Why Schools Need to
Re-Think, Re-Evaluate, Re-Load, and Re-Boot
Dear
Colleagues,
[CLICK
HERE for the Entire Blog]
Introduction
All students need to learn and
demonstrate—at an appropriate developmental level—effective interpersonal,
social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional
control and coping skills. In the
classroom, these skills are essential to maximizing their academic engagement
and achievement, as well as their ability to collaborate and learn in
cooperative and project-based learning groups.
The “Good News” is that this is increasingly
recognized in our educational communities.
Indeed, based on McGraw-Hill’s
just-published Education 2018 Social and Emotional Learning Report with
its survey of over 1,000 administrators, teachers, and parents, all three
groups said that they believe that social and emotional learning is just as
important as academic learning. More
specifically, social and emotional learning was endorsed by 96% of
administrators, 93% of teachers, and 81% of parents.
But just 22% of the educators said that they
feel “very prepared” to teach SEL, and 51% said the level of SEL professional
development at their school is not sufficient.
[See a more extensive description of this
Report in our full Blog message.]
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to the outcomes of an SEL program, it is important to note that,
while the skills needed are essential in school. . . they also are critical
when students enter the post-graduation workplace.
Indeed, an AACU Employer Survey &
Economic Trend Research report, referenced in the September 5, 2018 issue
of Education Week, identified the following top characteristics that
employers seek of new hires:
· Able to effectively communicate orally
· Critical thinking/analytical reasoning
· Ethical judgment and decision-making
· Able to work effectively in teams
· Able to work independently (Prioritize
and Manage Time)
· Self-motivated, shows initiative,
proactive: Ideas/Solutions
· Able to communicate effectively in
writing
· Can apply knowledge/skills to
real-world settings
_ _ _ _ _
But, pedagogically, in order to demonstrate
these skills, they need to be explicitly taught to students. . . from
preschool through high school. . . as part of a systematic, scaffolded,
articulated Health, Mental Health, and Wellness “curriculum.”
This is something most SEL programs do not
discuss.
And, as part of the instructional process,
students need to learn, master, and be able to apply these skills in a timely
way to different situations.
To accomplish all of this, students need to
learn and demonstrate:
· Self-control—when experiencing emotional
conditions;
· Cognitive, or attributional, control—so that their thoughts, beliefs,
attitudes, and expectations support and motivate prosocial behavior; and the
· Verbal, non-verbal, and physical
behaviors needed to
“get the job done.”
This is the science that results in students’
social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral self-management and self-efficacy.
And these are the outcomes that every
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) school-based initiative and/or program in this
country should target for all students.
_ _ _ _ _
But these initiatives or programs also need
to recognize that not all students learn the same way, and that social,
emotional, and behavior instruction needs to be adapted for students (a)
from different cultural, racial, language, socio-economic, or family
constellation backgrounds; (b) with different gender or psychosexual
orientations; or (c) with one or more of the thirteen different disabilities
recognized in federal law (i.e., IDEA).
And these initiatives or programs especially
need to consciously identify and integrate the multi-tiered services,
supports, strategies, and interventions required by students who are
at-risk, underachieving, underperforming, unresponsive, and unsuccessful. . .
in addition to the students who are demonstrating frequent or intense social,
emotional, or behavioral challenges.
_ _ _ _ _
Where Does CASEL’s Framework Fit?
Critically, the multi-tiered
research-to-practice instruction-to-intervention paradigm described above is
not advocated, or even discussed, by the Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning (CASEL)—the most-dominant SEL voice in the country.
In fact, in addition to its global,
difficult-to-assess outcome constructs (see below), CASEL’s framework has
numerous shortcomings.
Indeed, CASEL is explicitly or implicitly
on-record for:
· Saying that districts and schools
should have broad discretion in deciding what their SEL initiative will target
and look like.
[This runs the risk that schools will implement unproven
or the easiest-to-employ practices that are wasteful, ineffective, or
counterproductive.]
_ _ _ _ _
· Missing the importance of adapting SEL
initiatives for students from different cultural, racial, language,
socio-economic, or family constellation backgrounds; with different gender or
psychosexual orientations; or with one or more disabilities.
[This may result in maintaining or increasing the SEL
skill gaps between these students and others who may already have these
essential skills.]
_ _ _ _ _
· Missing the need for multi-tiered
services, supports, strategies, and interventions for at-risk, underachieving,
underperforming, unresponsive, and unsuccessful students, as well as those with
significant social, emotional, behavioral, and/or mental health challenges.
[This potentially denies these students the opportunities
to access the SEL instruction and, thus, to successfully learn and master the embedded
skills.]
_ _ _ _ _
· Largely publishing school and district
SEL descriptive “testimonials” (to demonstrate that SEL and its framework is
effective).
[These descriptive case studies report “outcomes” that
are not based on random selection and control group comparisons . . .
their “evaluations” do not use objective data collection and sound
statistical analysis techniques. . . and the “conclusions” that connect any
favorable outcomes directly to the SEL program are inappropriate because the
method and statistics do not demonstrate a “cause and effect” relationship.
