Research Proposal Assignment
316
School Psychology Review 2018, Volume 47, No. 3, pp. 316–326 DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017.0116.V47-3
Children, Research, and Public Policy
A Systematic Review of State-Level Social–Emotional Learning Standards: Implications for Practice and Research
Katie Eklund University of Wisconsin–Madison
Kayla D. Kilpatrick University of Missouri
Stephen P. Kilgus University of Wisconsin–Madison
Aqdas Haider University of Missouri
Abstract. Social–emotional learning (SEL) programs and practices have garnered increased interest over recent years, primarily in response to a preponderance of research regarding universal, targeted, and intensive SEL programs. Along with this interest have come repeated calls for the adoption of standards for SEL at the state level. A systematic review was conducted to examine existing preschool and kindergarten through 12th grade SEL standards across all 50 states within the United States and the District of Columbia. This review included an examination of freestanding SEL standards, as well as those embedded within health, physical education, and/or counseling standards. Coded variables of interest included the specification of age- or grade-related categories (e.g., birth to age 3, grades K–2) and standards alignment with the five Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) core competencies (i.e., self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making). Results demonstrated every state has free- standing preschool SEL standards; however, only 11 states have freestanding SEL standards at the K–12 level. SEL standards were much more prevalent within health education standards across K–12 settings. Implications for practice and research are discussed in relation to the development and appropriateness of age- and grade- level SEL standards.
Keywords: social–emotional learning, character education, state standards, health standards
Educators are increasingly aware of the evidence demonstrating that students’ behavioral and emotional well-being is essential to effective learning and academic achievement (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg,
2007). A number of evidence-based programs and practices have recently emerged that are designed to teach students essential skills needed to address everyday stressors and to better develop their own coping and problem-solving skills
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Katie Eklund, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211; e-mail: eklundk@missouri.edu
Copyright 2018 by the National Association of School Psychologists ISSN 0279-6015, eISSN 2372-966x
Social Emotional Learning Standards
317
(Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, & Weissberg, 2017). The pro- motion of skills such as self-control, empathy, and problem solving have been shown to prevent more serious problems such as school disengagement, the development of mental health concerns, and academic failure (Payton et al., 2008; Zins & Elias, 2007). Social–emotional learning (SEL) pro- grams and practices have a demonstrated capacity to posi- tively impact social, emotional, and behavioral functioning, as well as student academic achievement (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). SEL involves:
The processes through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2017a)
SEL programs provide instruction that is designed to promote student self-awareness, social awareness, and responsible decision making and to improve students’ atti- tudes and beliefs about themselves, others, and school. The development of these skills provides an underpinning for pro- ductive citizenship.
IMPORTANCE OF SEL SKILLS
The promotion of SEL skills has been found to be asso- ciated with positive outcomes for students. For example, SEL skills have been linked to positive student outcomes, includ- ing academic engagement, positive behavioral outcomes, and attachment to school (Zins et al., 2007). Knowledge of SEL skills has also been shown to be a protective factor for at-risk youth, including those from lower socioeconomic status back- grounds (Elias & Haynes, 2008). In a recent meta-analysis on SEL skills, Durlak et al. (2011) found that SEL should be an essential aspect of pre-K–12 education, as students receiving SEL programs have demonstrated gains in social–emotional skills, academic achievement, and improved behavior at school. Schools are well positioned to integrate SEL lessons into their curricula as children benefit from explicit and sys- tematic instruction on these various life skills.
Absence of SEL skills also likely contributes to neg- ative student outcomes. For example, students who demon- strate social–emotional concerns demonstrate lower academic performance, including lower grades and overall achieve- ment, more discipline referrals, poor attendance, and higher dropout rates (Greenberg et al., 2003). Students who have documented social–emotional concerns are also more likely to have a higher number of disciplinary infractions and/or be referred for special education due to problematic behav- iors (Elias & Haynes, 2008; Stoiber, 2011). Taken together, social–emotional competencies serve as both protective and promotive factors that can help children develop healthy cop- ing and problem-solving skills.
Increasingly, schools are embedding SEL programs within multitiered systems of support (MTSS), in which students receive a continuum of services designed to meet their varying needs (Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016; Sugai & Horner, 2009). Levels of service within MTSS frameworks include universal, targeted, and intensive supports designed to address a scope of concerns, ranging from the prevention of social–emotional problems for all students to the remedia- tion of these concerns for the most at-risk students (Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007). At the universal level, SEL instruction is provided within the classroom in school-wide fashion, with the purpose of pro- moting the social–emotional competence of all and preventing the development of concerns for the majority of students. At the targeted and intensive levels, more directed SEL instruc- tion is delivered in a small-group context, with a focus on remediating existing concerns and preventing further problem development. Across the various levels of service delivery, SEL instruction is typically relevant to five broad competen- cies, including (a) self-awareness, (b) social awareness, (c) self-management, (d) relationship skills, and (e) responsible decision making (CASEL, 2005).
