Navigating SEL from the Inside Out, Study notes of Decision Making

Download Navigating SEL from the Inside Out and more Study notes Decision Making in PDF only on Docsity! Stephanie M. Jones, Katharine E. Brush, Thelma Ramirez, Zoe Xinyi Mao, Michele Marenus, Samantha Wettje, Kristen Finney, Natasha Raisch, Nicole Podoloff, Jennifer Kahn, Sophie Barnes, Laura Stickle, Gretchen Brion- Meisels, Joseph McIntyre, Jorge Cuartas, Rebecca Bailey THE EASEL LAB @ THE HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION WITH FUNDING FROM THE WALLACE FOUNDATION NAVIGATING SEL FROM THE INSIDE OUT LOOKING INSIDE & ACROSS 33 LEADING SEL PROGRAMS: A PRACTICAL RESOURCE FOR SCHOOLS AND OST PROVIDERS REVISED & EXPANDED SECOND EDITION (PRESCHOOL & ELEMENTARY FOCUS) JULY 2021 i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. iv PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................4 What Is Included in This Report & How Can It Be Used? ...........................................................................................4 What Is the Purpose of This Guide? ............................................................................................................................6 What Programs Are Included? .....................................................................................................................................9 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND ON SEL SKILLS AND INTERVENTIONS ...................................................................... 14 What is Social and Emotional Learning? .................................................................................................................. 14 SEL Skills & Competencies ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Common Practices for Building SEL Skills & Competencies .................................................................................... 19 Contextual & Cultural Considerations for SEL .......................................................................................................... 21 Developmental Considerations for SEL: The Early Childhood & Elementary School Years................................... 24 Linking SEL to Outcomes for Children and Youth .................................................................................................... 27 What Do We Know about Effective SEL Programs? ................................................................................................ 27 CHAPTER 2: A FOCUS ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME (OST) ....................................................................................... 36 Alignment between SEL and OST Programs ............................................................................................................. 36 SEL Programs in OST Settings.................................................................................................................................... 37 Adapting SEL Programs to OST Settings ................................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER 3: ACHIEVING EQUITABLE SEL ................................................................................................................ 41 The Relationship between SEL and Educational Equity .......................................................................................... 41 What is Equitable SEL? .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Integrating Equity into SEL Programs and Practice ................................................................................................. 46 How Do SEL Programs Currently Support Equitable SEL? ....................................................................................... 51 Implications for Educational and OST Settings ........................................................................................................ 55 CHAPTER 4: A TRAUMA-SENSITIVE APPROACH TO SEL ........................................................................................ 56 What Is Trauma, and How Is It Related to SEL? ....................................................................................................... 56 Alignment between SEL and Trauma-Informed Practice ........................................................................................ 61 Ensuring that SEL Programming is Trauma-Informed ............................................................................................. 65 iv Acknowledgements Our team would like to thank everyone who made this work possible. We are extremely grateful to the Wallace Foundation, in particular Amy Gedal Douglass, Katherine Lewandowski, and Bronwyn Bevan for their generous support and ongoing collaboration and feedback. A team of researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) produced this report. We would especially like to thank: • Joe McIntyre for his speedy data analysis and visual displays; • Jorge Cuartas for his thoughtful analysis of the equity, skill, and strategy codes; • Sophie Barnes for her careful development and coordination of the evidence coding process and much-looked-forward-to weekly check-ins; • Emily Meland for her insight, guidance, and support through the equity-focused aspects of our work on the guide; • Jenny Kahn for her contributions to the “How to Use this Guide” supplement and for always reminding us to keep the guide accessible and useable for our audience; • Rebecca Bailey for her on-going guidance and thoughtful review; • Zoe Xinyi Mao, Michele Marenus, Samantha Wettje, and Kristen Finney, our core team of coders who worked on the project over the past year, for their invaluable contributions to the data collection, coding, analysis, writing, and review process; and • Natasha Raisch, Laura Stickle, Sophie Barnes, and Nicole Podoloff for their invaluable contributions to the research and writing process. We also want to thank the many research assistants, interns, doctoral students, and EASEL staff who worked on this project as coders, collaborators, and reviewers: Lily Barnes, Kerry Collins, Alexa Nappa, Bryan Nelson, Christine Park, Shreya Prakash, Winfred Rembert, Carrie Ryter, Reshma Sreekala, Emma Sterling, and our team of evidence coders: Katherine Corteselli, Lily Fritz, Kelly Harrington, and Michael McGarrah. A special thanks to our group of reviewers who helped provide thoughtful feedback on the report: Gretchen Brion-Meisels of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Drema Brown of Children’s Aid, Kamilah Drummond-Forrester of Open Circle, and David Osher of American Institutes for Research. Finally, we would like to thank the developers who created the programs in this guide for their willingness to provide us with access to their program materials and information, for their helpful conversations and reviews, and for their dedication to helping children and youth build the social and emotional skills central to success in school and life. Program component icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com. 1 PREFACE The field of social and emotional learning (SEL) is rapidly expanding. Over the past two decades, there has emerged a growing consensus among researchers who study child development, education, and health that social and emotional skills are essential to learning and life outcomes. Furthermore, research indicates that high-quality, evidence-based programs and policies that promote these skills among students can improve physical and mental wellbeing, academic outcomes, and college and career readiness and success. However, there are a great number of SEL programs available for educators to choose from, and those programs vary widely in skill focus, teaching strategies, implementation supports, and general approach toward SEL. Over the past two decades, SEL has emerged as an umbrella term for a number of concepts, including non- cognitive development, character education, 21st century skills, and trauma-informed learning, among others. Researchers, educators, and policy-makers alike are beset by dilemmas about what exactly is included in this broad domain. Popular press highlights skills such as grit, empathy, growth mindset, social skills, and more. Yet while SEL programs typically target multiple skills, very few programs target all of these skills. Furthermore, each program has its own way of building skills through specific teaching and learning activities, and its own programmatic components that define how the program looks and feels, as well as how skills are addressed and presented through explicit messages or implicit themes. For example, some programs are focused on “character traits” such as honesty, while others focus on skills like understanding emotions and solving problems, or a core theme like identity development. Some programs use discussions as the primary learning activity, while others are movement-based or game-oriented. Some programs have extensive family engagement or teacher professional development components, while others have none. Some programs are designed to be highly flexible and adaptable to context, while others are scripted and uniform. These differences matter to schools, families, out-of-school-time organizations, researchers, and policy-makers because they signal differences in what gets taught and how. This report was designed to provide information about the specific features that define SEL programs and that may be important to stakeholders who are selecting, recommending, evaluating, or reporting on different SEL programs, or to those who are aligning efforts across multiple schools, programs, or regions. At the same time, social, emotional, and behavioral factors are increasingly incorporated into education accountability metrics (e.g., ESSA: Every Student Succeeds Act), and school climate initiatives, anti-bullying work, positive behavior supports (e.g., PBIS), and discipline reform are increasingly influencing the day-to-day practice of schools and communities. Moreover, as the United States grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic alongside the rest of the world, children and adults are either returning to or creating new learning environments that look and feel very different from what they are used to. Strong SEL supports are more critical than ever in this new learning climate to maintain strong and supportive relationships; build resiliency and coping skills; and support the social and emotional assets shown to buffer against the negative effects of trauma and stress. As SEL initiatives become more widespread, educators and other child and youth service providers are seeking to identify SEL programs that (1) meet their specific goals or needs; (2) fulfill certain requirements; (3) align with existing school-, district-, and state-wide regulations and initiatives; and (4) can be adapted and implemented with success in their unique settings. While this document is not necessarily exhaustive of all SEL 2 programs, we hope it will be a useful resource to inform these efforts. The report is intended to exist as a living document that will grow and change over time as we add programs and continue to develop and refine our coding system based on expert input and knowledge from the field. This report consists of the following: • Background Information on SEL, including a framework to help stakeholders consider the broader context and developmental issues that should be part of any SEL-building effort. • Recommendations for Adapting SEL for Out-of-School Time (OST) Settings, including common challenges and practical steps for selecting and aligning SEL and OST efforts. • Recommendations for Achieving Equitable SEL, including common barriers and best practices for ensuring SEL is relevant, affirming, and effective for students of all backgrounds, cultures, and identities, and that it pushes against rather than perpetuates systems of oppression and harm. • Recommendations for a Trauma-Sensitive Approach to SEL, including a set of principles, practices, and recommendations for ensuring SEL programming is trauma-informed. • Summary Tables for Looking Across Programs that illustrate which programs have the greatest or least emphasis on specific skills/skill areas, instructional strategies, and program components. • Individual Profiles for 33 SEL Programs, which describe each program in more detail; compare its skill focus, instructional methods, and program component offerings to those of other programs; and highlight any unique features that emerged from our analyses of each program’s curriculum and/or activities. • “How to Use the Navigating SEL Guide” Supplement, which include processes and worksheets to help stakeholders use the information in this guide and the accompanying program profiles to select an SEL program that best meets the needs of their students and setting, and to ultimately make informed decisions about SEL programming. Project Background: What is New? In 2017, the EASEL Lab published results from the first phase of this work in the first edition of the Navigating SEL guide. The original guide provides comprehensive program profiles and cross-program analyses for 25 SEL programs focused on grades K-5. Four years later, we are releasing this revised and expanded second edition, which extends the focus of the 2017 guide to include PreK programs. It also builds upon the latest research to include an additional focus on equitable and trauma-informed SEL and an expanded set of SEL skills, strategies, and program components. This new guide includes: • an additional focus on PreK; • an updated set of skills, instructional methods, and program components (reflected in new coding system); • current information about the original set of SEL programs included in the 2017 guide (re-coded with updated coding system); • detailed information about nine new SEL programs, for a total of 33; • new chapters on equitable and trauma-informed SEL; and 5 INTRODUCTION Social, emotional, and related skills are important to many areas of development, including learning, health, and wellbeing (Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015; Jones & Kahn, 2017; Moffitt et al., 2011; etc.). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that high-quality, evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs produce positive outcomes for students, including improved behavior, attitudes, and academic performance (e.g., Bierman et al., 2010; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Durlak et al., 2011; Hurd & Deutsche, 2017; Jones, Bailey, Barnes & Doolittle, 2017; McClelland et al., 2017). At the same time, however, we know very little about what is “inside” SEL-focused interventions and programs – the specific skills, strategies, and programmatic features that likely drive those positive outcomes. For the purpose of this report, social and emotional learning programs are defined as those that are designed to build children’s social and emotional skills and competencies by: (a) explicitly teaching specific skills through direct instruction, including introducing and modeling SEL skills and supporting students to use and apply them across diverse settings; (b) improving classroom and school climate, often by targeting teacher practices and school norms and expectations; and/or (c) influencing student mindsets such as their perceptions of themselves, others, and school (Jones & Doolittle, 2017).1 This guide focuses specifically on SEL programs designed for schools and other organized learning environments such as out-of-school time programs and early childhood settings. There are a great number of SEL programs available for schools, early childhood education (ECE) providers, and out-of-school-time (OST) organizations to choose from, and those programs vary widely in skill focus, teaching strategies, implementation supports, and general approach toward SEL. For example, some programs target emotion regulation and prosocial behavior, while others focus more on executive function, growth mindset, character traits, or other related constructs. Some programs rely heavily on teacher modeling and whole class discussions as their primary teaching strategy, while others incorporate methods such as read- alouds, games, role-play, music, and more. Programs also vary substantially in their emphasis and material support for adult skill-building, school culture and climate, family and community engagement, and other components beyond direct child-focused activities or lessons. 1This is the definition of an SEL program used in this report. This definition may not be reflected in all its aspects for some SEL programs, and the implementation of some SEL programs may vary in ways that affect some aspects of this definition. We know SEL programs work, but we don’t know as much about what is inside them that drives those positive outcomes or differentiates one program from another in ways that impact their feasibility and fit across diverse learning settings. This report was designed to help schools and program leaders look inside different programs and see what makes them different from one another, to help choose the program that best suits their needs. 6 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE? Without access to detailed information about the specific content and approach of pre-packaged SEL programs, it is difficult to use data to select and implement SEL programming. It can be challenging for schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations to select and use programs that are best suited to their specific needs and goals. There is thus a need for resources that comprehensively describe program content in a way that enables schools, ECE providers, OST organizations, and other practitioners tasked with developing young people’s social and emotional skills to see inside programs in order to make informed decisions about SEL programs and strategies. This report addresses that need by looking inside 33 SEL programs to identify and summarize key features and attributes of SEL programming for preschool and elementary-age children. Identifying Programs and Strategies that Are a Good Fit for Your Students and Setting Schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations vary widely in their missions, structures, pedagogies, and target populations, as do SEL programs. This report builds upon and complements other existing tools in the field (e.g., the 2013 CASEL Guide) to provide schools and similar organized learning settings with detailed information about the specific curricular content and features of each program in a way that enables them to look across varying approaches and make informed choices about the type of SEL programming that is best suited to their particular context and needs. Most other resources in the field tend to have a primary focus on identifying evidence-based SEL programs for use in schools and provide high-level summaries of their major components. In contrast, this report offers a detailed look at the specific skills targeted, instructional methods used, and programmatic features offered by each program, and is more explicitly designed to enable schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations to look How can I use the information in this guide to make decisions about my school, early childhood program, or out-of-school time setting? We often hear that logistical considerations such as time, training, and cost are the key factors driving decisions about program selection; however, while these parameters are certainly an important starting point, there are a number of other considerations that also influence program impact. SEL programs are ultimately most successful not only when programs are feasible (i.e. align well with the resources and constraints of a particular setting), but also when they are a “good fit” for the context and needs. As this guide illustrates, programs vary greatly in their content focus, instructional methods, and additional features and supports beyond core lessons such as training, family and community engagement, culture and climate supports, and more. It is therefore important to use relevant data (e.g., from discipline referrals; classroom observations; school climate questionnaires; staff, student, and parent surveys; etc.) to understand the needs of your student and teacher population, including what skills are most important to focus on, which instructional methods best align with student interests and teacher skills, and which programs offer additional components that will help support high-quality implementation in your particular setting. We recommend referring to the accompanying “How to Use the Navigating SEL Guide” supplement as you read this guide. It includes a streamlined process and set of worksheets designed to help readers navigate and use the detailed information in this guide to make decisions about SEL. The tools contained in the supplement will help you use the Navigating SEL guide to identify and/or adapt SEL programming to best fit the needs of your students and setting. 