Content uploaded by Jonathan Cohen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonathan Cohen on May 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
"
May"2015"
School Climate and Pro-social Educational Improvement:
Essential Goals and Processes that Support Student Success for All
National School Climate Council
!
There is growing federal and state support for school climate improvement and pro-social
education. The National School Climate Council has developed a consensus statement about
the foundational importance of intentional pro-social instruction and school climate
improvement efforts. In addition, this consensus statement outlines a core set of research-
based systemic, instructional and relational goals as well as processes that underscore,
characterize and shape both effective school climate improvement and pro-social
instructional efforts. Research, policy, practice and teacher education implications are
outlined.
This commentary by the members of the National School Climate Council on pro-
social1educational improvement is based on three essential understandings that were
consensually developed. First, K-12 education is always social, emotional, ethical, civic, and
intellectual in nature. Policy, practice and teacher education leaders need to insure that K-12
education includes intentional, strategic and research based pro-social instruction as well as
intellectual content-based teaching and learning. Second, children and schools require the
support of the "whole village." Schools function best in communities connected together and
helping each other. Finally, all school improvement efforts, including school climate
improvement, are necessarily a continuous process of learning and development.
Today, education policy and accountability systems are not aligned with these three sets of
understandings. Federal and state education policies are primarily focused on content-based
intellectual or cognitive student learning. Schools do not regularly measure and support
student pro-social learning and school-family-community partnerships. The nature and power
of current local, state, and national annual accountability systems (focused almost exclusively
on content-based student learning) highly discourages school leaders from embracing
continuous models of learning and development, especially in the realms of pro-social learning
and school climate improvement.
School climate reform and intentional pro-social instruction are increasingly recognized,
endorsed, and supported by federal agencies and districts across the country as prevention
strategies that reduce inappropriate peer interactions (e.g., bully-victim-bystander behavior),
truancy, and high school dropout rates. A growing body of research supports the position that
these systemic and instructional efforts support school—and ultimately life—success (Pellegrino
& Hilton, 2012).
Educators are often confused about the similarities and differences between pro-social efforts
and school climate improvement. This commentary delineates current positions and best
practices pertaining to the goals and interventions that support pro-social instruction and
school climate improvement efforts for all school community members. There is a critical
interdependence of academic success and pro-social education to develop the whole child.
Only by fully addressing school climate improvement and pro-social education will educational
2
aspirations be reached for all students. There is compelling and incontrovertible evidence
supporting what is outlined below as a position statement.
The following propositions are presented as a set of research-based recommendations and are
aligned with: the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development’s (ASCD) Whole Child
Initiative, Character Education Partnerships' 11 Principles of Effective Character Education,
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)’s theory of change,
National School Climate Council’s National School Climate Standards, Coalition for Community
Schools' Models of Community Schools, and the federally funded Center for Mental Health in
Schools' three-component policy framework. These three sets of goals and the outlined
processes support all students having equal opportunities to succeed at school and in life.
These evidence-based improvement goals and processes must inform and shape policy. The
Council plans to develop detailed guidelines and provide specific examples to demonstrate in
practice how to implement the three overlapping practice goals pertaining to systematic or
school-wide processes, pedagogy, and relational management practices. Two propositions
underlie this effort.
PROPOSITIONS
CORE ASSUMPTIONS
There are three necessary core assumptions that provide the foundation for effective school-
wide pro-social or whole child instructional and school climate improvement efforts that
ensure all students have equitable access to success (ASCD, 2014; Brown, Corrigian & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2012; CASEL, 2012; Cohen, 2006):
1. School leaders must provide pro-social instruction, governance, and management
infrastructure; they must also address barriers to learning and teaching and re-engage
disconnected students to support healthy development(Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2015; Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, 2009). Individual student engagement is a critical element in providing successful
educational experiences for all students (National Research Council, 2003).
2. Improvement efforts must be focused on universal, comprehensive, pro-active strategies
rather than reactive targeted interventions. To do so requires school community stakeholders
to come together to develop a shared vision, asking themselves, “what kind of school do we
want ours to be?” This creates the foundation for them to become engaged and motivated to
work together. Meaningful school community member involvement allows for the development
of a shared vision with associated core values—this is an essential foundation for any and all
school improvement efforts (Cohen, 2006; Fullan, 2011; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010).
3. Any form of school improvement is a continuous process that requires ongoing review by
school leadership and members of the whole school community. This should use social,
emotional, civic, and quantitative and qualitative data from multiple sources (Cohen, McCabe,
Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009; Twemlow & Sacco, 2013).