Much of the rise in SEL implementation within schools is related to the activities of CASEL, an organization focused on the advancement of SEL practices within schools via the dissemination of research, practice guidelines, and profes- sional development. CASEL has advocated for numerous policies and practices within schools. For instance, CASEL has suggested SEL instruction is most effective when imple- mented across the MTSS tiers, as well as through partnerships among teachers, schools, parents, and communities (CASEL, 2005). Furthermore, effective implementation includes incor- poration of evidence-based SEL programming within the classroom as part of the core curriculum. It is argued that instruction and promotion of these skills on a daily basis sends students the message that teachers care about positive behaviors and reinforces effective behavioral expectations in the classroom (Levitt, Saka, Romanelli, & Hoagwood, 2007; Mazzer & Rickwood, 2014). Research suggests high quality and evidence-based SEL programming has the potential for large returns on investment. A cost–benefit analysis of six widely used SEL programs found that every dollar spent on SEL programs resulted in an average benefit of $11 (Belfield et al., 2015), as demonstrated by fewer negative outcomes (e.g., substance use and delinquency) and increased positive outcomes (e.g., academic achievement and social skills).
FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES AND STANDARDS
An additional CASEL recommendation has been for the establishment and adoption of SEL standards at the dis- trict and state levels. The goal behind SEL standards is to further outline the skills children should know and under- stand. Standards and implementation guidelines provide a framework that sets expectations and guides decisions about
School Psychology Review, 2018, Volume 47, No. 3
318
DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017.0116.V47-3
what students should learn, and thus about what should be taught and assessed in schools. Furthermore, such standards are longitudinal in nature, setting specific expectations for student performance across and within grade levels. Similar to the manner in which educational standards guide instruc- tion within academic areas such as reading and mathemat- ics, social–emotional standards are designed to guide SEL instruction within schools. Federal- and state-level policies have important implications for the delivery of SEL instruc- tion in the school setting, as they have the potential to promote SEL service delivery and educator accountability for ensuring social–emotional competence among students.
Forthcoming educational policy changes at the federal level provide administrators at the state, district, and school levels the opportunity to prioritize SEL skills. The recently approved Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) provides states the flexibility to develop accountability systems that provide meaningful data to drive school improvement efforts. Specifically, ESSA requires states to develop accountability systems that not only include at least two indicators of stu- dent academic achievement, but also at least one indicator of school quality or student success (e.g., school climate, SEL). Statewide implementation of SEL standards and assessment of these skills could provide schools with more comprehen- sive data that can be used to identify and address the needs of individual students as well as larger school-wide improve- ment efforts.
Despite repeated calls for SEL standards, gaps within the SEL literature might limit the practicability of such standards, thereby reducing the rate at which they can be adopted. Such research gaps are illustrated in the CASEL (2017b) guidance regarding how districts or states might create and adopt SEL standards. This recommended 11-step process spans from the establishment of a standards development team to the writing of standards, the circulation of drafts, and the implementation and occasional revision of standards. One particularly salient component of the process pertains to the adaptation or develop- ment of SEL standards. CASEL suggested all standards should possess multiple characteristics, such that the standards are (a) aligned with CASEL’s five core competencies, (b) simple, clear, and concise statements regarding what students should know and do within each of these competencies, (c) aligned with developmental benchmarks that span across grades or grade bands (e.g., K–2), (d) culturally and linguistically rele- vant to the population in question, (e) aligned with any existing standards, and (f) aligned with any SEL programs constituent districts are already implementing.
Although each of these characteristics is certainly appropriate, one could argue that as a set they may be incom- plete. For instance, it would be desirable for the aforemen- tioned grade-specific benchmarks to be empirically based and founded on research regarding developmental SEL expecta- tions. CASEL’s five core competencies are certainly evidence based, having been informed by research regarding the major categories into which SEL skills might be organized (CASEL, 2005). In contrast, our review of the literature has yielded
little research regarding normative SEL development beyond early childhood (Boyd, Barnett, Bodrova, Leong, & Gomby, 2005). This is concerning, as, in the absence of such research, states might begin to establish idiosyncratic standards that are not reasonable developmental expectations of student performance, resulting in inappropriate decisions regarding social–emotional competence and development. Furthermore, state legislators might inappropriately emphasize the skills and expectations outlined by SEL program developers and publishers rather than more appropriately founding these decisions on scientific evidence.