_ _ _ _ _
Conclusion.
Thus, as discussed in Part I of this Blog (see summary below), while
CASEL may be largely responsible for the political and public relations-driven
advancements of SEL, its research is weak and its pronouncements about SEL’s
real contribution to the classroom may be overstated.
As noted above, CASEL’s “implementation”
frameworks similarly has gaps and weaknesses.
This framework has largely ignored, missed, or avoided a multi-tiered
psychological foundation regarding students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and
mental health, and it has failed to consistently utilize sound, objective, and
defensible research and science-to-practice processes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
An Overview of this Blog and Review of
Part I
In this Blog, we critique CASEL’s
foundational beliefs; document concerns with CASEL’s SEL student-focused
outcomes; and present a more defensible science-to-practice approach to
implementing valid SEL strategies.
[CLICK
HERE for the Entire Blog]
In Part I of this Blog, we discussed:
· The current media train of
Social-Emotional Learning, how virtually all district leaders nationwide are
“investing in SEL products,” and how most of the “press” is “positive press”
because “Why would a school or district send out a press release that its SEL
program has failed?”
[Parenthetically, U.S. News and World Report once
again promoted SEL and CASEL (in a “human interest” story that was devoid of
any hard, objective, research-based data) this past month.]
· The number of districts and schools
that are implementing or purchasing “SEL programs and curricula” without
independently and objectively evaluating (a) their research to determine if
they are “ready” for field-based implementation; (b) whether they “fit” the
demographics, students, and needs of their schools; and (c) whether they have a
high probability of positively impacting the social, emotional, and behavioral
student outcomes that they seek.
· How SEL’s recent popularity (and
legitimacy—at least, in the media) is the result of a multi-year effort by the Collaborative
for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) to court and leverage
foundations, politicians, well-regarded educators, and other powerful national
figures to “independently” support its “movement.”
[CASEL’s website acknowledges that one of its goals is to
establish a “national movement” supporting it version of SEL.]
· How many of the SEL “successes” touted
in the media (and in some journals) are scientifically unsound, and how they
confuse correlational (or contributory) outcomes for causal
outcomes— assuming the latter by concluding that their SEL activities caused
the student and other outcomes they report.
· How the three foundational SEL
research studies, published by CASEL principals, have significant
methodological and empirical flaws, and the difficulties in translating meta-analytic
studies to effective field-based practice.
· How so many things have been reframed
to take advantage of the SEL movement, and how SEL has become incredibly
profitable for some publishers and vendors—leading to “marketing campaigns”
that mask the questionable quality of some programs and curricula.
_ _ _ _ _
Flaws in CASEL’s SEL Foundational
Beliefs
In this section of the full Blog, CASEL’s
definition of Social and Emotional Learning, its conceptual framework,
and its recommended Action steps are discussed and critiqued.
[CLICK
HERE for the Entire Blog]
CASEL says that every district and school
should create its own version of SEL using “a strategic, systemic approach that
involves everyone, from district and school leaders to community partners to
family members, working together to ensure students receive the support they
need.”
But CASEL’s strategic planning approach is no
different than what districts and schools have been doing for years relative to
their academic programs—and we all know that many districts find it challenging
to implement and sustain effective strategic planning processes even in their
academic domains.
Nonetheless, to assist, CASEL provides a
list of “possible SEL activities,” but it does not guide schools in the
decision-making processes needed to determine which SEL activities will result in the most effective and
efficient student outcomes.
The ultimate point here. . . is that
ten districts or schools could use CASEL’s recommendations—and the support
materials from its website—and end up with ten different ways “to do” SEL. More critically, given their approaches,
there is virtually no assurance that any of these districts or schools will
successfully attain any positive, sustained changes in students’ social,
emotional, and/or behavioral proficiency.
_ _ _ _ _
In the final analysis given CASEL’s
approaches: “SEL is whatever a district
or school decides it is.”
Clearly, this is not a good recipe for
success.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Flaws in CASEL’s Targeted Outcomes. . . and How They are Evaluated
[CLICK
HERE for the Entire Blog]
The Status
of SEL Assessment
CASEL
has been very concerned, over the past number of years, about the quality of
SEL assessment and evaluation tools in the field, and it just recently released
a document on SEL Competency Assessments.
In fact, in the introduction of this document,
CASEL states that,
“The field of SEL
competency assessment is growing rapidly, and a
lot of promising
research and development is underway. However, there is less consistency across
frameworks and less clarity about terminology and developmental progressions
than in more established fields.
Also, few SEL assessments have gone through
the validation process typical of most large-scale academic assessments. . .
It is also important to consider that most
SEL assessments were not specifically developed for the purpose of comparing
schools, and little research exists to determine whether currently available
assessments have the precision necessary to make such comparisons.”
_ _ _ _ _
Through this statement, CASEL acknowledges
the relative dearth of valid SEL assessment and evaluation tools. And yet, in the three meta-analyses that
CASEL researchers conducted and published to “validate” SEL outcomes, they
included hundreds of studies that they now suggest might have used invalid
assessment methods and instruments.