7 across programs to easily identify those that best align with their focus, needs, and goals. Furthermore, it provides schools and other educational organizations and institutions that may not be able to access or afford pre-packaged SEL programs with a basic overview of the types of skills, strategies, trainings, and implementation supports typically offered in leading SEL programs, offering a foundation from which to build their own independent approach to SEL. The detailed information and set of decision-making tools provided in this report (see Figure 1 below) are intended to support schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations to think explicitly about which approaches to SEL are most adaptable, feasible, and available for their particular settings, as well as whether or not and how particular approaches meet their specific mission and goals. Figure 1. Information and Tools Included in Guide Attention to Out-of-School Time Settings This report is also distinct in the attention it gives to SEL programming in OST settings. There are few examples of evidence-based SEL programs that have been specifically designed for OST contexts, yet there are many reasons to believe that a more explicit partnership between these fields might benefit children and youth, not the least of which is that many emerging best practices in the field of afterschool and OST programming align ANALYSIS OF: TOOLS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING: 33 SEL Programs for PreK & Elementary School Schools OST Organizations ECE Providers SEL Skills & Competencies Cognitive, Emotion, Social, Values, Perspectives, Identity Instructional Methods Strategies and activities used to teach skills Program Components Program features that support high-quality implementation (e.g., training, family engagement, etc.) Program Snapshots Brief individual program overviews providing key program information and details In-Depth Program Profiles A comprehensive look at each program’s evidence base, skill focus, instructional methods, and additional features Tools for Looking Across Programs Tables, graphs, and analyses to explore relative skill focus, instructional methods, and additional features across programs Planning Tools Guide and worksheet to support data-driven decision-making and program selection 10 Inclusion of Preschool SEL Programs Promoting social and emotional skills during the early childhood years (ages 0-5) is important for success in both school and in life. Kindergarten teachers cite skills such as following directions, paying attention, taking turns, and sharing as critical skills for kindergarten readiness (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016), and research indicates that promoting social and emotional skills in preschool has a strong impact on later education, employment, and health outcomes (Heckman, 2006). Moreover, early childhood is a critical developmental period for building social and emotional skills; research shows that early SEL interventions not only lead to improved behavior and academic performance but may also produce changes in brain structure and function that having a lasting impact on children’s future social and emotional development and wellbeing (Blair & Raver, 2014; Schmitt et al., 2014; and Espinet et al., 2013 as cited in McClelland et al., 2017). Social and emotional development has long been recognized as a primary objective of early childhood education (ECE) and all 50 states have some form of SEL standards for preschool (Blad, 2016). Preschools for children aged 3-5 provide new, structured opportunities for children to consistently build and practice social, emotional, and relationship-building skills with a group of peers and caring adults. However, there is a concern that the importance of building social and emotional skills in preschool has been overshadowed in recent years by a push to focus on a narrower set of pre-academic skills like early literacy and numeracy, driven in part by the cascading effect of increased academic demands and expectations for kindergarten and elementary school (Bassok et al., 2016). In response, many in the early childhood sector have turned to SEL as a way to ensure that social and emotional development remains a priority in preschool and early learning settings (e.g., Head Start CARES, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAECY)’s SEL resources, etc.). What About PBIS? SEL and Positive Behavioral Supports and Interventions (PBIS) are not the same, nor is PBIS an SEL curriculum. However, PBIS can provide a helpful framework for integrating approaches to SEL with complementary efforts to promote social and emotional competencies at various levels of the school ecosystem. PBIS is a multi-tiered prevention framework that organizes and integrates all of the practices, systems, and policies that schools employ to support positive behavioral and academic outcomes for students across three levels of support: Tier 1 universal support for all students; targeted Tier 2 small-group support; and more intensive, individualized Tier 3 support (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on PBIS, 2019). It is often used to establish a “common purpose and approach to discipline throughout the school by establishing positive expectations for all students” (CASEL, 2010). Within the PBIS framework, schools are responsible for choosing the specific curricula, teaching strategies, or reinforcement methods that best suit the needs of their students at each tier (CASEL, 2018). SEL efforts often play an important role in Tier 1 PBIS supports and should be integrated with existing PBIS systems such that SEL programming and professional development are aligned with and connected to other behavior support systems in the school (Barrett et al., 2018). 11 While social and emotional development is often deeply woven into the fabric of preschool settings, it has traditionally occurred organically through everyday classroom interactions such as the communication and enforcement of classroom rules and expectations, adult modeling and norm-setting, and classroom and behavior management strategies. Comprehensive SEL interventions that use direct instruction and evidence- based strategies to teach and build student SEL skills (i.e. through structured SEL lessons or activities) are newer to the preschool context, but evidence shows that combining high-quality teaching and classroom management with skill-building SEL programs can lead to additional benefits for students (Schindler et al., 2015; Bierman, Greenberg, & Abenavoli, 2016). Preschool SEL programs offer an intentional and concrete way to help young children build social and emotional skills, setting them up for academic success and continued social and emotional development in kindergarten and elementary school. There is much that K-12 schools can learn from how social and emotional development is promoted in preschool and early childhood, and vice versa. Elementary school settings could benefit from greater integration of SEL strategies and instruction throughout the regular school day, and preschool settings could gain from increased intentionality and explicitness in their SEL instruction. This revised and expanded edition of the Navigating SEL guide features nine programs that focus explicitly on PreK, and an additional seven that include PreK lessons as part of a broader PreK-12 curriculum. Please see PreK call-out on p. 25 for a complete list of preschool SEL programs and important considerations for early SEL. Criteria for Inclusion Each of the 33 programs included in this guide (see Figure 2 on the following page) met the following criteria: • includes lessons and activities that fall within the PreK-5 age span; • has sufficient evidence to indicate impact on social and emotional skills, behavior, academic achievement, attendance, and/or relationships and climate, including results from randomized control trials and/or multiple research studies;2 • is a universal program that could be used in classrooms, afterschool programs, community centers, early childhood centers, etc.; • has a primary focus on SEL or a related field (e.g., bullying, youth development, character education., mental health, etc.); • is well-aligned with the theory and practice of social and emotional learning, including having a well- defined set of activities that directly build student SEL skills; and • has accessible and codable materials (e.g., lessons, strategies, and routines that directly build student SEL skills) and implementation information. 2Most programs in our sample (n=31 of 33) have been evaluated with at least one RCT or quasi-experimental study. We relaxed our evidence criteria slightly in order to include an additional two SEL programs that focus specifically on out-of-school learning or character/values education as we found few programs in those areas that, to date, have been both rigorously evaluated and have accessible and codable materials. Despite having a relatively less robust evidence base so far, these two areas are of particular interest to many schools, ECE providers, and OST programs searching for SEL content and therefore have been included in this guide. 12 Figure 2. 33 Programs in the Guide The 4Rs Program* Al’s Pals* Before the Bullying A.F.T.E.R. School Program… Caring School Community Character First Competent Kids, Caring Communities* Conscious Discipline* Getting Along Together Girls on the Run… Good Behavior Game (AIR) I Can Problem Solve* The Incredible Years®* Kimochis* Leader in Me Lions Quest* MindUP* Mutt-i-grees Open Circle The PATHS® Program* PAX Good Behavior Game* Playworks Positive Action* Responsive Classroom RULER* Sanford Harmony* Second Step* SECURe* Social Decision Making/Problem Solving Program Social Skills Improvement System* Too Good for Violence Tools of the Mind* We Have Skills WINGS for Kids… *Includes specific PreK lessons/activities or is also designed to be appropriate for PreK …Designed for OST Settings METHODOLOGY This report is the product of a detailed content analysis of 33 leading SEL programs commissioned by the Wallace Foundation and conducted by a research team at the Ecological Approaches to Social and Emotional Learning (EASEL) Lab led by Dr. Stephanie Jones at the Harvard Graduate School Education. Figure 3. Research Process Identify Programs to Include in Analysis Code Programs for Skills, Instructional Methods, and Equity Collect Data on Program Features and Evidence of Efficacy Analyze and Describe Similarities and Differences 15 Teacher background, social and emotional competence, and pedagogical skills Short-term outcomes, e.g.: Aggression/Depression Social skills/Peer relationships Academic skills Long-term outcomes, e.g.: Mental Health Positive Behavior Academic Achievement Home, community, educational, and socio-political context School/Classroom Context Culture & Climate Healthy relationships Classroom management Prosocial norms School policies & practices Safe & inclusive environment Effective SEL Implementation Skills instruction Opportunities for skill use Coordination across settings PD/Training Skills and Competencies Belief Ecology Social Cognitive Emotion Figure 4. A Framework for Social and Emotional Learning (Jones & Bouffard, 2012) SEL SKILLS & COMPETENCIES There are many ways of thinking about and categorizing SEL skills and competencies; however, in our framework above, we have identified six broad domains of SEL: cognitive, emotion, social, values, perspectives, and identity. These domains come out of a careful analysis of both SEL research and practice and were identified and refined through a careful review of the literature that links social and emotional skills to positive child outcomes (Bouffard et al., 2009) as well as a content analysis of common SEL frameworks (Jones, Bailey, Brush & Nelson, 2019), programs (Jones, Brush et al., 2017), and measurement tools (Jones et al., 2020) currently being used to guide, build, and assess skills in practical settings. Cognitive, Social, and Emotion Domains The first three domains (cognitive, emotion, and social) encompass a set of traditional SEL skills and competencies that children and youth are able to learn, practice, and put to use in their daily lives. These typically include self-regulation, executive functioning, and critical thinking skills that enable children and youth to take in and interpret information and manage their thoughts, feelings, and behavior toward the attainment of a goal; the ability to identify, understand, and manage their own emotions and to relate to the emotions of others through empathy and perspective-taking; and the skills and behaviors required to build and maintain healthy relationships, resolve conflicts, and work and play well with others. (See Table A for a more detailed description of the specific skills associated with each domain.) COGNITIVE DOMAIN. In the most general sense, the cognitive domain can be thought of as encompassing the basic cognitive skills required to manage and direct one’s behavior toward the attainment of a goal. It includes skills and competencies related to executive function, self-regulation, decision-making, and 16 problem-solving. Cognitive skills enable children to concentrate, focus, and ignore distractions; control impulses; remember instructions; create and carry out plans; set and achieve goals; juggle multiple priorities, tasks, and goals; adapt to different settings and situations; and analyze and use information to make decisions and solve problems. Children use cognitive skills whenever they are faced with tasks that require concentration, planning, problem solving, coordination, conscious choices among alternatives, or overriding a strong internal or external desire (Diamond & Lee, 2011) – all key skills for behavioral and academic success. They also underly many of the emotional and social processes that children require to be successful; for example, children must deploy cognitive skills to stop and think before acting in emotionally- charged situations, which is in turn necessary for maintaining positive relationships and resolving conflicts peacefully. This report focuses on five cognitive skills that experts agree are related to outcomes for children and youth: attention control, inhibitory control, working memory and planning skills, cognitive flexibility, and critical thinking. EMOTION DOMAIN. The emotion domain includes a set of skills and competencies that help children recognize, express, and control their emotions as well as understand and empathize with others. Skills in this domain allow children to recognize how different situations make them feel, process and address those feelings in healthy and prosocial ways, and consequently gain control over their behavioral responses in emotionally-charged situations. They also enable children to understand how different situations make others feel and respond accordingly. Consequently, emotion skills are often fundamental to positive social interactions and critical to building relationships with peers and adults; without the ability to recognize and regulate one’s emotions or engage in empathy and perspective-taking, it becomes very difficult to interact positively with others. This report focuses on three emotion skills that experts agree are related to outcomes for children and youth: emotional knowledge and expression, emotional and behavioral regulation, and empathy/perspective taking. SOCIAL DOMAIN. Social and interpersonal skills support children and youth to accurately interpret other people’s behavior, effectively navigate social situations, and interact positively with peers and adults. Skills in this domain are required to work collaboratively, solve social problems, build positive relationships, and coexist peacefully with others. Importantly, social and interpersonal skills build on emotional knowledge and processes; children must learn to recognize, express, and regulate their emotions before they can be expected to interact with others who are engaged in the same set of processes. This report focuses on three social skills that experts agree are related to outcomes for children and youth: understanding social cues4, conflict resolution/social problem solving, and prosocial/cooperative behavior. Values, Perspectives, and Identity Domains Importantly, but oftentimes overlooked in the field of SEL, the skills and competencies above are also accompanied by a “belief ecology” represented by the second three domains (values, perspectives, identity). This belief ecology includes a set of beliefs, values, attitudes, mindsets, and motivations that influence how a person views and understands themselves and the world around them. Together, these serve as an internal 4There is theoretical and conceptual overlap between aspects of understanding social cues and emotion/ knowledge expression with regard to how body language and tone of voice are used to (a) express and interpret emotions and (b) communicate feelings and intentions to others. For the purposes of this review, we have included the ability to accurately read and use body language/tone of voice to communicate feelings in both the emotional and interpersonal domains but may make additional distinctions in future versions as we refine our coding system. 17 guide that drives and directs a person’s behavior and actions based on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they have. Belief ecologies not only influence our ability to develop and deploy the skills included in the cognitive, social, and emotion domains, but also how we ultimately decide to use those skills, such as whether we use strong perspective-taking skills to empathize with the feelings of others vs. to take advantage of them. (See Table A for a more detailed description of the specific skills associated with each domain.) VALUES DOMAIN. The values domain includes a set of values, skills/competencies, habits, and character strengths that support children to be prosocial and productive members of a particular community. This includes caring about and acting upon a concern for justice, fairness, and the welfare of others; a desire to perform to one’s highest potential; the pursuit of knowledge and truth; and the importance of participating in community life and serving the common good. Values in particular are highly tied to culture; they constitute what is valued and promoted by a particular group, institution, or community (Nucci, 2016). This report focuses on a set of values that come out of the literature on character and moral education, positive psychology, and youth development and organizes them into four dimensions: ethical values, performance values, civic values, and intellectual values. While conceptually distinct, in practice these four dimensions are overlapping and interrelated (Nucci, 2016). For example, ethical values provide performance values with a prosocial orientation – otherwise, it is possible that someone might decide to bypass fairness, honesty, or caring in pursuit of high performance. Similarly, performance values help ensure that an individual has the strength and fortitude to actually act on their ethical values in the face of hardship and temptation (Lickona, 2003). PERSPECTIVES DOMAIN. A child’s perspective is how they view and approach the world. It impacts how they see themselves, others, and their own circumstances as well as influences how they interpret and approach challenges. The perspectives domain includes a set of attitudes, mindsets, and outlooks that influence how children interpret and respond to events and interactions throughout their day. A positive perspective is a powerful tool for helping children protect against and manage negative feelings in order to successfully accomplish tasks and get along with others. For example, being able to remain hopeful about the future; reframe challenges as manageable, temporary, and/or an opportunity for growth; recognize and appreciate things that are going well; and adapt to challenges and change, can help children achieve academic success, navigate interpersonal relationships, and practice self-care. This report focuses on four perspectives that come out of the literature on mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, character education, and positive psychology: gratitude, optimism, openness, and enthusiasm/zest. IDENTITY DOMAIN. Identity encompasses how children understand and perceive themselves and their abilities, such as their knowledge and beliefs about who they are and their ability to learn and grow (i.e. growth mindset). When a child feels good about themself; sure of their place in the world; and confident in their ability to learn, grow, and overcome obstacles, it becomes easier to cope with challenges and build positive relationships. For example, if a child believes that they and their peers can grow and change through hard work, they are better able to manage feelings of frustration and discouragement in order to persevere through challenging situations and solve interpersonal conflicts (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). This report focuses on four areas of identity that come out of the literature on youth development, mindfulness, and self-efficacy/growth mindset: self-knowledge, purpose, self-efficacy/growth mindset, and self-esteem. 