Beyond research-based benchmarks, it would also be desirable for CASEL’s process to call for the adoption of stan- dards that can be defensibly assessed. A standard serves no purpose if student performance cannot be evaluated relative to that standard. Although a state or district could develop its own assessment to align with its standard, conclusions made in consideration of that assessment are questionable at best in the absence of sufficient psychometric defensibility. As with developmental benchmarks, our review of the SEL assessment literature found very few standards that were developed based on foundational research in this area, as have been found in other similar reviews (McKown, 2017). Although assessments certainly exist for evaluating SEL competence more broadly or within specific domains (e.g., Devereux Student Strengths Assessment [DESSA; LeBuffe, Shapiro, & Naglieri, 2009]; Social Skills Improvement System–SEL Edition [SSIS-SEL; Gresham & Elliott, 2017]), as well as SEL development during early childhood (e.g., Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition [ASQ-3; Bricker & Squires, 1999]), there is a lack of assessment measures that could be used to track SEL development across the K–12 spectrum.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
In summary, repeated calls have been made for districts and states to adopt standards for student SEL. Yet limitations within the SEL literature, including the absence of normative developmental data and the lack of defensible assessments, has likely influenced the standards development process. It could be that the absence of evidence and assessments has served as a deterrent to standards development and adop- tion. In contrast, standards adoption might have proceeded undeterred in response to CASEL recommendations, ESSA requirements, the proliferation of evidence-based SEL pro- grams, and many other factors. If standards adoption has indeed begun, the absence of K–12 research suggests potential variability across states with regard to the timing and nature of benchmarks. In contrast, the absence of en masse standards adoption could signal the need for additional research, partic- ularly at the K–12 level.
CASEL recently conducted a state scan to determine which states have adopted SEL standards (Dusenbury, Weissberg, Goren, & Domitrovich, 2014). Findings sug- gested that while 49 states had freestanding SEL standards for preschool, only three states possessed such standards for
Social Emotional Learning Standards
319
K–12. Although informative, limitations to this review were noted. First, no information was provided regarding how the review was conducted, thus limiting its replicability. Second, the authors did not provide a review of SEL standards that might be incorporated within other standards, such as those specific to physical education, health, or counseling. Although freestanding standards certainly afford advantages in high- lighting the importance of SEL, a search for such standards alone is likely to underestimate the attention to the existence of other standards by educators and state legislators. Third, no information was provided regarding the SEL competencies addressed within each state, leaving questions regarding the comprehensiveness of standards.
Given each of these limitations, the following system- atic review was conducted to investigate the current status of SEL standards in preschool through high school settings across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The review included an evaluation of independent, freestanding SEL stan- dards, as well as an evaluation of SEL standards language within existing health, physical education, and school coun- seling standards. We hypothesized the rich SEL literature within early childhood has driven standards adoption within preschool and early childhood settings, resulting in many states developing consistent freestanding SEL standards. We further hypothesized that the comparatively restricted research in K–12 has resulted in either (a) relatively fewer standalone SEL standards across states, or (b) the adoption of standards within health, physical education, and school counseling standards (thereby suggesting a more secondary focus on SEL when compared with the standalone model).
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted to examine existing SEL standards across all 50 states within the United States and the District of Columbia from January to June 2017. This included a review of preschool and kindergarten through 12th-grade SEL standards. Within the current review, stan- dards were defined as written descriptions of what students are expected to know or do at specific stages of their edu- cation; it was not necessary for a standard to specify how it should be instructed or assessed within the educational setting to be considered a standard (Great Schools Partnership, 2014). Accordingly, the current review does not afford any informa- tion regarding the manner in which states are addressing their SEL standards (should they exist), be it through universal curricula, targeted instruction, or broader SEL-based MTSS frameworks. Rather, information is only provided regarding whether any standards exist within states that might guide these prevention, intervention, and assessment efforts.
The initial search examined freestanding standards— that is, state learning standards that clearly describe what students should be able to know and do in terms of social– emotional development and that were not embedded within in any other discipline-specific domain. In order to provide a comprehensive, systematic review of SEL competencies across
states, a second search examined any type of SEL standards that existed as part of broader physical education, health, and/ or school counseling standards within each respective state department of education. These latter three areas were prior- itized based upon an initial comprehensive scan of broader state-level learning standards. This initial review revealed that many states incorporated standards relevant to student social– emotional development within their physical education, health, and/or school counseling standards. In an effort to expand the scope of our systematic search, we incorporated these areas into a second review of state-level standards.
SEL standards were identified through several search procedures. First, each researcher conducted independent online electronic searches using a series of search terms. Search terms included the name of the state and the follow- ing keywords: social–emotional standards, social–emotional learning standards, education, health standards, physical edu- cation standards, counseling standards, and guidance stan- dards. Searches were conducted both through state department of education websites and through a larger and more compre- hensive Internet search engine (i.e., Google). For all states for which researchers were unable to find freestanding or disci- pline-specific social–emotional learning standards, researchers contacted the state’s department of education by e-mail and/ or phone to identify any existing documents or standards that might not have been identified via the initial online search process. Fourteen state departments of education were con- tacted by phone and/or e-mail following the online review. Subsequent data were coded and integrated into current results to reflect the most up-to-date information available.
