or
mental health problems that affect their learning.
Likewise, it requires schools to be accountable for con-
ducting valid and reliable assessments of social–
emotional, academic, and health-related outcomes, as
well as of school climate, based on input obtained from
multiple constituencies (e.g., students, parents, teachers,
and community members).
Thus, SEL assessment is one area in need of further
development and may be of special interest to many
school psychologists. For purposes of accountability and
acceptability, we need to determine that SEL has value-
added outcomes for student learning, and we need to be
able to assess the quality of the SEL instruction that
occurs in the classroom. While some school psychologists
are involved in developing measures, others could exam-
ine indicators of competence, health, and the like, to see
how well they align with SEL constructs. There is no rea-
son to delay making SEL part of standard assessment
processes using the best measures available.
SUMMARY
Students today must be prepared not only to pass tests at
school but also to pass the tests of life. Social–emotional
competence and academic achievement are highly
related, and effective schools are focusing efforts on inte-
grated, coordinated instruction in both areas to maximize
students’ potential to succeed in school and throughout
their lives. A growing body of research demonstrates that
evidence-based SEL interventions are associated with aca-
demic achievement, health, and citizenship, so a major
challenge for schools is how to make SEL a core element
of the curriculum and how to implement relevant
programming with fidelity and in ways that are sustain-
able. Tremendous opportunities exist for school psychol-
ogists to assist schools in these endeavors, and additional
training opportunities must be made available to prepare
them for such roles.
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Books and Other Printed Material
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. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
The authors define the field of social and emotional
learning. They draw upon the most recent scientific
studies, the best theories, site visits carried out
around the country, and their own extensive experi-
ences to describe effective approaches to SEL. The
discussion is framed by 39 concise guidelines for
promoting SEL.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U.,
Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J.
(2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and
youth development through coordinated social and
emotional learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–
474.
In this article the authors make the case for the wide-
spread implementation of beneficial prevention pro-
gramming. They advocate for research-based,
comprehensive school reform models that improve
social, health, and academic outcomes; school poli-
cies that demand accountability for fostering child-
ren’s overall development; professional development
related to helping educators implement programs
effectively; and ongoing monitoring and evaluation
to guide school improvement.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg,
H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on
social and emotional learning: What does the research
say? New York: Teachers College Press.
This comprehensive book contains a concise review
of the field of social and emotional learning (SEL),
with a specific examination of its effects on academic
achievement and school success. Relevant outcomes
from a number of the best SEL programs nationally
are reviewed, leading the editors to conclude that
Children’s Needs III
10
‘‘there is a growing body of scientifically based
research supporting the strong impact that enhanced
social and emotional behaviors can have on success
in school and ultimately in life’’ (p. 19).
Websites
http://www.casel.org
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (CASEL) is a major national
organization whose mission is to enhance children’s
success in school and in life by promoting coordi-
nated, evidence-based social, emotional, and aca-
demic learning as an essential part of education from
preschool through high school. CASEL’s three pri-
mary goals are to advance the science of SEL; expand
coordinated, evidence-based practice; and build a
sustainable and collaborative organization to accom-
plish its mission.
http://www.csee.net
The Center for Social and Emotional Education
(CSEE) is an educational and professional develop-
ment organization dedicated to supporting effective
social–emotional learning, teaching, and leadership
in K–12 schools. It integrates research and best prac-
tices in education, including risk prevention, health
promotion, mental health, effective citizenry, charac-
ter education, and social–emotional learning, to
promote students’ ability to learn and develop in
healthy ways.
http://www.samhsa.gov
The mission of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, is to
build resilience and facilitate recovery for people
with or at risk for substance abuse problems and
mental illness. Its vision is a life in the community
for everyone, and it supports a variety of school-
based prevention efforts.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu
The mission of the UCLA School Mental Health
Project (SMHP) is to improve outcomes for young
people by enhancing the field of mental health in
schools. It connects mental health and psychosocial
concerns with school reform and improvement by
integrating health and related concerns into a broad
perspective that includes addressing barriers to learn-
ing and promoting healthy development.
REFERENCES
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention
from the fringes into the fabric of school improve-
ment. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 11, 7–26.
Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A.
(2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early inter-
vention programs for youth. Olympia: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy.
Bear, G. G. (with Cavalier, A., & Manning, M.). (2005).
Developing self-discipline and preventing and correcting
misbehavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Biglan, A., Mrazek, P., Carnine, D. W., & Flay, B. R.
(2003). The integration of research and practice in
the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American
Psychologist, 58, 433–440.
Botvin, G. J. (2004). Advancing prevention science and
practice: Challenges, critical issues, and future direc-
tions. Prevention Science, 5, 69–72.
Botvin, G. J. (1998). Preventing adolescent drug abuse
through Life Skills Training: Theory, methods, and effec-
tiveness. In J. Crane (Ed.), Social programs that work
(pp. 225–257). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Botvin, G. J. (2002). Life skills training. White Plains,
NY: Princeton Health Press.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M.,
& Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up results of a
randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white
middle-class population. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 273, 1106–1112.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M.,
Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive
youth development in the United States: Research
findings on evaluations of positive youth development
programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 15.