GOALS AND PRACTICES
Learner-centered classrooms foster high levels of engagement and have been shown to
decrease dropout rates, disruptive behavior, and student absences (Rumberger & Roternund,
2012; Cornelius-White, 2007). Research and experience indicate that the three overlapping
goals and practices shape effective pro-social instruction and school climate improvement
efforts:
3
1. School-wide goals that promote physically, emotionally, and intellectually safe, supportive,
and engaging climates for learning.
2. Instructional efforts that are culturally responsive and designed to imbed social, emotional,
and civic learning into instruction as an integral component of academic experience.
3. Processes that promote meaningful relationships among students, faculty, and staff.
School-Wide Goals
Educational leaders. District and building leaders need to endorse and lead improvement
efforts (DeVita, Colvin, Darling-Hammond, & Haycock, 2007; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004). They need to strive to lead in a transparent democratically informed
manner (Berkowitz, 2011; DeVita, Colvin, Darling-Hammond, & Haycoc, 2007; DuFour & Eaker,
1998; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).They also need to engage and include
the whole school community (students, parents/guardians, community members, and school
personnel) to become co-leaders in improvement efforts (Morton & Montgomery, 2011;
Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007; Sheldon & Van Voorhis, 2004; Sheridan, Warnes, &
Dowd, 2004).
Indicators of success. Indicators must include both academic outcomes (e.g., grades,
portfolios) as well as the social, emotional, and civic outcomes essential for school and life
success (e.g. school climate findings; markers of engaged school community members;
indicators of student personal and pro-social development). There must be broad
understanding that academic outcomes cannot be satisfactorily achieved for all students
without a deep, intentional connection to these social, emotional, and civic outcomes.
Learning increases in classrooms that engage students by allowing them to take ownership of
the learning process. Such ownership can only take place in environments that are
characterized by supportive relationships and that provide safe and trusting learning
environments (McCombs, 2004).
Improvement goals are tailored to the unique and contextual needs of the students and the
individual school community (Espelage, & Poteat, 2012; McCabe & Trevino, 2002).
Policies. District level (and ideally state level) policies support the integration of pro-social and
civic instructional efforts and a continuous process of school climate improvement, with full
understanding of the dimensions of school climate (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2013).
Adult learning. Adult and professional learning communities are supported in order to build
capacity and sustain efforts through continuous improvement (Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Giles, & Hargreaves, 2006; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008).
Codes of conduct. Students, parents/guardians, faculty, and staff have a real voice and
contribute authentically to the development of codes of conduct governing them.
Pro-social education. Pro-social education is an explicit and valued goal (Brown, Corrigian &
Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2012; Greenberg, Weissberg, O’Brien, Zins, Fredericks, Resnik & Elias,
2003), holding equal value to academic goals, and an integral part of the educational process.
Pedagogy
All educators should focus on the four ways that pro-social instructional efforts can be
furthered:
4
1. Being a helpful living example, role mode, and moral compass (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009;
Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Blesky, Vandell, Burchinal, Clarke-Stewart, McCartney, Owen, & The
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2007).
2. Managing classrooms and offices in dignified and democratically informed ways that focus on
student engagement, co-leadership, and restorative practices (Morgan, Salomon, Plotkin, &
Cohen, 2014).
3. Utilizing pedagogies that promote pro-social instruction and provide personally relevant
learning experiences that have authentic opportunities to contribute meaningfully (e.g.,
cooperative learning, class meetings, consensus building, conflict resolution/mediation, service
learning, empathy building, team building, and moral dilemma discussions). When done well,
studies have shown evidence of academic achievement-related benefits from infusing pro-
social instruction, including: improved attendance, higher grade point averages, enhanced
preparation for the workforce, higher graduation rates, enhanced awareness and understanding
of social issues, greater motivation for learning, and heightened engagement in pro-social
behaviors (Ainley, 2012; Brown, Corrigan & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2012).
4. Utilizing pro-social educational design models of curriculum development that support the
conscious, thoughtful and strategic infusion of pro-social goals, assessments, and learning tasks
into existing academic curriculum, emphasizing student-centered learning (Heckman & Kautz,
2012; Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich & Gullotta, 2015). In addition, there are many evidence-
based, pro-social curricula that have been developed, evaluated, and can be implemented
(e.g., Blueprints, What Works Clearing House, and CASEL's Safe and Sound).