Once identified, each of the state standards was subse- quently reviewed and coded in order to present comprehen- sive data regarding state SEL standards. A comprehensive spreadsheet was created in which standards were coded across four categories: (a) grade level (e.g., preschool, K–12); (b) freestanding social–emotional standards or embedded within health, physical education, and/or counseling standards; (c) the specification of age- or grade-related categories (e.g., birth to age 3, grades K–2); and (d) standards alignment with the five CASEL core competencies (i.e., self-awareness, self-man- agement, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making). Table 1 provides a definition of each of the five CASEL core competencies that were referenced during coding procedures. The comprehensive spreadsheet was used by the first author to independently code each state’s materials included in the current review. A second independent rater uti- lized the same search procedures so that materials from each state were coded twice by two independent raters. The first and third authors (both university professors) systematically trained the remaining authors (advanced doctoral students) to conduct coding procedures during a single hour-long meeting. This included providing verbal instructions of the aforemen- tioned coding procedures, modeling of coding procedures, and providing an opportunity to practice coding state SEL stan- dards. All authors had extensive experience with social–emo- tional assessment and intervention.
School Psychology Review, 2018, Volume 47, No. 3
320
DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017.0116.V47-3
Upon completion of all coding procedures, three discrep- ancies (6%) were reviewed by the research team. Upon com- pletion of this discussion, all three discrepancies were resolved, resulting in 100% agreement across all coded categories.
RESULTS
Early childhood/preschool through 12th-grade social– emotional learning standards were examined for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (see Table 2). Results indicate that every state has clearly defined, freestanding preschool SEL standards. While a variety of terminology was used to describe these standards (e.g., competencies, learning stan- dards, guidelines), each state articulated what students should know or be able to do in relation to social–emotional function- ing. When examining alignment with the five CASEL core competencies, 34 states and the District of Columbia clearly articulated all five competencies, 14 states identified four of the competencies, and two states highlighted three out of five CASEL competencies. The majority of states present their learning standards as age-specific bands (e.g., 18–36 months, 3–4 years of age).
When examining K–12 SEL standards, a number of variations exist between states. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia included SEL competencies within pre- existing health and/or physical education standards. Almost every state included some variation of all five CASEL core competencies, with the exception of Louisiana and Maine (who only included four of the five CASEL competencies). Ohio also had no mention of SEL competencies within health or physical education standards, but the state did have free- standing SEL standards. Twenty states (40%) included SEL components within their school counseling standards. And in
a few of these states, SEL standards were only specific to a narrow range of grades (e.g., K–3, K–5).
Finally, results captured the presence of freestanding SEL standards within each state beyond those found in health, physical education, or school counseling standards. Eleven states (22%) had freestanding SEL content for all grades or some combination of grade levels. For example, Illinois had freestanding SEL standards for kindergarten through 12th grade, whereas Ohio had SEL freestanding standards for kin- dergarten through third grade only. These results suggest that the majority of states and the District of Columbia do not have freestanding K–12 SEL standards.
DISCUSSION
Interest in student SEL has increased rapidly over recent years, mostly in response to a preponderance of research regarding universal, targeted, and intensive SEL programs. Along with this interest have come repeated calls for the adop- tion of standards for SEL at the state level (CASEL, 2017b). Such standards are intended to guide programmatic SEL efforts in schools, setting guidelines for what students should learn and when they should learn it. A recent review suggested standards adoption has begun in earnest at the preschool level, with only a few states doing so at the K–12 level (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Unfortunately, limitations to this review sug- gested the need for an additional examination that was more systematic (thus supporting replicability) and wide ranging (considering standards beyond those freestanding in nature) in an effort to yield more accurate and reliable estimates regard- ing state standards adoption. The need for such a review was further underscored by noted limitations to the SEL research base, which may have disrupted SEL standards development.
Table 1. CASEL Core Competency Definitions
Competency CASEL Definition
Self-Awareness The ability to accurately recognize one’s own emotions, thoughts, and values and how they influence behavior. The ability to accurately assess one’s strengths and limitations, with a well-grounded sense of confidence, optimism, and a growth mindset.
Self-Management The ability to successfully regulate one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in different situations— effectively managing stress, controlling impulses, and motivating oneself. The ability to set and work toward personal and academic goals.
Social Awareness The ability to take the perspective of and empathize with others, including those from diverse backgrounds and cultures. The ability to understand social and ethical norms for behavior and to recognize family, school, and community resources and supports.
Relationship Skills The ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with diverse individuals and groups. The ability to communicate clearly, listen well, cooperate with others, resist inappropriate social pressure, negotiate conflict constructively, and seek and offer help when needed.
Responsible Decision Making
The ability to make constructive choices about personal behavior and social interactions based on ethical standards, safety concerns, and social norms. The realistic evaluation of consequences of various actions, and a consideration of the well-being of oneself and others.
Note. CASEL = Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Adapted from CASEL (2017a).
Social Emotional Learning Standards
321
T a
b le
2 .