20 Table B. 21 Instructional Methods for Developing SEL Skills and Competencies Instructional Method Description Discussion Whole Class/Peer Discussion: This type of discussion can occur in pairs, small groups, or as a whole class and is usually used to introduce or deepen understanding of an SEL concept or skill. Examples include posing questions to students about how someone may feel/act in a given situation; having students talk about how an SEL theme relates to their own lives, a book they’ve read, or things that have happened in the classroom; and more. Brainstorm: Brainstorms can occur as a whole class, in small groups, or in pairs. Students are asked to share spontaneous examples or ideas while someone, either the teacher or a peer, records or writes them down. Common examples of an SEL-related brainstorm include creating a list of shared classroom norms or coming up with multiple potential solutions to a conflict or problem. Activity Debrief: Teacher asks students to describe what they noticed, experienced, or learned after participating in a game, role-play, or skill practice in a way that reinforces students’ understanding of why, how, and when to use a particular SEL strategy or skill. For example, students playing a high-stress game might be asked afterwards, “What did you notice about your breathing during that game? What can you do to calm down? What other times of the day can you use a calm breathing strategy?” Other Types of Discussion: On rare occasions, SEL programs also use other types of discussion that don’t fall into the above categories. Examples include debates, interviews, and more. Didactic Instruction Teacher provides specific instructions or information outside of an open discussion. This might include providing definitions, introducing a lesson concept or skill, or extended teacher modeling. Book/Story Teacher reads aloud a book or short story that may or may not include pictures. In some instances, this may be a story developed by the programmers to illustrate a particular theme. Vocabulary Exercise Activities used to teach language, words, or terms related to an SEL concept. For example, this might include working as a class to define a word related to an SEL theme, learning basic vocabulary necessary to talk about and solve problems, or coming up with synonyms for emotion words. SEL Tool Use of a tool or object that reinforces SEL concepts and strategies by helping students understand and visualize them in a concrete way. For example, this might include using a “conflict escalator” to explore how certain choices can worsen or improve a conflict, using a “feelings thermometer” to talk about the intensity of different emotions, or setting up a “problem box” to collect class problems for future discussion. Writing Students are often asked to write about personal experiences related to an SEL theme or to record the experiences of others. For example, students might be asked to write about a time they were angry with someone, what they did, and how it felt, or to do the same for a parent, sibling, or friend. Writing activities may also be collaborative, such as composing a poem together as a class. At younger ages, writing may take the form of drawing a picture that depicts an experience or event. Drawing Drawing activities are distinct from writing exercises in that the focus is on artistic expression rather than on depicting a narrative experience. For example, a drawing activity might ask students to draw a picture of something that makes them happy rather than drawing about a specific time they felt happy. Art/Creative Project Art or creative project other than drawing related to an SEL theme. May be an individual project, such as using clay to make faces that show different emotions, or a collaborative project, such as creating a class logo that represents everyone’s personality traits. Visual Display Charts, posters, or other visual displays. Examples include classroom posters that break down emotion regulation strategies, a class rules chart, or recording brainstorming ideas on poster paper. Often used as a way to establish or reinforce routines in the classroom. Video Videos typically depict children in challenging classroom or playground situations and are often used to prompt discussion around emotions, conflict resolution, and appropriate behaviors. 21 Song Songs (and music videos or sing-songy chants) are typically used to reinforce an SEL theme and often involve dances, hand movements, and/or strategy practice. For example, a song might lead students through the steps for a calm breathing technique or problem-solving process. Songs may be played once or repeated over the course of a unit. Skill Practice Students actively practice using SEL skills or strategies outside of a game or role-play scenario. For example, students might practice paraphrasing what their partner just said to practice good listening skills or use emotion/behavior regulation strategies to calm down during a tense moment. Role-Play At younger ages, this may involve a teacher acting out a scene or demonstrating a skill using puppets. At older ages, it may involve the entire class role-playing in pairs or having a pair/small group of students performing in front of the class. It is often used to demonstrate/practice emotion regulation strategies and problem-solving processes or to practice managing conflict/interpersonal challenges. Game Can be used to reinforce an SEL theme, build community, practice an SEL skill, or transition students into/out of a lesson, etc.
Examples include playing feeling charades to help teach about emotions and social cues, using Simon Says to practice cognitive regulation skills, or cooperating during a relay game. Kinesthetic Activities involving student movement and/or physical activity. Examples include games like Freeze Dance, dancing/moving along to a song, using hand/body signals to prompt skill use (e.g., forming a telescope with one’s hands when it’s time to focus), or athletic activities like sports or running. Worksheets Worksheets are often used to teach planning/goal setting strategies (e.g. planning templates), check for student understanding (e.g., multiple choice or word matching activities), or to reflect on lesson concepts, often via writing/drawing activities like completing short-answer responses or drawing and describing a picture. Students may complete worksheets individually or in small groups. Poem Reading or composing a poem related to an SEL theme. Younger students may compose the poem together as a class with scaffolding from the teacher. Meditation/ Visualization Using mindfulness techniques like guided meditations, visualizations, and/or mindful listening to calm the body and focus the mind. This may include asking students to visualize a place that makes them feel comfortable and safe, focus on a particular sound or taste, and more. Computer/App Using technology like computer games, phone/tablet apps, or the internet to teach or reinforce an SEL concept or skill. While some programs offer digital versions of their lessons, or even supplementary online videos and books, no programs used technology in this way during regular lessons. Teacher Choice May include portions of a lesson during which teachers are instructed to choose their own activity from a range of options, such as choosing from a selection of different games or songs based on class preferences or SEL needs. May also include building a lesson around a template, such as selecting an SEL topic and related activities when the lesson structure is otherwise left open. Other Any activity that takes place during scheduled lessons not captured by the above descriptions. Common examples include formal evaluations of student progress, class parties or celebrations, and more. CONTEXTUAL & CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEL So far, we have presented a set of common SEL skills and a broad set of strategies used to build them, but high-quality SEL is about more than just targeting and teaching skills. As our model for SEL in Figure 4 shows, the links between SEL skills and student outcomes do not occur in a vacuum: the ways in which children learn and grow are heavily influenced by the relationships, environments, societal systems and structures, and socio-cultural milieu around them (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). This includes the interactions, 22 experiences, and resources that children have in more immediate contexts (e.g., in their schools or early childhood centers, at home, and within their neighborhoods and communities) as well as more distant forces such as government policies and systems and the broader cultural and political environment. All of these contexts are in dynamic interaction with one another and each present their own unique set of benefits and risks to healthy development. The Impact of Learning Environments on SEL There are two ways in which school and OST contexts in particular play an important role in children’s ability to successfully develop and deploy SEL skills. First, the physical and human resources available to a child may facilitate (or challenge) their social and emotional learning. Research shows that children who have positive relationships with adults – those that are contextually and developmentally appropriate, reciprocal, reliable, and flexible (Brion-Miesels & Jones, 2012) – typically have more access to interactions that support SEL. It is through these relationships that children first learn to self-regulate, develop a sense of agency, and begin to feel connected to other people. High-quality child-educator relationships in particular have been shown to help students develop and use SEL competencies, protect students who are at higher levels of risk, and mitigate against the effects of victimization and adversity (Osher et al., 2020; see box to the right on the role of relationships). Second, specific settings can be more or less likely to influence the ease with which a child accesses and expresses SEL skills that he or she already possesses, particularly among young children. For example, a child is more likely to be able to pay attention to their teacher and their schoolwork in a classroom community where they are not simultaneously worried about or distracted by peer aggression. The Critical Role of Relationships Relationships are the soil in which children’s SEL competencies grow and are central to healthy development. Parent-child relationships are the first and arguably most important context for the development of these skills, but relationships with teachers and peers at school, where children spend a majority of their day, are also important. Learning environments that are safe, secure, enriching, and characterized by positive relationships are more likely to promote skill development and buffer against the effects of stress and trauma (Osher et al., 2020). Not only do strong, positive relationships help create a supportive learning environment that is conducive to SEL, but they also help facilitate the development of self- regulation, a basic skill that is fundamental to multiple SEL domains (Eisenberg, Valiente, & Eggum, 2010; Sameroff, 2010; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Self-regulation, the ability to manage one’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in the service of goals (Karoly, 1993; Smith-Donald, Raver, Hayes, & Richardson, 2007), is developed in relationships, initially through a process of “other-regulation.” In other- regulation, adults and peers help children learn appropriate social rules and self-management strategies and gradually enable them to engage in independent regulated behavior. 25 . SEL in Preschool Settings Preschool occurs in a number of different settings that are structured and staffed differently than K-12 schools. To begin, many preschools have tighter time constraints than traditional elementary schools, often operating as half-day or part-time programs. And while some preschools may operate out of or partner with local elementary or K-12 schools, they can also be run by other independent organizations such as childcare and community centers, places of worship, and other non-profit organizations. This leads to a great deal of variety in the overall philosophy and approach to learning and development, format and content of daily activities, and levels of staff training and experience across preschool settings. These are all important considerations when contemplating the feasibility and fit of an SEL programs. As shown in Figure 5 below, this guide includes nine programs that focus explicitly on PreK SEL (whether they are designed exclusively for early learners or have a specialized component for preschool), and an additional seven that offer PreK lessons as part of a broader PreK-5 curricula. Some of these programs (e.g., Tools of the Mind, Conscious Discipline, and the Incredible Years®) focus intensively on adult development and teaching practices, and – as is common in early childhood settings – student skill-building opportunities are highly integrated into everyday classroom activities. They are also designed to accommodate common preschool pedagogical approaches such as flexible, center-based learning. Tools of the Mind, for example, includes comprehensive teacher training in Vygotskian theory and divides the day into structured, center- based and peer-to-peer learning blocks during which SEL activities are highly integrated into all aspects of learning, both academic and play-based. Others (e.g., CKCC, Kimochis, and Second Step) follow the general format of their elementary-focused counterparts but offer greater flexibility by chunking lessons into bite- sized activities or, as in the case of CKCC, organizing lessons around children’s literature in ways that can be integrated into preexisting literacy activities. Preschool SEL programs and lessons also tend to involve family members more explicitly in classroom activities than do those designed for older students. For example, the Kimochis’ Early Childhood curriculum includes weekly Family Gatherings during which parents are invited to join their children at the end of the day for a group discussion about feelings. Figure 5. Programs for PreK/Early Childhood Included in this Guide Designed for PreK/ early childhood settings Offer separate PreK/early childhood version of program in addition to elementary school version Include PreK lessons as part of broader elementary school curriculum Al’s Pals Conscious Discipline The Incredible Years® Tools of the Mind Competent Kids, Caring Communities (CKCC) I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) Kimochis Second Step SECURe The 4Rs Program Lions Quest MindUP The PATHS Program® RULER Sanford Harmony Social Skills Improvement System 26 Elementary School As children move through the elementary grades, they continue to build upon and refine the skills they developed in early childhood in order to build a more complex and sophisticated SEL vocabulary and toolkit of strategies. There is an increased need for more complex cognitive skills like planning, organizing, and goal- setting, as well as skills like empathy, social awareness, and perspective-taking, thanks to elementary schoolers’ growing capacity to understand the needs and feelings of others. In late elementary school, many children are also able to shift toward an emphasis on more specific interpersonal skills, such as the capacity to develop sophisticated friendships, engage in prosocial and ethical behavior, and resolve conflicts (Osher et al., 2016; Jones & Bailey, 2015). Elementary school also marks a period of greater independence, and children do not need to rely as much on adult support to deploy SEL skills and strategies (Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2017). Elementary school-age students are more focused on exploring social interactions with peers than their preschool counterparts, and this age marks the beginning of more nuanced understandings of inclusion, acceptance, and emotional expression (Denham, 2015). While adults continue to play an important role in teaching and scaffolding SEL skills as children grow, it becomes increasingly important to provide them with rich opportunities to engage and practice with peers in the context of increasingly complex social interactions. How Do SEL Programs Differentiate Skills and Strategies by Age? In our analysis of 33 SEL programs, we identified the following distinctions (on average) between the SEL skills and instructional methods emphasized in preschool and kindergarten vs. grades 1-5: Preschool and Kindergarten SEL Lessons/Activities: • Greater focus on stage-salient skills like attention control, inhibitory control, and understanding social cues; and in preschool lessons in particular, a greater focus on foundational emotion skills like emotional knowledge & expression and emotional & behavioral regulation • More frequent use of children’s books/stories, songs/music, teacher-led puppet demonstrations, and kinesthetic/movement activities Elementary School SEL (Grades 1-5) Lessons/Activities: • Gradually increasing focus with age on (a) the values and perspectives domains and (b) skills like critical thinking, empathy/perspective taking, and ethical values • Greater focus on more complex skills like planning, conflict resolution, performance values, and cognitive flexibility • Greater focus on the identity domain in upper elementary (grades 4-5) • More frequent use of discussion, worksheets, and writing activities; and in upper elementary specifically, more didactic instruction Overall, the patterns described here are consistent with what we might expect to see based on what we know about how SEL skills build on each other over time, as well what we know about age-appropriate instructional strategies. 27 LINKING SEL TO OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH A great deal of research over the last several decades has demonstrated the benefits of social and emotional learning, documenting positive effects on academic, interpersonal, and mental health outcomes. Research shows increases in student learning and overall classroom functioning when children have the skills to focus their attention, manage negative emotions, navigate relationships with peers and adults, and persist in the face of difficulty (e.g., Ladd, Birch & Buhs, 1999; Raver, 2002). Social and emotional skills in early childhood are key predictors of school readiness and success (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011; Dice & Schwanenflugel, 2012; Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2011; McClelland, Tominey, Schmitt, & Duncan, 2017; Raver, 2002; Riggs, Jahromi, Razza, Dillworth, & Mueller, 2006). Children who are able to effectively manage their thinking, attention, and behavior are more likely to have better grades and higher standardized test scores (Blair & Razza, 2007; Bull et al., 2008; Epsy et al., 2004; Howse, Lange et al., 2003; McClelland et al., 2007; Ponitz et al., 2008) and those with strong social skills are more likely to make and sustain friendships, initiate positive relationships with teachers, participate in classroom activities, and be positively engaged in learning (Denham, 2006). As discussed in Chapter 4: A Trauma-Sensitive Approach to SEL, social and emotional skills also serve as important protective factors in the face of negative life events or chronic stressors (Buckner, Mezzacappa & Beardslee, 2003; 2009) and support general wellbeing, such as job and financial security as well as physical and mental health, through adulthood (Mischel et al., 1989; Moffitt et al., 2011; Jones, Greenberg & Crowley, 2015). WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT EFFECTIVE SEL PROGRAMS? There is a strong body of evidence to suggest that school-based PreK and elementary school SEL programs, and SEL-related programming in afterschool settings, are making a meaningful difference in children’s lives (Bierman et al., 2010; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Durlak et al., 2011; Hurd & Deutsche, 2017; Jones, Barnes, Bailey & Doolittle, 2017; McClelland et al., 2017). However, even among the highest-quality, evidence-based approaches to SEL, implementation plays a critical role on program impact and effectiveness. One large-scale review of prevention programs found that implementation practices had an important impact on program outcomes across more than 500 studies (Durlak & Dupre, 2008) and multiple studies indicate that high-quality implementation is positively associated with better student outcomes (Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000; Durlak et al., 2011). Moreover, inconsistent, ineffective, or disorganized approaches to SEL may lead to less powerful results (Banerjee, 2010; Dane & Schneider, 1998), or even negatively impact staff morale and student engagement (Elias, 2009). Fortunately, research and practice have illuminated which practices support high-quality implementation and what conditions are needed for effective implementation. Here, we describe 5 key features that research indicates are important to effective SEL programs as well as 6 recommendations to ensure high-quality implementation. We conclude by describing 11 program components (i.e. program features and resources beyond the core curriculum) commonly offered to support high-quality SEL, including which components align best with each of the 5 key features and 6 implementation recommendations. 30 Recommendations for High-Quality Implementation As mentioned above, the success of SEL programming relies on more than just putting in place a strong, evidence-based curriculum – the curriculum needs to be implemented well. A growing body of research highlights the conditions needed for effective implementation. Based on this research and our collective experience, we outline a set of recommendations for effective implementation: 1. Allot the time required to implement the program sufficiently and effectively. SEL programs often take the form of short lessons, implemented during a weekly half-hour or hour-long section of a language arts, social studies, or other class (Jones et al., 2010). However, in many schools, SEL skills are not seen as a core part of the educational mission; they may be viewed as extracurricular, add-on, or secondary, and lessons and other program activities are often abridged or skipped due to tight schedules and competing priorities such as academic content. In other cases, schools adopt programs without setting aside time in the daily schedule, leaving it to teachers to find extra time or adapt the curricula so that it fits appropriately into the day. To address these issues, a growing number of schools and organizations have made efforts to integrate SEL skills with academic content (e.g., using history, language arts, and social studies curricula to build cultural sensitivity, respect for diversity, and social/ethical awareness; Becker & Domitrovich, 2011; Capella et al., 2011) or provide SEL strategies and practices that can be integrated into existing classroom structures and routines throughout the day (Jones & Bouffard, 2012; Jones, Bailey, Brush, & Kahn, 2017). Many programs offer suggestions for integration or even specific activities that align with academic content. Throughout the planning and implementation process, it is important for schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations to consider how programs or programmatic features will support effective implementation and align with the structures and routines already in place in the setting. 