Retrieved September 8, 2003, from http://journals.
apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050015a.html
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An educational
leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional
learning (SEL) programs. Chicago: Author.
Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social
Competence. (1994). The promotion of social
Chapter 1: Social and Emotional Learning
11
competence: Theory, research, practice, and policy.
In R. J. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M.
Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, resilience in children and
adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interaction (pp.
268–316). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary preven-
tion mental health programs for children and adoles-
cents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 25, 115–152.
Elias, M. J., Arnold, H., & Hussey, C. (Eds.). (2002).
Leadership practices for caring and successful schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg,
R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and
scaling up of social–emotional and academic innova-
tions in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32,
303–319.
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. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminat-
ing and replicating effective prevention programs.
Prevention Science, 5, 47–53.
Fredericks, L. (2003). Social and emotional learning, service-
learning, and educational leadership. Chicago:
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in
practice. New York: Basic.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999).
Evaluating the public health impact of health pro-
motion interventions: The RE-AIM framework.
American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1322–1327.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York:
Bantam.
Gottfredson, D. C., & Wilson, D. B. (2003). Charac-
teristics of effective school-based substance abuse
prevention. Prevention Science, 4, 27–38.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). What
schools do to prevent problem behaviors and
promote safe environments. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 12, 313–344.
Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges
in school-based prevention. Prevention Science, 5,
5–13.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins,
J.E.,Fredericks,L.,Resnik,H.,&Elias,M.J.
(2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth
development through coordinated social and emo-
tional learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.
Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., & Catalano, R. F. (2004).
Social development and social and emotional learn-
ing. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, &
H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social
and emotional learning: What does the research say?
(pp. 135–150). New York: Teachers College Press.
Illback,R.J.,Cobb,C.T.,&Joseph,H.M.,Jr.(Eds.).
(1997). Integrated services for children and families.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lantieri,L.(Ed.).(2002).Schools with spirit: Nurturing the
inner lives of children and teachers. Boston: Beacon.
Lippitt, G. L., Langseth, P., & Mossop, J. (1985).
Implementing organizational change: A practical guide
to managing change efforts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mrazek,P.J.,&Haggerty,R.J.(Eds.).(1994).Reducing risks
for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention
research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002).
Dropout rates in the United States 2000. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Offices of
Educational Research and Improvement.
Novick, B., Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2002). Building
learning communities with character: How to integrate
academic, social, and emotional learning. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Ohio Department of Education. (2004). Ohio guidelines
for school climate. Columbus, OH: Center for
Students, Families, and Community.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Samoroff, A. J. (2000).
School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and
social–emotional development: A summary of research
findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.
Children’s Needs III
12
Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (2004).
Community in school as key to student growth:
Findings from the Child Development Project. In
J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social
and emotional learning: What does the research say?
(pp. 189–205). New York: Teachers College Press.
Tobler,N.S.,Roona,M.R.,Ochshorn,P.,Marshall,
D.G.,Streke,A.V.,&Stackpole,K.M.(2000).
School-based adolescent drug prevention programs:
1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention,
20, 275–337.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Services
Administration. (2002). SAMHSA model programs:
Model prevention programs supporting academic
achievement. Retrieved January 23, 2003, from
http://modelprograms.samsha.gov
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997).
Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review
of Educational Research, 63, 249–294.
Whitehurst, G. R. (2003, October). Evidence-based safe
and drug-free schools programs. Keynote address at
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools National
Conference, Washington, DC.
Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S.
(2001). School-based prevention of problem behav-
iors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 17, 247–272.
Wollman, N., Yoder, B. L., Brumbaugh-Smith, J. P.,
Gross, H., Leiter, B. E., Fry-Miller, A. L., &
McCourt, E. H. (2003). Poverty gaps in the U.S.
between the races, age groups, and genders decreased
steadily since 1995—but still a ways to go. Available
from Manchester College website: http://www.
manchester.edu/links/violenceindex/NewsReleases/
PovertyGapsInUS.pdf
Zins, J. E. (2001). Examining opportunities and chal-
lenges for school-based prevention and promotion:
Social and emotional learning as an exemplar. The
Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(4), 441–446.
Zins, J. E., & Illback, R. J. (1993). Implementing con-
sultation in child services systems. In J. E. Zins,
T. R. Kratochwill, & S. N. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook
of consultation services for children (pp. 204–226).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zins, J. E., Elias, M. J., & Greenberg, M.T. (2003).
Facilitating success in school and in life through
social and emotional learning. Perspectives in
Education, 21, 59–60.
Zins, J. E., Walberg, H. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2004).
Getting to the heart of school reform: Social and
emotional learning for school success. NASP
Communique
´
,33(3), 35.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg,
H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on
social and emotional learning: What does the research
say? New York: Teachers College Press.
Chapter 1: Social and Emotional Learning
13
Children’s Needs III
14