S o
c ia
l– E
m o
ti o
n a l L
e a rn
in g
S ta
n d
a rd
s b
y S
ta te
P re
-K S
E L S
ta n d a rd
s K
– 1 2 S
E L S
ta n
d a
rd s
S ta
te P
re -K
F re
e st
a n d in
g
C A
S E
L S
ta n d a rd
s A
g e -S
p e
ci fic
o r A
g e B
a n d s
F re
e st
a n d in
g &
In
cl u d e s
C A
S E
L
S ta
n d a rd
s
C A
S E
L S
ta n d a rd
s in
H
e a lth
/P E
C A
S E
L S
ta n
d a
rd s
in C
o u
n se
lin g
G ra
d e
-S p
e ci
fic o
r G
ra d
e B
a n
d s
A la
b a m
a S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n
e
A la
sk a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
A ri zo
n a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
A rk
a n sa
s S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
C a lif
o rn
ia S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
C o lo
ra d o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
C o n n e ct
ic u t
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic Y
e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D (
K –
3 o
n ly
) G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
D e la
w a re
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
D is
tr ic
t o f
C o lu
m b ia
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
n e
F lo
ri d a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
G e o rg
ia S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
H a w
a ii
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
Id a h o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
Y e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
Ill in
o is
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
Y e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
In d ia
n a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
Y e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
Io w
a S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
n e
K a n sa
s S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
K e n tu
ck y
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
L o u is
ia n a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
M a in
e S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
Y e s
S M
, S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
M a ry
la n d
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic (
K –
8 )
M a ss
a ch
u se
tt s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
Y e s
(K o
n ly
) S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
M ic
h ig
a n
S A
, S
O , R
S N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic (
K –
8 )
M in
n e so
ta S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
School Psychology Review, 2018, Volume 47, No. 3
322
DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017.0116.V47-3
M is
si ss
ip p i
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S A
g e -s
p e
ci fic
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
M is
so u ri
S A
, S
O , R
S N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , R
S G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
M o n ta
n a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N e b ra
sk a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N e va
d a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N e w
H
a m
p sh
ir e
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N e w
J e rs
e y
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic N
o S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N e w
M e xi
co S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic N
o S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N e w
Y o rk
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N o rt
h C
a ro
lin a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s
N o rt
h D
a ko
ta S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
O h io
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
Y e s
(K – 3 )
N o n e
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D (
K –
3 o
n ly
) G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
O kl
a h o m
a S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
n e
O re
g o n
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n
e
P e n n sy
lv a n ia
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
Y e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
( K
)
R h o d e I sl
a n d
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D (
K o
n ly
) G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
S o u th
C a ro
lin a
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic N
o S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
S o u th
D a ko
ta S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
b a
n d
s (K
– 2
o n
ly )
Te n n e ss
e e
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D (
K –
2 o
n ly
) G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
Te xa
s S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
U ta
h S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic N
o S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
V e
rm o n t
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e b
a n
d s
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
V ir g
in ia
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
W a sh
in g to
n S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic Y
e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
W e
st V
ir g in
ia S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D A
g e -s
p e ci
fic Y
e s
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D G
ra d
e -s
p e
ci fic
W is
co n si
n S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D S
A , R
S , R
D (
K –
1 o
n ly
) G
ra d
e b
a n
d s
W yo
m in
g S
A , S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
N o
S A
, S
M , S
O , R
S , R
D N
o n e
G ra
d e
-s p
e ci
fic
N o
te .
S E
L =
s o
ci a
l– e
m o
ti o
n a
l le
a rn
in g
; C
A S
E L =
C o
lla b
o ra
ti ve
f o
r A
ca d
e m
ic ,
S o
ci a
l, a
n d
E m
o ti o
n a
l L
e a
rn in
g ;
S A
= S
e lf -a
w a
re n
e ss
, S
M =
S e
lf -m
a n
a g
e m
e n
t, S
O =
S o
ci a
l a
w a
re n
e ss
, R
S =
R e la
tio n sh
ip s
ki lls
, R
D =
R e sp
o n si
b le
d e ci
si o n m
a ki
n g .
Social Emotional Learning Standards
323
Such limitations include the paucity of evidence-based SEL assessments, as well as the lack of empirically derived K–12 developmental benchmarks.
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the number of states that have adopted SEL standards while also examining the nature of these standards across states. Results demonstrated every state has freestanding preschool standards for social–emotional development, with most states clearly articulating all five CASEL core competencies of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, rela- tionship skills, and responsible decision making. This aligns with the previous search of freestanding SEL standards that was conducted by CASEL (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Although these standards varied greatly in terms of depth and breadth, most standards were clearly connected to age-level expec- tations and developmental benchmarks. For example, the state of Missouri has developed a set of standards for what most children should know and be able to do by the time they enter kindergarten (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2016). This includes three content components (i.e., knowledge of self, knowledge of others, approaches to learning) and subsequent process standards that fall under each content component. For example, under the category of knowledge of self, students are expected to (a) exhibit self-awareness, (b) develop self-control, and (c) develop personal responsibility. Strategies are given for how teachers and parents can support development of each of these areas in the classroom and at home. Alternatively, states like Colorado provide early learning and developmental guide- lines divided into grade bands (i.e., birth–age 3, ages 3–5, and K–3). There is a social and emotional development domain that includes subsequent subdomains, indicators, examples, and suggested supports. These obvious variations between states take into account differences between local contexts but highlight the importance of social–emotional development among preschoolers in their own unique way.