2. Extend SEL beyond the classroom. Most SEL programs focus primarily on what goes on in the classroom, but SEL skills are also needed on playgrounds, in lunchrooms, in hallways and bathrooms, and in the time spent in out-of-school settings—in short, everywhere. Student surveys and “hot-spot mapping,” in which students draw maps of the areas in school where they feel unsafe, show that students feel most unsafe in these un-monitored, and sometimes unstructured, zones (LaRusso et al., 2009; Astor et al., 2001). Students need support to navigate these spaces and make the entire school environment one that is safe, positive, and conducive to learning. These non-classroom contexts provide vital opportunities for students to practice SEL skills. When selecting a program or strategies and planning for implementation, schools and organizations should be intentional about providing continuous, consistent opportunities to build and practice these skills across settings, including through connections at home and in the community (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). 3. Provide opportunities to apply and transfer SEL skills and strategies. Even with comprehensive curricula, teachers and other school and out-of-school-time (OST) staff often struggle to use program strategies in real-time “teachable moment” situations or to help students transfer and apply these skills more broadly to their daily interactions in the classroom and other school and OST settings (e.g., playground, hallway, lunchroom, bus, etc.; Jones & Bouffard, 2012; Jones, Brown & Aber, 2008). Students are most likely to benefit from SEL when they have opportunities to use and practice skills in everyday interactions and routines (Jones & Kahn, 2017). For example, a teacher might scaffold students to use specific conflict 31 resolution skills during a disagreement on the playground. Some programs are designed around using strategies in real-time, while others provide support for integrating SEL into regular classroom practice and program/school culture (e.g., support staff trainings, SEL-based behavior management and instructional strategies, etc.). 4. Ensure sufficient staff support and training. Broadly speaking, teachers, other school staff, and the adults who staff out-of-school settings typically receive little training in how to promote SEL skills, deal with peer conflict, or address other SEL-related issues (Kremenitzer, 2005; Lopes et al., 2012). For example, pre- service teacher training includes little attention to these issues beyond basic behavior management strategies, and little in-service support is available on these topics, particularly through effective approaches like coaching and mentoring. Staff members other than teachers receive even less training and support despite the fact that cafeteria monitors, bus drivers, sports coaches, and other non-teaching staff are with children during many of the interactions that most demand effective SEL strategies and skills. For SEL to be effective, adults need support both in pre-service training and in their ongoing work. In addition, research shows that an adult’s own SEL skills play an important role in their ability to model those skills, develop positive relationships with students, and foster positive classroom environments conducive to learning (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). Look for SEL programs or other opportunities that provide training, professional development, and ongoing coaching for staff to build knowledge and develop their own social and emotional competence. 5. Facilitate program ownership and buy-in. School administrators and staff sometimes perceive structured programs developed by outsiders and adopted without local consensus or a transparent process for decision-making to be too “top-down,” and as a result, staff lack a sense of ownership and trust. In other cases, schools do not view programs as sensitive to their local context and therefore make modifications. While sometimes such modifications are useful, they can also compromise fidelity and threaten program effectiveness. When making decisions about SEL programming, it is important to include staff and other key stakeholders such as families and community members. In addition, schools and organizations should select programming that is developmentally and culturally aligned to the needs of their students, or that provides guidance for adapting lesson content and delivery. 6. Use data to inform decision-making. Few schools employ data to guide decision-making about the selection, implementation, or ongoing assessment of the programs and strategies they use despite a more general trend toward data-driven decision-making in schools. Schools and their partners thus struggle to select and use programs most suited to their contexts and to the specific challenges they are facing, to monitor results, and to hold themselves accountable. In many cases, schools and OST organizations can use relatively simple tools or data that are already being collected such as school climate surveys, behavior referrals, and grades/test scores to identify their needs and make decisions about programming, as well as to monitor implementation and results. Some SEL programs provide or suggest assessment tools to monitor how well the program is being implemented (i.e. fidelity and quality of implementation) as well as whether it is having an impact on students, staff, classroom, or school outcomes (e.g., behavior, climate, relationships, teaching practices, etc.). 32 Recommendations for High-Quality SEL Implementation Program Components that Support High-Quality Implementation and Program Effectiveness In addition to building social and emotional skills during classroom or OST lessons and activities, SEL programs frequently include the following additional program components that may be used help schools and OST organizations align programming with key features of effective programs and address implementation recommendations. It is important to consider which components may be important for building an effective, holistic approach to SEL in a school or OST program. High-quality implementation: Allotts suffient time Extends SEL beyond the classroom Applies and transfer skills Prioritizes staff support and training Facilitates program ownership and buy-in Uses data to inform decision making 35 Table D. Which Program Components Support Effective Programming and Implementation? Key Features of Effective Programs Relevant Program Components 1. Include SAFE elements Classroom Activities Beyond Core Lessons Climate & Culture Supports Professional Development & Training 2. Occurs in safe and supportive contexts Adult SEL (Professional Development & Training) Climate & Culture Supports Equitable & Inclusive Education 3. Builds adult competencies Climate & Culture Supports Equitable & Inclusive Education Professional Development & Training 4. Are equitable, culturally responsive, trauma-sensitive, and socially just Equitable & Inclusive Education Family/Community Engagement 5. Sets reasonable goals Support for Implementation Tools to Assess Implementation & Program Outcomes Recommendations for Effective Implementation Relevant Program Components 1. Find time to implement program sufficiently and effectively Academic Integration (Classroom Activities Beyond Core Lessons) Support for Implementation Program Flexibility and Fit 2. Extend SEL beyond the classroom Climate & Culture Supports Professional Development & Training 3. Apply and transfer SEL skills and strategies Classroom Activities Beyond Core Lessons Climate & Culture Supports 4. Ensure sufficient staff support and training Professional Development & Training Support for Implementation 5. Facilitate program ownership and buy-in Equitable & Inclusive Education Family/Community Engagement Support for Implementation Tools to Assess Implementation 6. Using data to inform decision-making Support for Implementation Tools to Assess Implementation & Program Outcomes 36 CHAPTER 2: A FOCUS ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME There are many reasons to believe that an explicit partnership between the fields of social and emotional learning and out-of-school-time (OST) programming might benefit children and youth. Yet while a range of OST programs are available for school age children and youth, relatively few of these programs have a primary focus on developing social and emotional skills. Given the lack of options, OST programs often look instead to borrow from and adapt in-school curricula for their settings. In this section, we provide a set of principles and considerations that we hope will guide programs in using this report to make choices that are most appropriate for their particular context. ALIGNMENT BETWEEN SEL AND OST PROGRAMS The aims of SEL and OST efforts are well aligned for integration. For example, SEL outcomes improve when children and youth have opportunities to practice SEL skills across settings (i.e., school, home, afterschool) and research also suggests that OST programs are most successful when they address the needs of the whole child, including social and emotional learning goals (Durlak et al., 2010; Durlak & Weissberg, 2013). OST settings may also be uniquely suited for promoting SEL as they tend to have greater flexibility in their goals and mission and do not face the curricular demands that can undermine SEL efforts during the school day. They also tend to be less formal and structured, offering increased opportunities to develop the type of close, trusting relationships that enhance SEL (Hurd & Deutsch, 2017). In their review of 68 afterschool programs that sought to promote social and emotional skills, Durlak et al. (2010) found that afterschool programs working to promote SEL were generally effective in promoting positive youth development, particularly in terms of the feelings, attitudes, behaviors, and school performance of their participants. Their review also found that programs using evidence-based skill training approaches were the most effective across these areas. Specifically, these authors concluded that programs were most effective when they conformed to SAFE; meaning they: included sequenced activities to teach skills, actively engaged students in learning skills, focused time on SEL skill development, and explicitly targeted SEL skills. Common Characteristics of High-Quality OST and SEL Programming Many of the skills targeted in OST programs are also central goals of SEL programs. OST and SEL programs share a commitment to considering the needs of the whole child, partnering across contexts (community, family, school), and thinking developmentally. Specifically, four common characteristics underlie high-quality OST and SEL programming: 1. programs provide a safe and positive environment for children and adults; 2. programs support the development of high-quality relationships between children and adults; 3. programs are developmentally appropriate, relevant and engaging for children; and 4. programs provide opportunities for direct skill building. These common characteristics highlight the potential for mutually beneficial partnerships between SEL and OST programs. 37 SEL PROGRAMS IN OST SETTINGS Rather than specifically targeting and teaching SEL skills, OST programs tend to report focusing more on creating a general climate that supports the development of SEL skills. Yet in order for schools and OST programs to work together to effectively promote SEL, it is important for OST practitioners to understand different approaches to SEL, to be clear about how they are supporting SEL skills, and to be proactive about connecting and coordinating with school partners (American Institutes for Research, 2015). While few SEL programs have been designed specifically for OST, many school-based programs offer OST adaptations or have been used successfully in OST settings. Figure 6 below provides a list of programs included in this guide that are either designed for OST settings or offer some degree of support for, and/or demonstration of success in, OST settings. Figure 6. How Are SEL Programs Used in OST Settings? Designed for OST settings Offers separate OST activities/ lessons Designed for use across settings, including OST Not designed for OST but used in OST settings Supports OST staff to integrate SEL strategies Before the Bullying A.F.T.E.R. School Program Girls on the Run WINGS for Kids The Mutt-i-grees Curriculum RULER Sanford Harmony Second Step Too Good for Violence Al’s Pals Character First Conscious Discipline I Can Problem Solve PAX Good Behavior Game Playworks Positive Action Social Decision Making/Problem Solving Program Competent Kids, Caring Communities The Incredible Years® Kimochis Leader in Me Lions Quest MindUP SECURe Social Skills Improvement System Tools of the Mind Getting Along Together Open Circle The PATHS® Program ADAPTING SEL PROGRAMS TO OST SETTINGS Given the relative lack of SEL programs that are explicitly designed for out-of-school-time contexts, it makes sense that many OST programs look to borrow from and adapt in-school curricula for their settings. In-school SEL programs vary in the amount of OST support they provide; a limited number offer packaged OST lessons, but the majority leave adaptation up to individual users. 40 . Case 1: Partnerships organized around a common structure Imagine an OST organization whose mission and structure mirror that of a traditional school-day program. Likely, the OST program exists within a school building and/or shares students with a school-day program. In this program, students might be organized in classrooms and engaged in homework and other seated activities. Or, the program might have a stated mission that is aligned with the academic mission of a partner school (e.g., literacy). Here, a leadership team might begin by considering the importance of consistency and the danger of redundancy. Is there an already-existing program in use at the school site? If so, how might it be adapted? If not, which SEL programs occur within classroom settings, focus on teacher-student relationships, or have implications for key academic domains (e.g., literacy)? A leadership team might further narrow the scope of possible programmatic elements by zooming in on components or content-areas that are most relevant for their student population. With these considerations in mind, leaders could use the program overview chart to consider the programs whose materials best fit these structural, contextual, and content-related demands. Focusing on those programs that are the best match, a leadership team would want to carefully consider how to ensure that OST-based activities were additive (not repetitive) and aligned in their afterschool setting. Case 2: Partnership organized around a mission Imagine an OST organization whose mission and structure does not match that of a traditional school-day program. Instead, this OST program is driven by a set of offerings that are non-academic in nature. This program might exist within a school building, or it might be community-based. For example, we can imagine an OST program whose mission is to provide children with opportunities to express their life experiences through poetry, a program built around specific sports, or a program that engages children in arts-based exploration. Here, one might begin by considering the OST program’s mission and pedagogical approach. Which SEL programs appear to share similar goals and/or use similar pedagogical strategies to those already in place? Are there elements of different programs that might be used in tandem to best match the existing structure? With these considerations in mind, a leadership team would turn to the program overview chart and consider its options in addition to identifying relevant activity types. The team might narrow down its scope by zooming in on the specific components and content areas that are most relevant for their student population. Here, OST programs would be prioritizing programmatic elements that match the desired content type (skill focus) and pedagogical strategy (instructional method). Case 3: Partnership organized around student or staff needs Imagine an OST program whose desire to engage in SEL work is driven by a particular challenge that their staff/student body faces. For example, an OST program where staff struggle with stress management/emotional regulation or where students struggle with positive communication skills. In this instance, the starting point might be a consideration of the target population, including data collection around the strengths and struggles of students and staff in the program. A leadership team might use the information within this report that summarizes domain focus across programs to identify which programs are most saturated with activities related to the SEL skills and/or domains of interest. What are the programs that focus on emotional regulation? Do any of them also target teachers? Which programs focus on building positive communication skills? From there, a leadership team might explore questions of mission and pedagogy to narrow down the list of possible programs and/or identify the elements of programs best adapted for their purpose. 41 CHAPTER 3: ACHIEVING EQUITABLE SEL The positive impact of social emotional learning (SEL) on mental health, behavior, learning, and life skills is well documented; nevertheless, some have raised questions about the relative value, meaning, and efficacy of SEL programs for diverse populations, including students of color and other youth impacted by structural inequality (Jagers et al., 2019; Simmons et al., 2018). In addition, some recent work has been directed toward examining whether SEL programs support the well-being of all students by sufficiently reflecting, affirming, and sustaining their cultural identities in the classroom (Castro-Olivo, 2014). While SEL programs are increasingly working to (a) ensure that diverse students are represented in materials and content; (b) help schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations understand how culture plays a role in the development and expression of SEL competencies; and to a lesser extent, (c) examine how historical and structural inequalities impact the teaching and learning of SEL skills, it is still rare for programs to be intentionally designed with issues of equity in mind. Consequently, the responsibility of ensuring that SEL programming is delivered in ways that are culturally responsive, relevant, and equitable often falls to the individuals and institutions who work directly with children. This chapter is written to help teachers, school staff and administrators, ECE professionals, OST staff, and others who work with children in educational settings understand both what it means to deliver equitable SEL and the practical steps they can take to ensure it. It is important to note that the field currently lacks a coherent and unified definition of what constitutes equitable SEL; the field is learning and rapidly evolving, and this chapter reflects our early thinking on the subject. Multiple perspectives (described in more detail later in this chapter) have emerged to help shape our understanding of how issues of educational equity can be integrated into SEL programming and practice. Based on a synthesis of these ideas, we define equitable SEL for the purposes of this chapter as SEL that affirms diverse identities; incorporates student cultural values, practices, and assets; fosters positive identity development; promotes student agency and voice; and acknowledges and addresses persistent environmental stressors such as racism, transphobia, homophobia, and classism. SEL alone cannot solve the social inequities that affect our students both in and outside of school, but it can play a role in creating learning environments where students feel safe, respected, and empowered. The following pages describe three perspectives around which the field is currently organizing its understanding of equitable SEL. We then present common challenges to achieving equitable SEL and conclude with a set of recommendations and example practices for overcoming those challenges to successfully engage in equitable SEL at the individual school, ECE, or OST setting-level. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEL AND EDUCATIONAL EQUITY What Is Educational Equity? In order to discuss equitable SEL and the practices that promote it, we must first define what we mean by equity. Although educational equity as a general concept – the idea that all students deserve fair access to the resources, conditions, and opportunities they need to succeed – is well supported, what it actually looks like in 42 both theory and practice differs depending on context, individual needs, and resources. Furthermore, the term “equity” is often viewed in conflicting ways and at times used as a label, goal, or decision-making lens without clear definition or steps for how it can be achieved (Osher et al., 2020). Common themes among definitions of equity include access to high-quality educational opportunities, fairness, inclusion, and the eradication of discriminatory practices and prejudice within the education system (Aspen, 2017; NSBA, 2019). More recently, the need to directly address pervasive ethnic and racial disparities within the U.S. educational system has also become a primary focus of the conversation on advancing educational equity (de Brey et al., 2019; Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018; NEA, 2020; Pearman et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Lending specific consideration to the role of race in educational disparities may be a first step toward addressing the broader range of inequities that currently exist in the educational system. Given the above, we define educational equity for the purposes of this chapter as the intentional counter to inequality, institutionalized privilege, prejudice, and systemic deficits in the education system and the simultaneous promotion of conditions that support the wellbeing of students who experience inequity and injustice. This conceptualization is derived from Osher et al.’s (2020) description of robust equity, which combines commonly accepted aspects of educational equity, like fairness and inclusion, with the broader, more expansive systems-focused aspects of racial equity such as dismantling white supremacy and addressing the legal, political, social, cultural, and historical contributors to inequity that exist within broader societal and institutional structures. While some aspects of equity in education must be addressed on a broader systemic scale (e.g., school disciplinary policies, hiring practices and diversity recruitment, student tracking and ability grouping, etc.), this chapter focuses on actions that can be taken at the individual school, ECE, or OST setting-level to create more equitable environments for all students. Equity-oriented practice involves addressing the biases, practices, and structures that prevent students from succeeding in order to create more equitable learning environments where all students feel valued, have access to the learning resources and supports they need to be successful, and can take ownership of their learning. Greater equity improves opportunities and outcomes for all children Working Towards Equity in Schools, ECE Settings, and OST Programs Delivering the educational experiences that students need and deserve, particularly students of color and other youth impacted by structural inequality, involves: • Ensuring equally high outcomes for all students and making certain that success and failure are no longer predictable by student identity – racial, cultural, economic, or otherwise; • Interrupting inequitable practices, examining biases, and creating inclusive multicultural learning environments for all adults and children; and • Discovering and cultivating the unique gifts, talents, and interests of every student. (National Equity Project, 2020) 45 emotional development using participatory and inclusive practices that focus on critical thinking, social justice advocacy, and positive identity development. A social justice-oriented approach to SEL positions students as agents of change, with empathy for those who suffer from oppression and a commitment to improving local conditions (Banks, 2004; Cammarota & Romero, 2011; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Practices that support socially just SEL include: (a) situating SEL lessons in and teaching about activism, power, and inequity in schools and society; (b) helping students understand and appreciate their own identities without devaluing others; (c) encouraging students to find the ways we are all connected and deserving of respect; (d) teaching students to recognize injustice and showing them how to act against it; (e) maintaining high expectations for both students and adults; (f) acknowledging, valuing, and building upon students’ existing knowledge and interests; and (g) recognizing and correcting biases in SEL assessment and curricula (Dover, 2009; Learning for Justice, 2017). 3. Transformative SEL. Transformative SEL is a concept proposed by Jagers et al. (2019) which incorporates aspects of both social justice education and culturally sustaining pedagogies into an approach that infuses all aspects of SEL practice with a robust focus on identity, agency, belonging, and engagement. In transformative SEL, respectful relationships between students and teachers form the groundwork for the critical examination of the causes of inequity, and collaborative problem-solving is championed as a means of acting on community and societal issues related to power and privilege, prejudice and discrimination, social justice and empowerment, and self-determination. This approach to SEL seeks to connect SEL content and skills to students’ existing knowledge and experiences, provides students with opportunities to learn about their own and other cultures, and encourages students to reflect on their own lives and society. Strategies that incorporate youth voice, participation, and decision-making into SEL efforts, such as project-based learning and youth participatory action research, allow students to practice and build transformative SEL skills that encourage youth autonomy and leadership for social change (Jagers et al., 2019; Jagers et al., 2018). Common Principles of Equitable SEL When viewed together, the above overlapping perspectives provide a set of common principles which embody a more culturally-sustaining, social justice-oriented, and transformative SEL. Based on these, we offer the following general principles of equitable SEL: 1. ensures safe and inclusive learning environments that are respectful and affirming of diverse identities; 2. recognizes and incorporating student cultural values, practices, and assets; 3. fosters positive identity development; 4. promotes student agency and voice; and 5. explicitly acknowledges issues of bias, power, and inequality and works to address them. 46 INTEGRATING EQUITY INTO SEL PROGRAMS AND PRACTICE This section presents recommendations for and common barriers to achieving equitable SEL in alignment with the perspectives discussed above. Recommendations for Achieving Equitable SEL Here we present a set of recommendations that, when addressed purposefully, can be important levers for helping educators to approach SEL in a way that is consistent with the general principles of equitable SEL. 1. Invest in adult self-awareness, knowledge, and skills by providing training and resources that encourage adults to build their own SEL skills, examine and address implicit biases, and engage in culturally sustaining and equity-promoting practices. To promote awareness of subconscious attitudes that may hinder educators’ ability to engage in such practices, adults can be encouraged to examine their Equitable SEL is Not Just for Students of Color Discussions of equity in the field of SEL are often centered around students of color and how to ensure that SEL programming is accessible, relatable, and affirming to students of diverse cultural, linguistic, racial, and ethnic identities. These are all important goals, but truly equitable SEL is about more than that. If the conversation stops there, we risk overlooking the ways in which equitable SEL involves white children as well. If the primary aims of SEL are to support the social-emotional wellbeing of all students, to help them get along and work well with others, participate as a prosocial and productive member of school and society, and ultimately find happiness and success in school, work and life, it has been argued that SEL should also strive to acknowledge and address the detrimental impacts of long-term, systemic racism on psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing — not just for children of color, but for students of all identities and backgrounds (Weaver, 2020). All children begin absorbing and internalizing messages — whether through subtle cues or overt statements — about their own racial inferiority or superiority from a very early age (Holmes, 1995; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001). White students’ beliefs of their own superiority, however unintentional or subconscious, negatively impact their social, emotional, and moral health and ultimately impair their ability to function in a diverse world (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2002; McIntosh, 1990). As Weaver (2020) argues, it is not possible to hold racist beliefs and be socially and emotionally well. Children who are never asked to confront their role in a racist and unjust society are at a disadvantage; unexamined assumptions and biases undermine and limit white children’s ability to develop and use SEL skills like empathy, perspective-taking, and kindness (Webber, 2020). SEL that strives to help white children and white educators to understand, unpack, and dismantle ways of interacting that can cause harm to others promotes social and emotional wellbeing for all individuals. 47 values, emotions, thoughts, and identity through reflective prompts and statements that allow them to study their own historical roots and longstanding memberships to particular social groups, socialization settings, and personal characteristics (McIntosh, 1990; Simmons, 2017; Weigl, 2009). Anti-bias and culturally sustaining SEL training provides an opportunity for educators to re-examine the ways in which they interact with students from various ethnic and racial backgrounds in their classrooms, and how educators' own ethnic-racial identities, as well as the biases and stereotypes that they implicitly hold, can impact their students' academic, social, and emotional development (Meland et al., 2020). Anti-bias training often begins with setting the tone and culture of the setting, including a publicly stated commitment to antiracist teaching practices and creating an environment of trust and vulnerability among the staff in which talking openly about race and bias is normalized (Benson & Fiarman, 2019; Poddar as cited in Meland et al., 2020). Additionally, creating time and space for adults to develop cultural self- awareness can help educators to be conscious of their own socialization and internalized cultural norms and expectations, and to recognize that these are not and should not be imposed upon students as unquestionably "right" or universal. Promising strategies for actively addressing implicit bias include increasing contact with and intentionally placing oneself in the shoes of out-group members and "breaking the habit" of one's stereotypical thinking by consciously interrupting and replacing stereotypic responses with non-stereotypic thoughts, counter-examples, and attributions to individuals rather than groups (Devine et al., 2012). Finally, it is helpful to have one's practices reflected back through video, peer or coaching observations, and data collection to make what is usually invisible visible. For example, teachers can analyze their patterns of calling on students, trends and assumptions made in disciplinary moments and referrals, and the structures of their relationships with students in order to more intentionally and systematically address potential bias in their interactions with and expectations of students (Benson & Fiarman, 2019; Meland et al., 2020). Furthermore, educators can reduce the psychological burden of stereotype threat (which stems from students’ anxiety about confirming negative stereotypes about their group identities) by affirming students’ competence and value and by focusing on effort to complete tasks and goals as a measure of capability and a basis for improvement, instead of assumptions about student ability (Aspen, 2018; Steele & Aronson, 1995). In addition, various forms of meditation, including loving kindness meditation, and mindfulness training have been found to reduce bias against socially stigmatized groups and combat racial prejudice (Kang et al., 2014; Lueke & Gibson, 2015; Suttie, 2017). Although educator and student openness to and comfort with meditation may vary, training in meditation practices provides educators with a potential tool to explore and adapt for themselves and their classrooms in order to manage conflict in ways that provide students with agency and voice. 2. Design and adapt SEL curricula to reflect students' identities, cultures, and needs. To serve all students, SEL should ensure that messaging, skills, and goals reflect, incorporate, and sustain diverse student needs and perspectives and move away from curricula that reinforces white, Western, individualist culture without acknowledging and accepting other ways of being. All children need to see SEL curricula that affirms and portrays a rich diversity of identities, cultures, and needs. Children of color benefit by seeing themselves reflected in teaching and learning materials and feeling that teachers and schools respect and 50 (SAMHSA, 2014), children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and individuals from historically underrepresented communities are at higher risk for experiencing trauma (Gerrity & Folcarelli, 2008; Sinha & Rosenberg, 2013; Zacarian et al., 2017a, 2017b). An SEL approach that is both equitable and trauma-informed builds SEL skills while working to dismantle the systems that are causing inequity and trauma. It addresses the realities of discrimination, violence, and poverty while tapping into the strengths and opportunities of students’ culture (Aspen, 2018; Leskin as cited in Berlinski, 2018). See Chapter 3: A Trauma-Sensitive Approach to SEL for more information about trauma-informed approaches to SEL. Common Barriers to Achieving Equitable SEL When integrating equity into SEL programming and practice, it is also important to consider the barriers that may prevent successful implementation of equitable SEL and how to overcome them. As educators, schools, districts, and communities work towards building equitable SEL practices for all students, they must also address common challenges that may limit students’ healthy social and emotional development and growth: 1. Limited opportunities for adult reflection. K-12 teachers, ECE and OST professionals, and school staff typically have limited opportunities to develop their own SEL skills and reflect on their SEL practice (Greenburg et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2013). Yet equitable SEL requires that adults have opportunities to build self-awareness and develop self-reflection skills. For example, adults who engage in anti-bias training are better able to examine their own identities, privileges, and potential biases and how they impact teaching and classroom structures (Meland et al., 2020). Ignoring or misunderstanding other cultural orientations and values can lead educators to react harshly to behaviors that fall outside their own cultural frame of reference (Gregory & Fergus, 2017). When adults are not able to reflect on their own cultural perspectives and biases, they are more likely to view SEL as a tool to “fix” students who may not possess specific skills (or who simply express them differently), contributing to a disconnect between students’ home identities and what is being promoted in class, and ultimately reinforcing negative self-perceptions among students of color and marginalized youth (National Equity Project, 2018; Simmons, 2017; Simmons et al., 2018). When adults are able to reflect on issues of power, privilege, and cultural difference in their full complexities, they are more capable of creating learning settings that are safe and supportive for all children and youth. 2. Colorblind approaches to SEL. SEL is frequently taught with “colorblind” and identity-neutral principles and values, which runs the risk of underestimating the power of unconscious bias and discounts students’ lived experiences with racism or privilege (National Equity Project, 2018; Simmons et al., 2018). This can lead to avoiding the topic of race altogether or feeling that there is no need to discuss and understand race-related topics in classrooms or other learning environments that serve primarily white students or that lack racial, ethnic, religious, and other cultural diversity (National Equity Project, 2018; Hackman, 2005). In reality, there is perhaps an even greater need for SEL and school climate initiatives to emphasize diverse perspectives and experiences in these settings. When SEL programs are responsive to – and broaden students’ understanding of – identity, culture and power, they can help counter assumptions that emerge in homogenous settings. For white children, developing an antiracist lens can increase visibility around discrimination and inequity, address the pervasiveness of inaccurate and stereotyped images and 51 messages about people of color, and raise critical consciousness around the benefits of multiple ways of being and knowing (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2002; Drummond-Forrester, 2020). 3. SEL can be misunderstood or misapplied in harmful ways that reinforce inequity. Unexamined implicit bias among school staff can affect their judgement of student behavior and lead to a limited understanding of which SEL skills are deemed most valuable in a setting and why, what they look like and how they are expressed across cultures, and how adults may interpret behaviors differently for students of color and children with disabilities relative to their peers (Bailey et al., 2019; Brion-Meisels et al., 2019). For example, in a review of kindergarten disciplinary referrals, former Minneapolis schools superintendent Bernadeia Johnson found that teachers described white students with behavior challenges as “gifted but can’t use [their] words” and excused their actions because they “had a hard day,” whereas they described black children as “destructive,” “violent,” and “cannot be managed” (Green, 2018). These biases are a barrier for achieving equitable SEL because they contribute to race-based disparities in school discipline and learning opportunities. Cultural differences between teachers and students around norms and expectations related to self-control, emotion regulation, and emotion expression can be misinterpreted as noncompliance, defiance, and poor self-management, ultimately contributing to disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates, low academic expectations, and school disengagement for students of color and marginalized youth (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; National Equity Project, 2018; Simmons et al., 2018; van den Bergh et al., 2010). The misbehavior of low-income students and students of color is often perceived as an inability to self-regulate and is responded to with punishment or demands for compliance, whereas misbehavior among white students is often accepted as exploratory and curious, and is reinforced by encouragement to be creative and take risks (Bailey et. al, 2019; Green, 2018). Moreover, when educators have a limited understanding of trauma and students’ resulting social and emotional challenges, they are more likely to misinterpret student emotional and behavioral needs and miss underlying root causes such as poverty, neglect, and abuse, which can result in unhelpful and ineffective punitive consequences (Cole et al., 2013; Krasnoff, 2015). SEL programming and instruction that is paired with exclusionary discipline practices that limit student agency in favor of self-management and self-regulation can limit students’ future success (Simmons et al., 2018). Only when teaching is trauma-informed, culturally-responsive, unbiased, and socioculturally-centered can it lead to positive effects that impact student achievement, motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging (Cole et al., 2005; Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Oyserman et al., 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2004; Waxman & Tellez, 2002). HOW DO SEL PROGRAMS CURRENTLY SUPPORT EQUITABLE SEL? Research suggests that social emotional learning (SEL) programs can lack specificity and definition in their attempt to incorporate culture and diversity (Caldarella et al., 2009; Durlak et al., 2011) and that, despite diverse characteristics of the student population, SEL programming itself tends to remain static (Desai et al., 2014). Furthermore, while many SEL programs include concepts related to fairness, respect, diversity, and social responsibility, few explicitly address how these topics relate to issues of identity, power, and structural 52 injustice. With this in mind, we set out to understand the extent to which current leading research-based SEL programs include materials designed to promote equity. What Resources Do Programs Provide to Support Equity? SEL programs often provide resources for those seeking additional support around the topics of equity, inclusion, and cultural responsiveness. Many programs provide some form of guidance, tips, or resources for ensuring program materials and content are relevant to students of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and educational need, such as: (a) encouraging teachers to examine the equity of their seating arrangements; (b) providing teachers with sample language to use when reinforcing student behavior; (c) offering guidance for creating or adapting visual supports that will help all students access knowledge; (d) suggesting ways to apply the concepts covered in lessons to real conflicts in the classroom; (e) providing resources that explicitly and intentionally support adult’s ability to reflect on their identities and teaching practice in ways that foster inclusive learning environments and challenge systemic oppression; (f) promoting cultural diversity by using names and stories that are representative of a range of different backgrounds and cultures, and images which include people of varying colors, ages, and sizes, as well as individuals with disabilities; and (g) offering resources for incorporating families into SEL committees, providing resources for gathering data about parent perceptions of programs, inviting families so share their experiences with the class, or sharing resources to help parents discuss their own SEL skills and experiences with their children at home (e.g., how they regulate their emotions). To learn more about the specific features and resource each program provides to support equitable SEL, please see the (a) Professional Development & Training, (b) Family Engagement, and (c) Equitable and Inclusive Education categories in Section IV (Program Components) of the Program Profiles. How Do Program Lessons and Activities Address Equity? While some SEL programs provide guidance and resources for addressing equity, few explicitly integrate equitable SEL practices and skills into their content or lessons. In the places where equitable SEL skill-building is found, it appears to be incidental rather than intentional. That said, three equitable practices and skills (equitable storytelling, equitable critical thinking/problem solving, and equitable emotional knowledge and expression) did tend to appear more frequently than others, suggesting these may be a natural starting place for program developers and educators to begin more intentionally and actively integrating equity into SEL programming. See Table E on the following page for a summary of these practices and Appendix D: Equity Coding Guide for a summary of all other categories and a more detailed description of how we identified and documented the occurrence of equitable SEL practices within program lessons. 