Relational and Management-Related Practices
All school personnel should participate in professional development opportunities that promote
meaningful student-teacher relationships, and that further students’ feeling safe (physically,
emotionally, and intellectually), supported, connected, and engaged in school life and
learning. They should also plan for a school climate that embodies a genuine pervasive sense of
community for everyone. Such a climate encourages members to demonstrate high moral
character and civic engagement.
All instructional staff and curriculum experts should participate in professional development
opportunities that enhance whole child education. Staff should continuously seek to improve
instructional practices to insure that those practices are rigorous, engaging, culturally
responsive, and afford meaningful opportunities for all students to contribute to their learning
and community.
IMPLICATIONS
This consensually developed commentary raises a series of questions and implications for
future research, policy, school improvement, and teacher education practices. Researchers can
and must critically evaluate the systemic, instructional, and relational research support for the
framework provided here. Schools, like people, are complex systems. There is growing
consensus that multiple factors necessarily shape effective school-wide and instructional
efforts. There must be support for hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) or multilevel models of
research design2. There must also be support for the further development of HLM informed
methods.
Second, policymakers and educational leaders need to grapple with the complexity of effective
pro-social instruction and school wide improvement efforts. School climate policy reform
efforts represent meaningful and positive examples of how some states (e.g. Connecticut,
Georgia, Minnesota, and Ohio) and districts (e.g. Chicago, IL and Westbrook, CT) are working to
5
do just this. It must be noted, however, that the U.S Department of Education’s implication
that school climate improvement and Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) negate
certain critical differences (Cohen, 2014). Additionally, state and federal accountability
systems that focus on reporting attendance/dropout rates, arrests, achievement gaps, and
bullying also focus on indicators of the quality of school climate, rather than climate itself.
And most current accountability systems use data as "hammers,” rather than a “flashlight”.
This punitive accountability lens is unhelpful and counterproductive. Accountability systems
can and need to recognize, measure, and support a continuous process of learning and
development.
Finally, many K-12 educators and leaders are very aware that educators—like
parents/guardians—are always teaching social, emotional, civic, ethical, and cognitive lessons
(good or bad) regardless of their content areas and roles. The only question is whether those
lessons are being taught consciously, carefully, and thoughtfully. Thanks to generations of risk
prevention information, health and mental health promotion efforts, and educational research
it is now well known that pro-social instruction supports both school and life success. Academic
instruction in isolation from pro-social instruction tends to have limited impact. When
academic instruction is yoked to school wide efforts that ignite the intrinsic motivation of
students, parents/ guardians, school personnel, and community members to work together
toward a common goal, a transformation process is set in motion that promotes safer, more
supportive, engaging and higher achieving schools.
Notes
1. The term pro-social represents the collective summary of programs and practices that have
traditionally been described under a variety of overlapping titles: character/moral education,
social/emotional learning, ethical learning, civic education, service learning, community
service, mental health promotion, and moral community development. The term pro-social
education is intended as a shorthand stipulation that represents the overlapping titles
mentioned here. Pro-social instruction, like whole child education, is a term intended to build
bridges between social emotional learning, character education, civic and democratic
education, service-learning, mental health promotion efforts, etc.
2. HLM-informed statistical models and analyses are based on the notion that we can and need
to identify, operationally define, and measure many factors that influence one another over
time. The units of analysis, for example, are usually individuals (at a lower level) who are
nested within contextual/aggregate units (at a higher level).
References
Ainley, J. (2012). Student’s interest and engagement in classroom activities. In S. L.
Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), (2012) Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 283–302). New York, NY: Springer.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2014). Whole school, whole
community, whole child: A collaborative approach to learning and health. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/wholechild/wscc-
a-collaborative-approach.pdf
Berkowitz, M. W. (2011). Leading schools of character. In A.M. Blankstein & P.D. Houston
(Eds.), Leadership for social justice and democracy in our schools (pp. 93–121).Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Blesky, J., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., McCartney, K., Owen, M. T, &
The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2007). Are there long term effects of child
care? Child Development, 78, 681–701.