Although K–12 health standards identified components of students’ social–emotional development across most states, very few states that have adopted comprehensive, freestand- ing SEL standards. In fact, results suggest that only 11 states have any type of freestanding SEL standards at the K–12 level. A historical account of state adoption of SEL standards highlights that Illinois was the first state to do so in 2004, followed by Pennsylvania, which adopted SEL standards in 2012 (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Idaho and Washington have K–3 SEL standards but have yet to develop comprehensive standards for fourth grade and beyond. While the inclusion of social–emotional competencies within other standards pro- vides schools with strategies for supporting their inclusion in the general education classroom, this placement may cause SEL components to be overlooked or potentially lost among other school requirements.
Of note, while we did not classify Kansas as having freestanding SEL standards, previous research suggested oth- erwise (Dusenbury et al., 2014). Examination of the Kansas social, emotional, and character development standards
suggest that they highlight all five CASEL components; however, they do so under school counseling standards, as indicated on the Kansas Department of Education website. While these were considered high quality standards that align with national guidance frameworks, their existence within the school counseling domain did not meet our definition of freestanding learning standards. Relatedly, Missouri has Show-Me Standards across the various academic domains that include goals that incorporate SEL components, such as problem solving, decision-making skills, and communication. However, as these are goals with little guidance on account- ability in the way that standards are assessed, they were also not coded as freestanding learning standards.
LIMITATIONS
There were a few limitations imposed on the review process. Although the review process cast a wide net across search engines and terms, the availability of SEL standards and updated information on state department of education websites is a potential limitation. The precise keywords used or the alignment with CASEL standards may determine the result of a systematic review and has been acknowledged as one of the integral characteristics of systematic reviews (Hannes, Claes, & The Belgian Campbell Group, 2007; Nind, 2006). Second, when our search did not result in the identifi- cation of information related to state standards, we contacted representatives at state departments of education. We were then dependent on the representatives’ ability to identify rele- vant information. It is unfortunately impossible to evaluate the accuracy with which such information was provided. Third, given the scope and purpose of our project, we did not col- lect more specific information regarding the actual content of state SEL standards. Furthermore, we did not target evidence regarding whether the standards were of sufficient quality or aligned with CASEL recommendations for standards devel- opment. Such an endeavor therefore represents a direction for future inquiry regarding state SEL standards.
Overall, this study represents a preliminary attempt to capture the current state of SEL inclusion within state stan- dards across pre-K–12 public schools. Given the synthesis of present findings, it is clear additional work must be done if SEL standards are to be adopted and integrated in most states across the nation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Prior research suggests that teachers want to address the behavioral and social–emotional needs of students (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2011). A proactive approach to addressing student’s social–emotional needs could include a universal classroom curriculum focused on skills such as communi- cation, empathy, problem solving, and self-management. Helping teachers access evidence-based materials that instruct students on these important character traits is important if SEL instruction is to proliferate. The establishment of state-level
School Psychology Review, 2018, Volume 47, No. 3
324
DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017.0116.V47-3
SEL standards represents one efficient and effective means by which to promote school adoption and use of SEL curricula in the hopes of developing well-rounded students who can become positive, productive citizens.
Recent educational policy changes provide administra- tors at the state, district, and school levels the opportunity to prioritize the social–emotional needs of students. The aforementioned Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) provides educational leaders the opportunity to use SEL outcomes as one indicator of student success in their own ESSA state plans. National associations that represent the needs of school psychologists (e.g., National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], Division 16 of the American Psychological Association) often prioritize the mental health needs of students, in which social–emotional learning also plays an important part. School psychologists can advocate for school improvement plans that align with SEL state stan- dards, in consideration of universal interventions that address the needs of all students (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). By encour- aging schools and districts to monitor the social–emotional well-being of its students, schools are able to focus not solely on academics, but also the culture and climate of the class- room and school as a whole. A primary focus on developing healthy relationships with the school community can promote connectedness to school and positive youth development, which encompass healthy behaviors and academic success (Blum, McNeely, & Rinehart, 2002).
Educators, such as school psychologists and teachers, can play a crucial role in advocating for social–emotional standards within their states. Educators are encouraged to identify what standards exist in their own states and how these standards can help further SEL curricula within pre- school through 12th-grade classrooms. School-based practi- tioners can conduct a needs assessment in their own schools or districts to assess whether and how standards are being used within the classroom. Highlighting how teachers are integrating these skills into the classroom are important, as well as identifying ways to expand these lessons into existing coursework, including health curricula, homeroom or advi- sory class periods, and other related core academic courses. If these standards do not exist, these same school profession- als are encouraged to advocate for their inclusion by (a) vol- unteering to be a part of state-level committees that provide ongoing revisions to state standards, (b) contacting state-level leaders involved in these decisions to express support for the inclusion of SEL standards, and/or (c) attending town-hall meetings that seek out public comment on academic standards or changes to educational policies (e.g., ESSA).