55 all students the opportunity to share their experiences or be an active listener. This practice sometimes takes place when programs are introducing a new concept, like an emotion. Indeed, in several of the programs, one of the most important aspects related to teaching children about emotions involves helping children connect what they already know and have experienced about feelings to the emotions they will be learning about. When introducing an unfamiliar emotion to younger students, teachers can have them participate in emotion- sharing sessions that provide all children with an opportunity to share about their own experiences with the emotion. Although much less common in SEL lessons, open-ended activities that encourage students to share their experiences more generally, such as sharing or healing circles, where members share their interests, fears, and hopes can be especially impactful (Ginwright, 2016). Equitable storytelling is transformative because it shows students that their experiences are valuable and worth sharing and because it creates a climate of respect for diversity as students learn to listen with kindness and empathy to the experiences of their peers (National Equity Project, 2018; Picower, 2012). IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL AND OST SETTINGS Our findings indicate that very few PreK-5 SEL programs have a curricular focus on issues related to equity, justice, cultural competence, or cultural diversity. Given that SEL programs are often described as mechanisms to improve educational outcomes and wellbeing for all children, particularly those in marginalized communities, this is an important finding and area for growth within the field. Currently, the responsibility falls on individual educators, facilitators, and trainers to make equitable SEL more intentional in the classroom. Indeed, the promise of SEL as a lever for increasing educational equity largely depends on whether educators have the tools needed to increase their own critical self-awareness; understand how racism and historic oppression are embedded in the context of our schools; and design or adapt SEL lessons that engage and value all students for the experiences they bring into the classroom (National Equity Project, 2018). SEL programs have the opportunity to build educator skills and capacity by dedicating time and resources to professional development and reflection that support adults in this work. Even when SEL programs do not provide explicit materials or resources for doing so, K-12 schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations can support teachers by offering equity-focused and anti-bias trainings and professional development, which benefit the entire educational ecosystem in addition to SEL efforts. Being careful and intentional about the ways in which SEL promotes and relies upon equitable practices leads to better, more effective SEL as well as greater educational equity. 56 CHAPTER 4: A TRAUMA-SENSITIVE APPROACH TO SEL Trauma is a critical issue for schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations. There is a high prevalence of trauma among our nation’s students: surveys indicate that almost two-thirds of children in the United States have experienced a potentially traumatic event by age 16 (NCTSN, 2017). As a result, efforts to infuse the science of trauma and adversity into educational settings by integrating trauma-informed practices and approaches into all aspects of the school day, ECE environment, and OST context have become increasingly common (Craig, 2008; Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016). Many trauma resources recommend that schools and other educational settings implement SEL programming, interventions, or curricula as part of their efforts to support and make learning accessible for students who have experienced trauma (e.g., Hebert et al., 2019; Plumb et al., 2016). This recommendation stems from the fact that SEL programs target many of the fundamental skills impacted by stress and trauma as well as foster healthy relationships and welcoming, safe spaces, both of which are central components of a trauma-sensitive learning environment (Cole et al., 2005; Chafouleas et al., 2019; McInerney & McKlindon, 2014). However, while SEL programs certainly overlap with the general principles and aims of trauma-informed practice and have the potential to support the creation of trauma-sensitive learning environments overall, few are intentionally designed to be trauma-informed themselves. Most programs provide little explicit training or support for implementing the program with students who have experienced trauma, which often places the responsibility on individual educators and school, ECE, and OST staff to make decisions about how best to deliver or adapt the program to be safe and effective for their students. At best, this can leave adults feeling unprepared and discouraged that SEL is not effective for the students in their classroom or program, and at worst can lead to situations or classroom conditions that further alienate or re-traumatize students. In this chapter we define and describe trauma, its impact on social and emotional development, and how SEL can be used to support students who have experienced trauma. We then summarize best practices for trauma-informed care and trauma-sensitive learning environments, outlining a set of shared principles between trauma-informed practice and high-quality SEL. Finally, we conclude by calling attention to the need for a more intentional focus on trauma-informed practices within SEL programming, highlighting a set of best practices for trauma-informed SEL and offering recommendations for ensuring that SEL programs are delivered in trauma-informed ways. WHAT IS TRAUMA, AND HOW IS IT RELATED TO SEL? This chapter often references the impact that trauma has on student behavior and social and emotional development. It is important to remember that children’s behavior and coping strategies are adaptive responses to their experiences and environment, and exposure to trauma can lead children to interpret experiences and react to events in ways that are not effective in school, preschool, or other learning environments. However, educators and other adults must take care not to problematize children with an intent to “fix” or “correct” them but instead acknowledge the root causes of behavior and identify features of the learning environment such as specific demands, structures, and activities that can be adapted to more effectively support children’s needs. Social workers, clinical therapists, and staff trained in trauma-sensitive 57 practice take care to not make value judgements about children’s behavior or coping strategies, which can add to feelings of low self-value or self-worth and undermine a sense of safety and belonging. Similarly, school, preschool, and OST settings that incorporate trauma-sensitive SEL can support student wellbeing by transforming the learning environment into a place that is safe, stable, and ultimately healing. Understanding Trauma and Toxic Stress The terms trauma and traumatic stress are most often used to describe an emotional or psychological response to one or more adverse experiences that cause overwhelming feelings of stress, fear, and helplessness in ways that undermine a person’s ability to cope (Cole et al., 2005; NCTSN, 2008; Transforming Education, 2020). When these types of highly stressful experiences occur between the ages of 0-17, they are SEL and COVID-19 We write this chapter in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, a global event that has taken a collective toll on the mental health and social-emotional wellbeing of children, youth, their families, and those who work with them all around the world. It is too soon to know the full impact of the pandemic, but many organizations who work at the intersection of trauma, child development, and education have predicted the need for increased support for children and youth who are feeling the effects of such a prolonged, unpredictable, and stressful experience (e.g., National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN); National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Trauma Learning and Policy Initiative (TLPI), etc.). And indeed, while there is limited research on the pandemic’s emotional and psychological impact on young children, an early survey of 3,300 youth aged 13-19 (Margolius et al., 2020) revealed increased levels of concern about their present and future, more time spent feeling unhappy or depressed, lack of social connection, and a desire for greater social and emotional support from their teachers and schools. As the virus becomes more contained and schools, OST, and ECE settings around the United States continue to reopen, educators and the systems they work within are likely to be faced with children and youth who have been through individual and collective trauma. For some children, that may be adding to existing trauma while for others it may be new. Educators are certain to face increased pressure to focus on academics and make up for the loss of learning caused by the pandemic; however, it is more important now than ever to dedicate adequate time and attention to addressing children’s mental health and social- emotional wellbeing – to help them process their pandemic experience, cope with uncertainty and change, rebuild social connections, and readjust to group learning environments. Supporting students social and emotional needs both early on and in an ongoing way throughout the year will not only make it easier to address academic fallout in the long-run but also provide students with the internal resources and external support to cope with what is likely to be an indefinite period of uncertainty and change. SEL is one key approach that educators, OST, and ECE staff can use to support children’s wellbeing, help them process and manage difficult or uncomfortable emotions, and provide a structured and predictable space to learn amidst an otherwise chaotic time. It is our hope that this chapter will support educators in school, OST, and ECE settings understand how SEL can be used to create trauma-sensitive learning environments and support student wellbeing in uncertain times. 60 When students are not able to regulate or express their emotions and behavior, that can manifest as reactive, impulsive, or even aggressive responses. At other times, children may appear withdrawn or simply shut down entirely (Cole et al., 2005). This can be misinterpreted as willful disobedience, defiance, or disengagement, which can lead adults to respond in ways that unintentionally escalate disruptive behaviors, lead to increased disciplinary action (e.g., referrals, suspensions, and expulsions), and cause the deterioration of critical relationships (Craig 2008; Phifer & Hull, 2016; Terrasi & Crain de Galarce, 2012). The ability to regulate emotions and behavior is also central to the development of the basic social skills that help children form and maintain healthy relationships, such as conflict resolution, cooperation, and effective communication. Children who struggle in these areas may consequently find it difficult to get along and form positive relationships with both adults and other children (Cole et al., 2005). This is particularly challenging, as positive, caring, and supportive relationships with adults and peers are vital components of the healing process (McConnico et al., 2016). SEL Helps Mitigate the Negative Impact of Trauma SEL is often incorporated into efforts to address trauma because it facilitates the promotive factors that predict better outcomes for children who have experienced trauma. Child development and trauma experts agree that while adverse experiences can impair children’s ability to form relationships, develop cognitive skills, and regulate their emotions and behaviors, creating opportunities and environments that intentionally strengthen these factors can mitigate the negative impact of trauma and strengthen children’s ability to cope with adverse experiences (Blaustein & Kinniburgh, 2018; Who is impacted by trauma, and how is it related to equitable SEL? Not all children experience or respond to trauma in the same way. Symptoms of trauma and toxic stress may look different across individuals and age groups, and the extent to which a child experiences trauma depends on a variety factors including their individual coping skills, the frequency and nature of the experience, and importantly, their access to supportive family, school, and community resources to help them manage (Cole et al., 2005; Transforming Education, 2020). Some children who experience a traumatic event will go on without any long-lasting, negative repercussions, but for others, trauma can have far-reaching impacts on their physical and mental health, brain development, and ability to form healthy relationships and succeed in school (Cole et al., 2005). Children who experience prolonged exposure to multiple ACEs without any counterbalancing protective factors are especially at risk for toxic stress (Burke Harris, 2018; National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2005/2014). Children from all backgrounds can experience trauma; however, children growing up in poverty are at a higher risk, as are children with disabilities, children from racial/ethnic minority groups, children who identify as LGBTQ, and children who have immigrated from another country (Craig, 2008; Santiago et al., 2018; Gerrity & Folcarelli, 2008). Marginalization, discrimination, and historical trauma (i.e. the cumulative emotional and psychological effects that carry across multiple generations within cultural, racial, and ethnic groups that have been subjected to collective mass oppression) can lead to increased exposure to ACEs, compound existing trauma, and make it difficult to access supportive resources (Matheson et al., 2019). For this reason, issues of trauma are closely linked to issues of equity (see Chapter 3: Achieving Equitable SEL), and ensuring that SEL is integrated into schools in a trauma-informed way is an important part of ensuring equitable SEL. 61 Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). As noted earlier, it is important not to make normative value judgements about children’s behavior but to consider ways in which school, early childhood, and OST settings can bolster protective factors. Consequently, trauma interventions often focus on developing self-regulation, relationship building, and problem-solving skills (Santiago et al., 2018). These skills are often the explicit targets of SEL programs. For example, many high-quality SEL programs support children to build positive relationships in the classroom, to think before acting, and to recognize and process emotions in healthy ways (Jones, Bailey, Barnes & Partee, 2016). High-quality student-adult relationships are also a key pillar of SEL (Brion-Meisels & Jones, 2012), and many SEL programs include activities and resources designed to build social skills and promote relationships in the classroom and throughout the learning environment. SEL programs have the capacity to serve as a dual approach to prevention and intervention, helping to minimize the negative impact of trauma on children’s social and emotional development while also intervening where students are already struggling (Greenberg et al., 2017). Some studies indicate that SEL programs have the largest impact on children who face the highest number of risks (Bailey, Stickle, et al., 2019; Jones, Brown & Aber, 2011), suggesting that SEL may be particularly relevant and effective for children who have experienced trauma or who are exposed to numerous recurring stressors. SEL can provide children with opportunities to build safe and supportive relationships, and to build specific skills that support effective communication, problem-solving, coping, and resilience. SEL programs can do this by (a) teaching strategies that reinforce the cognitive and emotion regulation skills that chronic stress makes difficult, and (b) fostering learning environments that establish and maintain feelings of basic safety, predictability, and trust. ALIGNMENT BETWEEN SEL AND TRAUMA-INFORMED PRACTICE SEL also aligns with many of the key principles of trauma-informed practice and trauma-sensitive learning environments. Common Characteristics of Trauma-Sensitive Learning Environments Trauma-informed schools, programs, and organizations are places where people at all levels of the system understand the widespread impact of trauma, recognize the signs and symptoms of trauma, and respond by “fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices” without re-traumatizing individuals in the system (SAMHSA, 2014, p. 9) and integrate this understanding into their culture and everyday practices. Frameworks for working with trauma-affected children and creating trauma sensitive learning environments (e.g., Blaustein & Kinniburgh, 2018; Cole et al., 2013; Hebert et al., 2019; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; NCTSN, 2017; SAMHSA, 2014; Transforming Education, 2020) also suggest (a) ensuring that environments and interpersonal interactions feel physically and psychologically safe, (b) cultivating supportive and trusting relationships among all individuals in the building or program, (c) providing children with opportunities to develop and practice social and emotional and self-regulation skills, (d) trusting in and empowering students to exercise agency and choice, (e) partnering with families, (f) addressing adult knowledge, skills, and wellbeing, and (g) ensuring that adults know how and when to refer children for more intensive supports. 62 Many frameworks and resources (Hebert et al., 2019; NCTSN, 2017; SAMHSA, 2014; Transforming Education, 2020; Wolpow et al., 2016) also emphasize the importance of responding to trauma in ways that are culturally relevant and sustaining. In other words, schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations should seek to minimize and address trauma in ways that are consistent with the cultural norms and healing practices of children and their families; leverage students’ unique strengths and cultural assets; provide opportunities for students to explore, celebrate, develop their sociocultural identities; and recognize and address issues that arise from historical trauma and societal oppression like stereotypes, bias, and educational practices and policies that disproportionately impact specific groups of students and add to traumatic stress. 5 SEL Supports Trauma-Informed Practice When the above recommendations for creating trauma-sensitive school, ECE, and OST environments are considered in conjunction with the characteristics of high-quality SEL (see Chapter 1: Background on SEL Skills and Interventions), there emerge three major principles and practices that are common across both: 1. ensuring safe and predictable environments characterized by caring and supportive relationships; 2. providing opportunities to build and practice social, emotional, and self-regulation skills; and 3. including a focus on adult mindsets, knowledge, SEL skills, and wellbeing. 5While most of the research on trauma-sensitive learning environments is focused on schools, it is also clearly relevant to ECE and OST settings. What are trauma-sensitive schools?5 Across the nation, trauma is having a substantial impact on students’ school performance and academic achievement (Phifer & Hull, 2016). Fortunately, research has shown that high-quality trauma-informed supports, services, and systems can mitigate and disrupt the negative outcomes associated with trauma (SAMHSA, 2014) and create learning environments that support better outcomes for students who have experienced trauma (Jones, Berg & Osher, 2018). While ideally children experiencing trauma or other situations of extreme stress might receive more intensive and targeted supports (Greenberg et al., 2017), the reality is that given the unpredictable and often stigmatized or hidden nature of trauma, children might not be identified as needing additional services or supports or may not receive them in a timely manner. This fact, coupled with the high prevalence of trauma among children, has led many to call for schools to integrate trauma-informed practices into all aspects of the school day in addition to providing targeted and differentiated supports for students who have experienced trauma (Craig, 2008; Cole et al., 2013; NCTSN, 2017). In other words, there is a push for all schools to become trauma-sensitive systems for all students. Cole et al. describe a trauma-sensitive school as one in which “all students feel safe, welcomed, and supported and where addressing trauma’s impact on learning on a school-wide basis is at the center of its educational mission” (2013, p. 11). Importantly, trauma-sensitive schools benefit all students, even those who have not experienced trauma. Every student regardless of background benefits from a safe and caring learning environment, positive relationships with adults and their peers, and ample opportunities to build and practice social and emotional skills. Trauma-sensitive schools provide a school culture and climate that is supportive of all students, while also recognizing that there are those who may need extra supports. 