6
Brown, P. M., Corrigan, M.W., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of
prosocial education. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015, March 25). The Social-ecological model: A
framework for prevention. Retrieved fromwww.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/overview/social-
ecologicalmodel.html
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2013). 2013 CASEL guide: Effective
social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary edition. Retrieved
from http://www.casel.org/preschool-and-elementary-edition-casel-guide
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research on student
engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical and academic education: Creating a climate for
learning, participation in democracy and well-being. Harvard Educational Review,(76)2, 201–
237. Retrieved from www.hepg.org/her/abstract/8
Cohen, J. (2014, February 21). School climate policy and practice trends: A paradox. Teachers
College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17445
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, teacher education and practice. Teachers College Record, (111)1, 180–213. Retrieved
from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15220
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 77(1), 113–143.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership
study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership
Institute.
DeVita, M. C., Colvin, R. L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Haycoc, K. (2007). Education leadership:
A bridge to school reform. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved
from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-
research/Pages/Bridge-to-School-Reform.aspx
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Espelage, D. L., & Poteat, V. P. (2012). Counseling psychologists in schools. In N. A. Fouad
(Ed.), APA Handbook of Counseling Psychology (Vol 2) (Chapter 22). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Centre for Strategic
Education Seminar Series No. 204). East Melbourne, Victoria: Centre for Strategic Education.
Retrieved from http://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/Fullan-Wrong-Drivers1.pdf
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning
organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156. doi: 10.1177/0013161X05278189
7
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, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist,58, 466–474.
Heckman, M. I., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labor Economics, 19, 451–464.
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, 491–525.
Leithwood, K, Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning. St Paul, MN: Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement. Retrieved fromhttp://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/2035
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (2002). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual
influences on academic integrity. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378.
doi:10.1023/A:1014893102151
McCombs, B. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing
academic achievement and social-emotional learning outcomes. 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. 23–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The school discipline consensus
report: Strategies from the field to keep students engaged in school and out of the juvenile
justice system. New York, NY: The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Retrieved
from http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/The_School_Discipline_Consensus_Report.pdf
Morton, M., & Montgomery, P. (2011). Youth empowerment programs for improving self-
efficacy and self-esteem of adolescents. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/1402/Morton_YEP_Review.pdf
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school
systems keep getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved
fromhttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems-keep-
getting-better/
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2009). CDC Injury Research Agenda, 2009-
2018. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/injury/ResearchAgenda/pdf/CDC_Injury_Research_Agenda-a.pdf
National Research Council (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation
to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.) (2012). Education for work and life: Developing
transferable knowledge and skills for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Pomerantz, E., Moorman, E., & Litwack, S. D. (2007) The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77(3), 373–410. doi: 10.3102/003465430305567
8
Rumberger, R. W.. & Roternund, S. (2012). The relationship between engagement and high
school dropout. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), (2012)Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 491–513). New York, NY: Springer
Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their
development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement,15(2),125–148. doi: 10.1076/sesi.15.2.125.30434
Sheridan, S. M., Warnes, E. D., & Dowd, S. (2004). Home-school collaboration and bullying: An
ecological approach to increase social competence in children and youth. In D. L. Espelage & S.
M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social ecological perspective on prevention
and intervention (pp. 245-268). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of
early childhood development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate
research. Review of Educational Research, 83,2, doi:10.3102/0034654313483907
Twemlow, S. W., & Sacco, F. C. (2013). How and why does bystanding have such a startling
impact on the architecture of school bullying and violence? International Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 10(3), 289–306.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and
emotional learning: Past, present and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P.
Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and
practice (Chapter 1). New York, NY: Guildford.
Author: The National School Climate Council (http://schoolclimate.org/about/council.php)
The National School Climate Council includes the following members: Howard Adelman, Marvin
Berkowitz, Cathryn Berger Kaye, Martin J. Blank, Philip M. Brown, Patricia Ciccone, Jonathan
Cohen, James P. Comer, Peter DeWitt, Arnold F. Fege, Ann Foster, Jo Ann Freiberg, Ann
Higgins-D'Alessandro, Gary A. Homana, Rebecca Sipos, David Hutchinson, William H. Hughes,
Peter S. Jensen, Molly McCloskey, Linda Jeanne McKay, Nicholas Michelli, Carol Nixon, Derek
Peterson, Randy Ross, Sean Slade, Linda Taylor, and Stuart Twemlow.
Corresponding author: Jonathan Cohen, Ph.D. - jonathancohen@schoolclimate.org
Cite This Article as:
National School Climate Council (2015). School Climate and Prosocial Educational
Improvement:
Essential Goals and Processes that Support Student Success for All. Teachers College Record,
Date Published: May 05, 2015 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 17954, Date Accessed:
5/19/2015 6:10:25 PM