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Beyond implications for practice, the current review also holds implications for future SEL research. As noted previously, the adoption of K–12 SEL standards greatly lags behind that of preschool. Although this clearly represents an opportunity for continued advocacy efforts at the K–12 level,
it also highlights the opportunity and need for continued SEL exploration. Two of these important research areas, develop- mental benchmarks and SEL assessment, are discussed in the following sections.
Developmental Benchmarks
Although existing research has supported the detec- tion of the major areas within which SEL instruction should occur (i.e., the five major CASEL competencies), research is lacking regarding developmental benchmarks within each of these areas. In other words, although the field possesses large instructional targets, it is in need of moving targets. Information regarding such moving targets would serve mul- tiple purposes. For instance, such evidence would help to set realistic expectations for SEL development within and across grades. This would then reduce idiosyncrasies in standards setting that are related to educator preferences and anecdotal experience, or to the nonempirical curriculum sequences set forth by some SEL program developers. Furthermore, infor- mation regarding developmental benchmarks could poten- tially help to enhance the efficacy of SEL prevention and intervention efforts. Within the area of mathematics, instruc- tion will undoubtedly be more effective if educators target number identification before addition and subtraction and if this latter instruction precedes that of multiplication and divi- sion. Furthermore, instruction within each of these areas will likely be more effective if it is delivered at a time at which students can be expected to learn it. Should instruction come too early, students might not be prepared to acquire the infor- mation and the efforts could be ineffective. Should instruction come too late, students could fall behind and have a difficult time catching up to their same-aged peers.
Such expectations for instructional effectiveness might be feasibly extended to the SEL domain. It is strongly rec- ommended that, moving forward, researchers identify a rea- sonable course for SEL development that extends beyond the preschool age. It is important to acknowledge, however, that such research might be unsuccessful and incapable of identifying reliable benchmarks that generalize to the wider population. Research suggests much of child and adolescent development is nonlinear and idiosyncratic (Ruffin, 2009). In other words, the timing and nature of SEL development is likely to vary greatly across individuals, with some stu- dents acquiring certain skills before others and in a differ- ent sequence. Accordingly, two students at the same level of social–emotional competence could be displaying entirely different sets of skills that developed in a different order and at different time points. Within this scenario, developmental benchmarks like those typically outlined in state-level SEL standards may be unreasonable and potentially inadvisable. Perhaps a more defensible approach would correspond to the identification and establishment of critical SEL skills that are nonsequential and unordered but nevertheless predictive of student social–emotional competence and resilience (Elias & Haynes, 2008). Such skills could be considered in a summative
Social Emotional Learning Standards
325
fashion. Students would be expected to acquire these skills by a critical time point (e.g., kindergarten entry, transition to middle school); if they have not, emphasis would be placed on intervention and remediation. Although such critical skills and the associated summative assessment would not be structured in a manner consistent with the CASEL-recommended grade- level benchmarks, this approach to SEL evaluation would be in accordance with research-driven recommendations that move more in the direction of summative SEL skills to be developed over the course of a few years (e.g., a self-awareness compe- tence to be developed during grades 3–5).
Assessment
Beyond developmental benchmarks, research is needed to support the development of additional SEL assessment tools. Compared to other areas (e.g., behavior and academ- ics), the number of SEL assessments is quite restricted. In his recent commentary on the state of SEL research, McKown (2017) noted that within the already restricted area of SEL assessment, many available options are (a) lacking high quality psychometric evidence, (b) suitable for a restricted range of purposes (e.g., identification of student strengths and weaknesses), and (c) likely not suitable for use for high-stakes purposes. Research is therefore needed if SEL assessment is completed as part of educational accountability efforts at both the state and federal levels. This line of inquiry should be conducted in concert with the aforementioned developmental research, supporting development of evidence-based assess- ments that can be used to defensibly track empirically derived benchmarks over time.
It is suggested that the proposed developmental and assessment research could mirror prior efforts in the aca- demic domain, including those specific to reading. CASEL efforts in identifying five major SEL competencies have been similar to the efforts of the National Reading Panel, which resulted in the development of the 5 Big Ideas of Reading (e.g., phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehen- sion). Moving forward, SEL research could mirror research regarding curriculum-based measurement (CBM), which yielded (a) evidence-based developmental benchmarks for student performance within each of these Big 5 areas and (b) evidence-based CBM assessment tools that could be used in tracking student performance relative to these benchmarks for multiple purposes (e.g., universal screening, progress monitoring). The development of these evidence-based practices could serve to further the expansion of not only SEL implementation within classrooms, but also empirically based assessment and monitoring of developmentally appro- priate state-level SEL standards.
REFERENCES
Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(3), 508–544.
Blum, R., McNeely, C., & Rinehart, P. (2002). Improving the odds: The untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Adolescent Health and Development, University of Minnesota.