65 intensity of the emotions children are experiencing and the intensity of the instruction required to help them” (Pawlo et al., 2019). For example, asking students to think about intense emotions, discuss conflicts, or explore their mind-body connection may surface difficult feelings and conversations. Pawlo et al. (2019) argue that because of the prevalence of trauma among children in the United States and the increasing tendency to use SEL as a support for students who have experienced trauma, all SEL should be trauma-informed – whether it is adopted as part of a larger effort to address trauma in a school or program setting or not. As understanding of the relationship between SEL and trauma grows, some SEL programs have begun to provide trauma-focused training and workshops, guidance for dealing with difficult or sensitive subjects and student disclosures, and how to promote specific skills or adjust lesson content to better support students who have experienced significant adverse experiences. However, these types of resources are still few and far between. It therefore falls to individual educators or staff to figure out and do the work of adapting and applying the program to meet the needs of their students, often without insight or guidance from mental health experts. With that in mind, we conclude this chapter by sharing a set of best practices for trauma- informed SEL and offer some recommendations intended to help prepare educators to adapt and deliver SEL programming to students who have experienced significant life stressors. When It Feels Like SEL Isn’t Enough We sometimes hear from teachers and other adults that SEL is “not working” or “not enough” for their students. These individuals know what their students are going through and are seeking ways to help them cope with strong emotions and participate productively in the classroom and other group settings. They reference “out of control” behavior that results in escalating conflict and emotional outbursts. They have been delivering SEL lessons and using SEL strategies, but they don’t seem to make a difference in these moments, and they worry that perhaps SEL is too simple a response. It can be demoralizing when it doesn’t seem like SEL is taking hold, particularly in the moment. But is important to remember that SEL takes time. SEL is a set of positive practices and actions that, when used consistently over time, will promote positive relationships, safety, and build children’s capacity to manage stress and engage in learning, ultimately shifting their developmental trajectory for the better. It can require both children and adults to make a large shift in their ways of thinking about and interacting with the world, particularly for individuals who have been impacted by trauma and are learning to use new skills and strategies for the first time. Educators and staff should expect that it may take time to see the benefits. Continue to offer safe and predictable spaces and use regular ways of checking in with students to see how they are doing. Internal and incremental change may be happening, even if it is not easily visible. SEL is not intended to be a stand-alone trauma intervention. Trauma is a complex and serious issue that requires multiple types support, ranging from universal preventative efforts to more specific small group or one-on- one interventions. SEL is just one piece of the puzzle. Most SEL programs are designed to be universal supports that provide general support to all students. Students who have experienced trauma may require more intensive, trauma- specific supports, and it is important that educators, ECE, and OST staff tasked with delivering SEL programming are provided with the training and resources to know when and how to access and refer students to those services (Cole et al., 2005). 66 Best Practices for Trauma-Informed SEL To help bridge this gap, Transforming Education (2020) has developed a toolkit and set of key practices for trauma-informed SEL. Combining the principles of trauma-informed care and SEL, the goal of trauma- informed SEL is to “create a safe and reliable environment where students who have experienced adversities and trauma feel supported; are welcome to explore their strengths and identities; exercise their agency; can develop meaningful, positive relationships with adults and peers in their learning community; and have access to the mental health supports they need.” Those practices include: 1. creating predictable routines that help students adapt to transitions throughout the day; 2. building strong and supportive relationships; 3. empowering student agency by ensuring they feel seen and heard (including not forcing them to participate in activities they find triggering) and providing opportunities for them to feel competent and confident; 4. supporting the development of student and adult self-regulation skills; and 5. providing opportunities to explore individual and community identities by providing opportunities to strengthen their identity and explore the perspectives of others. Transforming Education’s toolkit also emphasizes the importance of developing adult SEL competencies and self-care practices and ensuring that educators know how to access and refer students to more intensive supports as needed. Preparing Schools, ECE Providers, and OST Organizations to Understand and Implement SEL with a Trauma Lens The general practices outlined by Transforming Education are helpful for guiding approaches to trauma- informed SEL. However, there are fewer resources that describe specifically how to facilitate SEL lessons in ways that are trauma-informed. It is important to be thoughtful about the ways in which SEL content itself is delivered to children exposed to trauma. Some ways of delivering lessons are sensitive to children’s trauma and others might unintentionally trigger students, leading to re-traumatization. For example, engaging in activities that bring up strong emotions without providing opportunities to process those emotions, or forcing children to participate in activities or discussions they find triggering or uncomfortable can undermine their sense of safety, trust, and agency in ways that are ultimately more damaging (NCTSN, 2008). Potentially sensitive or intense topics should always be previewed in advance so that children and youth know what to expect and students should have the option of whether and/or how they participate. Afterwards, adults should check-in with individual students (in a private and confidential manner) to follow-up about any unintended consequences. Most importantly, students need a reliable and trustworthy listener who is able to provide support when needed and a clear path for accessing additional supports or resources without fear of shame, blame, judgement, punishment, or humiliation. 67 Educators might not have control over the content of an SEL curriculum, but they can do the following to ensure that their implementation of SEL is aligned with best practices for working with students who have experienced trauma: 1. Prepare educators for the level of emotional intensity that may surface during SEL activities and the ways in which that may require adaptations to the delivery and content of SEL programming. Schools, OST programs, and ECE providers should prepare teachers and staff to appropriately handle and cope with the potentially intense emotions or reactions that might come from exercises designed to build children’s SEL skills and to consider the implications for program content and delivery (NCTSN, 2008; Pawlo et al., 2019). For example, if children are playing a game like Simon Says that builds their cognitive skills and one child makes a mistake, embarrassment or teasing from other children could be a triggering event. Adults should be prepared for this type of response so they can set up activities in a way that minimizes the risk of triggering a student (NCTSN, 2008). In this case, they might remind students that mistakes are okay, model what it looks like to make and recover from a mistake, and/or agree as a class to respond to mistakes with encouragement and support rather than laughter. If a child becomes distressed, teachers should have strategies and resources available to support the child while also maintaining a safe environment for themselves and the rest of the class. For example, a “quiet corner” where children can retreat at any time of their choosing. Similarly, educators should consider ahead of time how the content (e.g., types of examples provided) and pacing (e.g., how long to spend on a particular lesson or skill) of lessons may need to be adjusted in order to accommodate the needs of learners who have been exposed to trauma (Pawlo et al., 2019). This is particularly important in schools where a large percentage of the student population have experiences with poverty, community violence, forced migration, or institutionalized discrimination and oppression. As the demand for trauma-informed SEL grows, an increasing number of programs are beginning to offer trainings and resources that provide background on trauma, trauma-informed practices, and how to use program lessons and activities to support students who have experienced trauma and significant life stress (e.g., Al’s Pals; Competent Kids, Caring Communities; Conscious Discipline, Girls on the Run; Leader in Me; MindUP; Open Circle; the PATHS® Program; PAX Good Behavior Game; Responsive Classroom; Sanford Harmony; Second Step; and WINGS for Kids). 2. Provide educators with resources to monitor and maintain their own emotional wellbeing and stability. In order to effectively deliver SEL programming, adults must be emotionally well so that they can notice and respond to children’s needs with compassion and acuity. But adults have their own histories of stress and trauma that influence their mental health, well-being, SEL competence, and ability to form relationships with their students (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Schools, ECE, and OST settings can be stressful environments for adults as well as for children, and staff stress and burnout are often related to challenges with classroom management and student behavior, which can have a negative impact on the learning environment and both adults’ and students’ ability to access and use SEL skills (Milkie & Warner, 2011; Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Adults working with students who have experienced trauma are also at particular risk for issues like vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, and burnout, which negatively impact their interactions with students and colleagues, as well as their ability to effectively take care of themselves and do their job. 70 CHAPTER 5: COMPARISON TABLES The tables in this section provide an overview of the specific skills, instructional methods, and program components offered by each program. These tables may be helpful tools for identifying programs that best fit the needs of your school, ECE setting, or OST program. They may also be helpful for looking across programs to identify areas of similarity or difference. These tables should be used in conjunction with the more detailed program profiles as well as the accompanying “How to Use the Navigating SEL Guide” supplement. In this section, you will find the following tables: 1. Comparison Table 1: Skills Targeted by Each Program 2. Comparison Table 2: Instructional Methods Used by Each Program 3. Comparison Table 3: Components of Each Program A Note about Interpretation What does it mean if a program doesn’t appear to focus on a particular domain or skill? A Focus on Explicit Skill-Building Our coding system was designed to code only the explicit or concrete activities in which a particular skill was directly targeted or taught. For example, it could be argued that activities requiring students to pay attention or listen to a teacher speak about any topic for an extended period of time might implicitly lead students to practice and build their attention control skills. However, we only coded program activities in which attention control was explicitly referenced or practiced, such as activities in which teachers ask students to use their “focusing power” to pay attention, or to practice using active listening skills with a partner. It is therefore possible that our analysis may not reflect some of the more subtle or underlying skill-building that occurs in programs. No One Way to Achieve Positive Results It is important to note that no one domain is a silver bullet or more important than the others, nor must programs target every domain to achieve positive outcomes for students. Schools and OST providers must instead think carefully about their students and settings as well as consider how a particular program focus fits with their needs and goals, in coordination with the type of instructional methods and program components it offers. This section comprises a set of summary tables that allow the reader to quickly glance across all 33 programs in order to see big-picture trends that emerge from our analyses. 71 What does it mean if a particular instructional method appears in 0% of activities? Additional Instructional Methods Because our coding system is only designed to capture three instructional methods per program activity (a primary, secondary, and tertiary method), there are times when additional instructional method is present but does not get coded. For example, during a lesson about getting along with others, the term “respect” might be defined briefly in the context of a larger, puppet-led discussion about a related children’s book. In this case, discussion, book/story, and role-play (for the puppet) would be coded over vocabulary/language exercise because a greater amount of focus is dedicated to those tasks. For this reason, instructional methods (like vocabulary) that frequently tend to occur only briefly within the context of a larger activity may seem to appear in only a low percentage – or even 0% – of activities across most programs. This does not mean that programs do not ever guide teachers to define new words and concepts for students – it simply means that vocabulary is not often the primary focus of activities. Consequently, programs that chunk lessons into more discrete activities may appear to use more of these less dominant instructional methods than programs that do not break lessons down into smaller activities or sections. Instructional methods that tend to fit this description include language/vocabulary exercises, charts/visual displays, and didactic instruction. In many cases, these instructional methods appear in little to no activities across a majority of programs, and even a small percentage of program activities targeting this skill may indicate significant use of a particular method. (Please see “Table 2: Instructional Methods Used by Each Program” in Chapter 5 and the “How Does It Compare?” section of the program profiles in Chapter 6 for comparative analyses.) For an example of how instructional methods were prioritized, please see the Coding Guide in Appendix C. 72 TABLE 1. SKILLS TARGETED BY EACH PROGRAM6 Table 1 below displays: (1) the percentage of activities in each program that target each of the six skill domains, and (2) the percentage of program activities that target the specific skills within each domain (in blue). The table is color-coded, with darker shading indicating increasing attention to that skill or domain relative to other programs. This table can be used to identify the domains and specific skills that are most frequently targeted within and across programs. For example, if you are interested in programs that focus primarily on interpersonal skills, look at the green column in the chart labeled ‘Social’ and identify the programs that correspond to the darkest shade of green (e.g., Caring School Community, Good Behavior Game AIR). Full descriptions of each domain and subdomain can be found in Chapter 1: Background on SEL Skills and Interventions on p. 15-19. Program Co gn iti ve A tt en tio n Co nt ro l W or ki ng M em or y & P la nn in g Sk ill s In hi bi to ry Co nt ro l Co gn iti ve Fl ex ib ili ty Cr iti ca l Th in ki ng Em ot io n Em ot io na l Kn ow le dg e & Ex pr es si on Em ot io na l & Be ha vi or al Re gu la tio n Em pa th y/ Pe rs pe ct iv e— ta ki ng So ci al U nd er st an ds So ci al C ue s Co nf lic t Re so lu tio n Pr os oc ia l / Co op er at iv e Be ha vi or Va lu es Et hi ca l Va lu es Pe rf or m an ce Va lu es Ci vi c Va lu es In te lle ct ua l Va lu es Pe rs pe ct iv es O pt im is m G ra tit ud e O pe nn es s En th us ia sm / Ze st Id en tit y Se lf- Kn ow le dg e Pu rp os e Se lf- Ef fic ac y/ G ro w th M in ds et Se lf- Es te em 4Rs 33% 14% 4% 12% 8% 4% 36% 26% 11% 17% 56% 8% 21% 42% 15% 10% 1%  7% 0% 3% 0% 1% 2% 0% 6% 5% 0% 0% 1% Al’s Pals 26% 4% 0% 18% 6% 0% 45% 36% 16% 7% 61% 12% 20% 38% 13% 12% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 3% 0% 1%  22% Before the Bullying 5% ‚ 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 42% 23% 3% 22% 53% 0% 6% 52% 22%  21% 1% 4% 0% 5% 0% 4% 1% 0% 8% 1% 0% 6% 5% Caring Schools Community 2% ‚ 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% ‚ 7% ‚ 1% 2%  94% 0% 1%  93% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% Character First 27% 7% 13% 10% 1% 1% 10% ‚ 2% ‚ 3% 4% 58% 1% 6% 57%  71%  46%  35% 5% 1%  16% 2%  6%  6% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 2% Competent Kids, Caring Communities 27% 7% 9% 4% 4% 10% 44% 26% 19% 11% 29% ‚ 5% 10% 18% ‚ 22% 13%  10% 2% 1% 5% 0% 0% 5% 0% 12% 7% 1% 5% 4% Conscious Discipline 10% ‚ 0% 2% 4% 2% 3%  58% 46%  36% 5% 61% 15% 9% 47% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 2% 0% 2% 2% Getting Along Together 50% 11%  26% 17% 5% 13% 37% 26% 11% 19% 55% 7% 18% 45% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 2% 1% Girls on the Run 18% 2% 4% 7% 1% 5% 15% ‚ 13% 6% 1% 51% 1% 11% 50% 27% 9%  9%  13% 0% 6% 0% 5% 2% 0%  43%  16% 0%  16%  23% Good Behavior Game AIR  91% 0%  73% 0% 0%  18% 0% ‚ 0% ‚ 0% 0%  91% 0% 0%  91% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18%  18% 0% 0% 0% I Can Problem Solve 43% 5% 7% 3%  31% 2%  56%  50% 1%  39% 56% 16%  33% 18% ‚ 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% The Incredible Years 23% 6% 2% 5% 6% 7% 32% 26% 14% 4% 77% 6% 19% 66% 4% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 1% 6 A single program activity may target more than one domain. For this reason, the proportions of activities targeting each skill and/or domain may not add up to 100%. 75 TABLE 2. INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS USED BY EACH PROGRAM7 Table 2 displays the percentage of activities in each program that use each instructional method. This table is colored-coded, with darker shades of blue indicating higher usage of an instructional method relative to other programs. This table can be used to identify and look across programs that utilize specific instructional methods. For example, if you want to identify programs that utilize kinesthetic activities as a primary teaching and learning activity, look at the column labeled ‘Kinesthetic’ to locate the darkest shade of blue (e.g., Girls on the Run, Playworks). This table can be used to identify the range and frequency of different instructional methods used within or across programs. Full descriptions of each method can be found in Chapter 1: Background on SEL Skills and Interventions on p. 20-21. Program Bo ok / St or y D is cu ss io n (W ho le C la ss / Pe er ) D is cu ss io n (A ct iv ity D eb rie f) D is cu ss io n (B ra in st or m ) D is cu ss io n (O th er ) Ro le -p la y W rit in g D ra w in g Ar t/ C re at iv e Pr oj ec t La ng ua ge / Vo ca bu la ry So ng / M us ic Vi su al D is pl ay SE L To ol D id ac tic In st ru ct io n Sk ill P ra ct ic e G am e W or ks he et s Ki ne st he tic Vi de o/ A ud io Cl ip Co m pu te r/ Ap p Po em M ed ita tio n/ Vi su al iz at io n Cr ea te / Ch oo se Y ou r O w n O th er 4Rs  24% 49% 9% 6% 1% 9% 6% 1% 2% 5% 4% 28% 6% 17% 9% 11% 1% 16% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 4% Al’s Pals 2% 34% 5% 7% 1% 24% 1% 1% 0% 2%  38% 21% 7% 19% 6% 3% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Before the Bullying 4% 53% 8% 4% 0% 1% 1% 3%  8% 0%  39% 13% 0% 0% ‚ 3% 10% 5% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%  8% Caring Schools Community 1% 36% 2% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 6% 11% 3%  51% 19% 4% 2% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%  10% 0% Character First  20% 32% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%  25%  11% 1% 24% 0% 8% 8% 6% 1% 2% 0% 0%  10% 0% 0% 0% Competent Kids, Caring Communities  24% 51% 2% 9% 0% 10% 4% 1% 1% 7% 7% 13% 2% 17% 15% 1% 2% 6% 0% 0% 5%  7% 5% 4% Conscious Discipline 11% 21% ‚ 1% 5% 0% 12% 9% 4%  11% 0%  35% 24% 23% 15% 24% 2% 1% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Getting Along Together 5% 61% 6% 12% 0% 13% 3% 0% 1% 2% 0% 30% 24% 10% 6% 2% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%  9% Good Behavior Game AIR 0% 27% ‚ 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0%  9% 0%  45%  55%  36% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Girls on the Run 0% 47% 12% 1% 0% 2% 7% 0% 0% 3% 10% 11% 8% 18% 9% 12% 1%  39% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%  10% I Can Problem Solve 6% 63% 9% 10% 0% 22% 6% 1% 0%  18% 1%  37% 1% 3% ‚ 4% 10% 3% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% The Incredible Years 8% 36% 1% 3% 1%  30% 7% 4%  14% 1%  18% 14% 13% 1% ‚ 18% 13% 4% 3%  13% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% Kimochis 5% 57% 10% 5% 0%  38% 3% 0% 0% 2% 1% 5%‚  46% 7% 13% 6% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Leader in Me 6% 65% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 4% 1% 5% 0% 19% 7% 21% 7% 1%  17% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 7 A single program activity may use more than one instructional method. For this reason, proportions for a single program may not add up to 100%. 76 TABLE 2. INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS USED BY EACH PROGRAM, CNTD. Program Bo ok / St or y D is cu ss io n (W ho le C la ss / Pe er ) D is cu ss io n (A ct iv ity D eb rie f) D is cu ss io n (B ra in st or m ) D is cu ss io n (O th er ) Ro le - p la y W rit in g D ra w in g Ar t/ C re at iv e Pr oj ec t La ng ua ge / Vo ca bu la ry So ng / M us ic Vi su al D is pl ay SE L To ol D id ac tic In st ru ct io n Sk ill P ra ct ic e G am e W or ks he et s Ki ne st he tic Vi de o/ A ud io Cl ip Co m pu te r/ Ap p Po em M ed ita tio n/ Vi su al iz at io n Cr ea te / Ch oo se Y ou r O w n O th er Lions Quest 4% 63% 3% 10% 2% 7%  33%  7% 5% 5% 3%  36% 3% 25% 8% 2%  31% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% MindUP 1% 57%  19% 5% 0% 1% 3% 1% 0% 8% 1% 20% 7% 25% 21% 3% 7% 8% 0% 0% 0%  7% 0% 0% Mutt-i-grees 1% 40% 2% 5% 0% 12% 7% 1%  7% 2% 0% 7% 6%  53% 5% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Open Circle 4%  73% 5% 9% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0%  10% 1%  48% 12% 11% 15% 1% 4% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PATHS 7% 49% 1% 5% 0% 18% 1% 0% 3%  12% 1% 24% 21% 27% 6% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% PAX Good Behavior Game 0% 26% ‚  15% 6% 3% 0% 6% 3% 0% 0% 6% 32%  44% 24%  32% 3% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Playworks 0% 18% ‚ 10% 3% 0% 2% 10% 1% 1% 4% 1% 13% 11% 9% 6%  46% 7%  47% 0% 0% 0% 0%  10% 4% Positive Action 9% 54% 1% 2% 2% 13% 3% 2% 4% 7% 10% 30% 8% 19% 5% 1% 7% 9% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%  7% Responsive Classroom 1% 31% ‚ 4% 7% 0% 3% 2% 0% 1% 2% 14% 15% 2% 9%  34% 13% 0%  25% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% RULER 11%  76% 2% 11% 0% 1% 6% 3% 4% 8% 0% 35% 13% 3% ‚ 21% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sanford Harmony  23%  72% 11% 6% 0% 8% 3% 1% 2% 4% 1% 13% 12% 7% 6% 5% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Second Step 3% 40% 4% 3% 0% 10% 8% 4% 0% 1%  21% 23% 5% 6% 22%  17% 3% 23%  7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% SECURe 8% 66% 7% 9% 1% 7% 3% 1% 1% 4% 3% 23%  26% 10% 17% 14% 2% 16% 1% 0% 1% 0%  8% 1% Social Decision Making/Problem Solving Program 4% 66% 5% 7% 0% 10% 2% 3% 2% 5% 0% 15% 10% 14% 12% 4% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Social Skills Improvement System 0% 64%  20%  19% 5%  26% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 24%  50% 14% 2% 0% 13% 0%  8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Too Good for Violence 8%  75% 1% 1% 0% 16% 10% 1% 3%  9% 4% 15% 1% 4% ‚ 4% 12%  27% 8% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 77 TABLE 2. INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS USED BY EACH PROGRAM, CNTD. Program Bo ok / St or y D is cu ss io n (W ho le C la ss / Pe er ) D is cu ss io n (A ct iv ity D eb rie f) D is cu ss io n (B ra in st or m ) D is cu ss io n (O th er ) Ro le -p la y W rit in g D ra w in g Ar t/ C re at iv e Pr oj ec t La ng ua ge / Vo ca bu la ry So ng / M us ic Vi su al D is pl ay SE L To ol D id ac tic In st ru ct io n Sk ill P ra ct ic e G am e W or ks he et s Ki ne st he tic Vi de o/ A ud io Cl ip Co m pu te r/ Ap p Po em M ed ita tio n/ Vi su al iz at io n Cr ea te / Ch oo se Y ou r O w n O th er Tools of the Mind  23% 59% 1% 2% 0% 15% 2% 0% 1% 1% 5%  43% 7% 6% 14% 16% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% We Have Skills 3% 43% 7% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1%  10% 2%  31% 14% 0% 14% 12% 6% 1% 10%  7% 0% 0% 0% 0%  7% WINGS 0% 54%  27% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% ‚ 0% 26% 1%  26% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Average Across All Programs 7% 50% 5% 5% 1% 10% 6% 2% 3% 4% 7% 20% 11% 20% 13% 7% 5% 10% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% Key  = High focus in a particular area relative to most other programs in analysis ‚ = Low focus in a particular area relative to most other programs in analysis Note: Lack of an arrow signifies a typical focus in a particular area relative to other programs in analysis For information on how relative high/low focus was calculated, please see the Data Analysis section of Appendix B. 100 0 . 80 TABLE 3. COMPONENTS OF EACH PROGRAM, CNTD. Program Classroom Activities Beyond Core Lessons Climate & Culture Supports Applications to OST Tools to Assess Program Outcomes Professional Development & Training Support for Implementation Tools to Assess Implementation Flexibility & Fit Family Engagement Community Engagement Equitable & Inclusive Education Support for Academic Integration Adult Social- Emotional Competence Eq ui ty Tr au m a Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n EL L Too Good for Violence ü -- ü -- ü -- Tools of the Mind ü -- ü -- ü ü We Have Skills -- -- -- -- -- -- WINGS for Kids ü ü -- ü -- -- Key No components provided. Moderate components provided. Comprehensive components provided. Extensive components provided. ü Program includes resources to support this area. -- Program does not include resources to support this area. For more detailed descriptions of the ratings for each category, please see the Table 3 Key in Appendix B. 81 CHAPTER 6: PROGRAM PROFILES This section is intended to help schools and OST organizations better understand the content, organization, and purpose of 33 widely-used SEL programs. It includes detailed summaries for each of the 33 programs, which are intended to aid schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations in the selection and evaluation of an approach to SEL programming that best meets the goals and constraints of their particular setting. What Does Each Program Profile Include? 8 I. Program Snapshot Program Description: 1-2 paragraph program description, including history, purpose, and program structure. Summary Table: Summarizes grade range and lesson differentiation, additional curricula, evidence of effectiveness, skill focus, instructional methods, and unique features relative to other programs. II. Evidence of Effectiveness Summary Table: Summarizes available impact and implementation studies, including information about study type; geographic location; demographics; measurement tools; student, teacher, and classroom outcomes; and implementation experiences. III. Curricular Content9 Program Focus: A brief description of the extent to which the program focuses on specific domains (cognitive, emotion, social, values, perspectives, identity). Breakdown of Skills Targeted: A brief description of when and how the program targets specific skills (e.g., attention control) within each domain. Scope and Sequence of Skills: A heat map that illustrates when and where various skills are targeted throughout the course of the program, allowing users to see relative areas of emphasis at different points throughout the year and across different developmental stages. Practitioners can use the maps to determine where programming might align with the academic content they have planned for the year and use it as a planning tool to integrate SEL programming into different parts of the school day. For example, if Unit 3 of an SEL program focuses on conflict resolution, how might teachers link that topic to the book students are reading at that point in the year? How can hallway displays, school assemblies, and school-wide initiatives be used to further reinforce that skill during that time? Schools, ECE providers, and OST organizations can further use information from the heat maps to identify the extent to which various programs might help teachers meet state SEL standards or help students reach SEL benchmarks. Primary Methods of Instruction: A brief description of the program’s commonly used instructional methods. IV. Program Components Any available information about major program features or components beyond core lessons that support effective implementation: classroom activities beyond core lessons (including support for academic integration), culture & climate supports, applications to OST, flexibility & fit, tools to assess program outcomes, PD/training (including support for adult social- emotional competence), support for implementation, tools to assess implementation, family engagement, community engagement, and support for equitable & inclusive education. V. How It Compares A brief summary of the ways in which a program’s skill focus, instructional methods, and program components are unique relative to other programs. VI. Purchasing and Contact Info How to contact developers to learn more about or purchase a program. 8 We gave program developers the opportunity to review and offer feedback on their snapshots, program components, and purchasing/contact information. 9 Only core lessons were coded. Supplementary lessons, units, curricula, and activities were not coded, but are listed in the program component section. 82 THE 4RS PROGRAM I. PROGRAM SNAPSHOT The 4Rs Program (Reading, Writing, Respect & Resolution) is a grade-specific PreK-5 curriculum that integrates the teaching of social and emotional skills and the language arts through the use of diverse children’s literature. Each grade contains 27-37 lessons across 7 units, with at least 1 lesson delivered per week throughout the school year. Each unit focuses on a single book and consists of three parts: a read-aloud of a book with an SEL theme; a discussion to deepen students understanding of the story and its relationship to students’ own lives; and 2-6 applied learning activities. Lessons range from 20-60 minutes depending on grade level. Developer Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility Grade Range PreK-5 with separate lessons for each grade Duration and Timing 27-37 lessons; 1 lesson/week; 20-60 min/lesson Areas of Focus (as stated by program) Building community, understanding and managing feelings, relating well to others, dealing well with conflict and other life challenges, making good decisions, celebrating diversity & countering discrimination, taking responsibility for improving communities from the classroom to the world Other Curricula (not included in analysis) -4Rs can be used in conjunction with Morningside Center’s Peace Helper Guide, The 4Rs Class Meetings, Peer Mediation, and Restore360 programs -C-Squad: Together for the Journey (Grades 6-8) -Building Belonging (Grades 6-12) Evidence of Effectiveness 4 randomized control trials Skill Focus Cognitive 33% Emotion 36% Social 56% Values 15% Perspectives 3% Identity 6% Instructional Methods Most frequently uses discussion (whole class/peer), visual displays, books/stories, didactic instruction, and kinesthetic activities Unique Features Relative to Other Programs -Typical focus on all domains -High focus on civic values -High use of books/stories -Builds adult social-emotional competence -Strong focus on equitable and inclusive education 85 III. CURRICULAR CONTENT3 PROGRAM FOCUS4 As shown in Figure 1 below, 4Rs primarily focuses on the social domain (targeted in 56% of program activities) with a secondary emphasis on the emotion (36%) and cognitive (33%) domains. To a lesser extent, 4Rs also targets values domain (15%). 4Rs provides little to no focus on the identity (6%) and perspectives (3%) domains. 3Program data collected from PreK, Grades 1, 3, and 5. 4A single program activity may target more than one domain. For this reason, the proportions of activities targeting each domain may not add up to 100%. C o g n it iv e E m o ti o n S o c ia l V a lu e s P e rs p e c ti v e s Id e n ti ty P e rc e n ta g e o f p ro g ra m a c ti v it ie s 0 20 40 60 80 100 33 36 56 15 3 6 Figure 1. Percentage of Program Activities Targeting Each Domain4 4Rs provides separate lessons for each grade. Please see Scope and Sequence of Skills for more detailed information about how skill focus breaks down by grade and over time. Developmental Considerations 86 BREAKDOWN OF SKILLS TARGETED5 Cognitive As shown in Figure 2 to the right, the 33% of 4Rs activities that build cognitive skills most frequently focus on attention control (32% of the time), followed to a lesser extent by inhibitory control (29%), cognitive flexibility (19%), working memory and planning skills (10%), and critical thinking (10%). Activities targeting these skills might include playing games such as Telephone or Simon Says or using a talking piece during group discussions. Emotion As shown in Figure 3 to the right, the 36% of 4Rs activities that build emotion skills most frequently focus on emotional knowledge and expression (49% of the time), followed to a lesser extent by empathy/perspective taking (31%) and emotional and behavioral regulation (20%). Activities that address these skills might include using a feelings web to record emotion words, discussing how the conflict in a book makes the characters feel, or practicing abdominal breathing to calm down. Social As shown in Figure 4 to the right, the 56% of 4Rs activities that build social skills most frequently focus on prosocial/cooperative behavior (59% of the time), followed to a lesser extent by conflict resolution/social problem solving (30%) and understanding social cues (11%). For example, students may read a book about standing up to a bully or brainstorm compliments to give their classmates. 5Proportions represent how often the program targets a specific skill (e.g., attention control) relative to other skills in the same domain (e.g., inhibitory control, etc.). For example, if 12% of program activities build cognitive skills, 55% of the time, those activities target attention control. Percents adjusted to account for rounding. 32% 10% 29% 19% 10% Figure 2. Focus of Program Activities that Build the Cognitive Domain5 Attention Control Working Memory & Planning Skills Inhibitory Control Cognitive Flexibility Critical Thinking 49% 20% 31% Figure 3. Focus of Program Activities that Build the Emotion Domain5 Emotional Knowledge & Expression Emotional & Behavioral Regulation Empathy/Perspective Taking 11% 30% 59% Figure 4. Focus of Program Activities that Build the Social Domain5 Understanding Social Cues Conflict Resolution/ Social Problem Solving Prosocial/Cooperative Behavior 87 Values As shown in Figure 5 to the right, the 15% of 4Rs activities that target the values domain most frequently focus on ethical values (55% of the time), followed to a lesser extent by civic values (39%). Every grade contains 1-2 units focused specifically on celebrating diversity and countering prejudice. Activities for younger students might include drawing similarities and differences between themselves and a partner, discussing times they were proud or afraid to be different, or interviewing adults about a time they learned to like something new. Activities for older students might include practicing how to respectfully discuss differing opinions as a class, role-playing how to stand up against injustice, writing about a time they saw someone being mistreated because they were different, or learning the definitions and impact of prejudice and stereotyping. 4Rs activities that target the values domain rarely address performance values (only 6% of the time) or intellectual values (<1%). Perspectives 4Rs offers little to no focus on the perspectives domain (targeted by ≤3% of program activities). Identity 4Rs offers little to no focus on the identity domain (targeted by ≤6% of program activities). 55% 6% 39% Figure 5. Focus of Program Activities that Build the Cognitive Domain5 Ethical Values Performance Values Civic Values Intellectual Values 90 PRIMARY METHODS OF INSTRUCTION6 As shown by Figure 7 below, discussion (whole class/peer) is the most commonly employed instructional method in 4Rs (used in 49% of program activities), followed by visual display (28%), book/story (24%), didactic instruction (17%), and kinesthetic activity (16%). Examples of these instructional methods in 4Rs include: conducting an in-depth Book Talk discussion about a story with an SEL theme in each unit, going over the lesson objectives and agenda on display, or making body movements during games and SEL practices. All other instructional methods occur in less than 15% of program activities. 6A single program activity may employ more than one instructional method (e.g., children refer to step-by-step pictures [visual display] of a calm-down process that engages their whole body [kinesthetic] so they can model the steps for a puppet [role-play] who needs help cooling off). For this reason, the proportions of program activities employing each instructional method may not add up to 100%. D is c u s s io n ( w h o le c la s s /p e e r) V is u a l d is p la y B o o k /s to ry D id a c ti c i n s tr u c ti o n K in e s th e ti c G a m e D is c u s s io n ( a c ti v it y d e b ri e f) R o le − p la y S k ill p ra c ti c e D is c u s s io n ( b ra in s to rm ) W ri ti n g S E L t o o l L a n g u a g e /v o c a b S o n g /m u s ic O th e r A rt /c re a ti v e p ro je c t M e d it a ti o n /v is u a liz a ti o n D is c u s s io n ( o th e r) D ra w in g W o rk s h e e ts V id e o /a u d io c lip C o m p u te r/ a p p P o e m C re a te /c h o o s e y o u r o w n 0 20 40 60 80 100 49 28 24 17 16 11 9 9 9 6 6 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Figure 7. Percentage of Program Activities Employing Each Teaching Method6 91 IV. PROGRAM COMPONENTS Classroom Activities Beyond Core Lessons • The curriculum includes optional extension activities and unit projects and suggests regularly setting time aside for silence, journaling, and class problem-solving meetings. • Each unit also includes a list of additional books related to the unit’s social and emotional theme that can be used to supplement the regular curriculum. • 4Rs lessons are designed to integrate social and emotional learning with language arts and literacy. • Morningside Center website provides Teachable Moment Lessons to help K-12 teachers foster students’ social responsibility and social and emotional learning. The activities are closely related to current issues in the news and restorative practices. Climate and Culture Supports • 4Rs provides teachers with suggestions for structuring their classroom and employing teaching methods that increase students’ attention, comfort, engagement and understanding. • Morningside Center also offers Peace Helper (Grades K-2) and Peer Mediation (Grade 3+) programs that can be used in conjunction with the 4Rs program to reduce discipline problems throughout the school by training peer mediators to help fellow students solve problems with age-appropriate conflict resolution strategies. • 4Rs can also be used in conjunction with Morningside Center’s Pathways to Respect program, which is designed to prevent and eliminate bullying as well as create a respectful school culture. • No school-wide events or activities provided. Applications to Out-of-School Time • No information or resources provided. Program Flexibility and Fit • 4Rs requires that all units be implemented in sequential order with at least one lesson delivered each week throughout the school year. Teachers may choose to integrate ideas from earlier or later units as opportunities for teachable moments in their classroom. • Core lessons should be implemented with full fidelity, but additional extension activities, silent time, journaling, and problem-solving meetings may be incorporated at the teacher’s discretion. • While teachers should carefully follow the provided facilitation format, 4Rs is not a scripted curriculum and teachers are encouraged to creatively tailor recommended activities to their students’ needs and interests. Professional Development and Training • 4Rs requires an initial 25-30 hour introductory training that builds teachers’ own social and emotional skills and prepares them to teach the 4Rs curriculum, followed by ongoing classroom coaching from a 4Rs staff developer. • 4Rs also offers a train-the-trainer program to support sustainability. • 4Rs provides a two-day training for classroom teachers in using restorative interventions with 4Rs, available to those who have participated in the initial training. Support for Implementation • Lessons are structured, but not scripted. • 4Rs provides general tips for achieving maximum impact, including recommendations for when and how to deliver lessons, model skills, and integrate social and emotional learning into the regular school day. Tools to Assess Program Outcomes • A brief, informal evaluation question is used at the end of each lesson to gauge students’ understanding and perception of the lesson. 92 Tools to Assess Implementation • No information or resources provided. Family Engagement • 4Rs engages families through parent letters and interactive homework assignments. • 4Rs also offers a guide for facilitating a 5-session parent workshop that helps parents develop social and emotional skills, explores how they can strengthen parent-child relationships, and provides activities related to each unit book that children can complete with family members at home. Community Engagement • Some lessons in the final unit in each grade of 4Rs focus on supporting the students to make a difference in the community and beyond by reading books of how others have brought about change, identifying their own strengths, and planning a course of action to make a difference. Equitable and Inclusive Education • 4Rs has a strong focus on building skills that support a sense of social justice and responsibility, including cultivating a sense of identity and respect for differences, examining assumptions and stereotypes, and understanding impact of one’s own agency, decisions, and actions. • 4Rs’ children’s literature includes characters and stories that represent a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, and life experiences, making them relatable and applicable to diverse student populations. • Introductory paragraphs at the beginning of each unit include international and multicultural examples of lesson themes in action, as well as contextual and cultural considerations related to lesson themes, including information about how to incorporate and address topics like cultural dominance and power structures, emotional responses to injustice (e.g., righteous anger), and more. • 4Rs can be used in conjunction with the Morningside Center’s Restore360 program, which provides training, coaching, and tailored support for integrating SEL with restorative practices throughout all levels of the school community; Restore360 incorporates the 4Rs curriculum into daily or weekly restorative circles to develop SEL skills and a sense of community.