Boyd, J., Barnett, W. S., Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J., & Gomby, D. (2005). Promoting children’s social and emotional development through pre- school education (NIEER policy report). New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Bricker, D., & Squires, J. (1999). Ages & stages questionnaires: A parent-com- pleted child-monitoring system (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs—Illinois edition. Chicago, IL: Author.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2017a). Core SEL competencies. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/core-competencies/
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2017b). Standards: Establish K-12 SEL standards. Retrieved from https://drc. casel.org/standards/#process
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2011). Predicting teacher com- mitment: The impact of school climate and social–emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 1034–1048. doi:10.1002/pits.20611
Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social-emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88, 408–416. doi:10.1111/cdev.12739
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., 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. doi:10.1111/j.l467-8624.2010.01564.x
Dusenbury, L., Weissberg, R. P., Goren, P., & Domitrovich, C. (2014). State standards to advance social and emotional learning: Findings from CASEL’s State Scan of social and emotional learning standards, preschool through high school, 2014. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Elias, M. J., & Haynes, N. M. (2008). Social competence, social sup- port, and academic achievement in minority, low-income, urban ele- mentary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 474–495. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.474
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 (2015). Great Schools Partnership. (2014). Common standards. The glossary of edu-
cation reform for journalists, parents, and community members. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based pre- vention and youth development through coordinated social, emo- tional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 446–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2017). SSIS SEL Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Hannes, K., Claes, L., & The Belgian Campbell Group. (2007). Learn to read and write systematic reviews: The Belgian Campbell Group. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 748–753. doi:10.1177/1049731507303106
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 2–22.
LeBuffe, P. A., Shapiro, V. B., & Naglieri, J. A. (2009). The Devereux Student Strengths Assessment. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan.
Levitt, J. M., Saka, N., Romanelli, L. H., & Hoagwood, K. (2007). Early identification of mental health problems in schools: The status of instru- mentation. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 163–191. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2006.11.005
Mazzer, K. R., & Rickwood, D. J. (2014). Teachers’ role breadth and perceived efficacy in supporting student mental health. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 8(1), 29–41. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2014.978119
McKown, C. (2017). Social and emotional learning: A policy vision for the future. Policy Brief, Spring 2017. Princeton, NJ: The Future of Children, Princeton-Brookings.
School Psychology Review, 2018, Volume 47, No. 3
326
DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017.0116.V47-3
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2016). Missouri early learning standards for social and emotional development and approaches to learning. Retrieved from https://dese.mo.gov/sites/ default/files/eel-el-social-teacher.pdf
Nind, M. (2006). Conducting systematic review in education: A reflexive narrative. London Review of Education, 4(2), 183–195.
Payton, J. W., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pacham, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade stu- dents– Findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Ruffin, N. J. (2009). Understanding growth and development patterns of infants. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from https://pubs.ext. vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/350/350-055/350-055_pdf.pdf
Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behavior- ally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193–223. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.003
Stoiber, K. C. (2011). Translating knowledge of social-emotional learning and evidence-based practice into responsive school innovations. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 21(1), 46–55. doi:10.108 0/10474412.2011.549039
Stoiber, K. C., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden, (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The sci- ence and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.; pp. 121– 141). New York, NY: Springer.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237. doi:10.1080/09362830903235375
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school suc- cess. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2–3), 191–210. doi:10.1080/10474410701413145
Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Social and emotional learning: Promoting the development of all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2–3), 233–255. doi:10.1080/10474410701413152
Date Received: September 11, 2017 Date Accepted: January 29, 2018
Associate Editor: Tanya Eckert
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENTS
Katie Eklund, PhD, is an assistant professor of school psychology in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is a nationally certified school psychologist and licensed psy- chologist. Dr. Eklund’s research on school mental health includes universal screening and early intervention for mental health risk, advocacy and policy promotion of school psychologists as mental health providers, and school climate and student safety.
Kayla D. Kilpatrick, MA, is a doctoral candidate in school psychology at the University of Missouri. Her research interests center on school mental health, including embedding evidence-based social–emotional interventions into the school setting along with supporting schools in implementation using a tiered service delivery model.
Stephen P. Kilgus, PhD, is an associate professor of school psychology in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His primary research interests pertain to social–emotional and behav- ioral assessment and intervention. Of particular interest is the validation of universal screening and problem analysis tools, as well as the development of Tier 2 interventions. Dr. Kilgus currently serves as an associate editor for the Journal of School Psychology. He received the Lightner Witmer Award for early career scholarship from Division 16 of the American Psychological Association.
Aqdas Haider, EdS, is a doctoral student in the school psychology program at the University of Missouri– Columbia. She is also pursuing a graduate certificate in applied behavior analysis. Her research interests include functional analyses to identify the function of challenging behaviors as well as individual and classroom-based interventions to improve student behavior and academic outcomes.
Copyright of School Psychology Review is the property of National Association of School Psychologists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.