[See Blog,
Part I for a critical history and analysis of these three meta-analyses.]
Thus, while CASEL critiques the current state of SEL assessment and evaluation, it
nonetheless included studies that may have used poorly-selected and designed
tools in the three meta-analytic studies that it most-often references to
validate SEL.
All of this leads to a critical question: To what degree has CASEL created a “house of
cards” with questionable research to advance its SEL political agenda?
_ _ _ _ _
CASEL’s Flawed Student Outcomes
CASEL’s targeted SEL student outcomes
(Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, Relationship Skills, and
Responsible Decision Making) are similarly flawed.
The most critical flaw is that CASEL’s
outcomes are largely constructs, and not specific behaviors . . . and constructs
cannot be reliably or validly measured because they are not discretely
observable. In addition, CASEL
provides no explicit science-to-practice guidance on how to translate its
constructs into the cognitive-behavioral skills and scripts needed for student
success.
The closest CASEL gets here is to publish a Program
Guide of what it has determined are “effective” SEL programs (using
criteria that fit its philosophy of what an SEL program should be). Unfortunately, given its program review and
evaluation process, and the additional flaws and concerns described in this
Blog (Parts I and II), there is no assurance that any of the CASEL programs
will have a high probability of success— especially if they are predominantly
focused on CASEL’s five constructivist outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
An Evidence-based, Field-tested,
Science-to-Practice SEL (Alternative) Model
Project ACHIEVE is a comprehensive preschool
through high school continuous improvement and school effectiveness program
that has been implemented in urban, suburban, and rural districts across the country
since 1990. One of Project ACHIEVE’s
seven interdependent components is its Social and Emotional Learning/Positive
Behavioral Support System (SEL/PBSS) component which includes The Stop &
Think Social Skills Program. Another
is its academic and behavioral multi-tiered service and support (MTSS) component. Project ACHIEVE, and its SEL/PBSS and MTSS
components, has been recognized as an evidence-based program as described
earlier in this Blog.
Relative to the current discussion, an
effective multi-tiered SEL program should be based on a valid, field-tested
science-to-practice model that has been implemented in multiple settings, with
a diverse range of students and staff, and under a variety of challenges and
conditions.
Critically, a model involves an
explicit set of strategically scaffolded and sequenced actions, approaches,
activities, and strategies that are needed for student, staff, and school
success. While the sequence may be
adapted to meet the strengths and resources, weaknesses and limitations,
barriers and threats, and unique needs of a school or district, the model
identifies what elements are prerequisite, essential, and
non-negotiable—relative to the desired outcomes, and what elements can be
substituted, modified, or adapted.
In contrast, a framework is a list of
actions, approaches, activities, and strategies that a school or district may
choose to implement, but they typically are not scaffolded or
sequenced.
When schools or districts implement a
framework, they are largely “choosing from the available menu.” Thus, if they only want to have “dessert”
(for example, choosing the easiest or most popular items in the framework),
that is up to them. In the final
analysis, though, their choices may not lead to the outcomes that they
need—even though they are “pleased” with what they have implemented.
Another limitation of a framework involves
the challenge of evaluating and determining the efficacy of the framework.
Once again, if five schools in the same
district use the same framework, but choose different activities or
strategies to implement from the framework’s menu, the effectiveness of
framework cannot be appropriately evaluated. This is because the evaluation
needs to focus on how the specific activities or strategies contributed to each
school’s outcomes. Here, you have five
different assortments of activities or strategies. . . you are measuring
“apples, oranges, bananas, pineapples, and kiwi fruit.”
This does not occur with Project ACHIEVE
because, as noted above, Project ACHIEVE coordinates its multi-tiered
activities and strategies across seven interdependent components in planned,
proven, strategic, and sequenced ways.
_ _ _ _ _
The remainder of the Blog message describes:
· The five critical elements in Project
ACHIEVE’s SEL/PBSS system that interdependently facilitate school discipline,
classroom management, and students’ social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management
· Some of the specific implementation
activities within each element
· How the psychological science used in
the SEL/PBSS system integrates to simultaneously address such issues as School
safety and prevention, Positive school culture and classroom climate, Classroom
discipline and management, Student engagement and self-management, Social
Skills training and teaching 21st Century SEL/Soft Skills Productive student
interactions in cooperative and project-based groups, Student trauma and
trauma-sensitive practices, Teasing and bullying, Harassment and physical
aggression, Chronic student absences and school/class tardiness, Office
discipline referrals and suspensions/expulsions, Disproportionality and
retiring zero tolerance policies, and Preventing and responding to students’
mental health status and needs
· The specific observable and measurable
social, emotional, and behavioral skills taught by the Stop & Think
Social Skills Program, and how cognitive-behavioral and social learning
theory science-to-practice is used to teach these skills
· How a systematic strategic planning
process is used to plan, resource, implement, and evaluate the entire SEL/PBSS
process
Relative to this latter bullet, activities
and strategies within Project ACHIEVE’s components and SEL/PBSS elements are
systematically implemented across the four-year multi-tiered blueprint that (a)
begins with an on-site Plan-for-Planning meeting (that includes the completion
of a needs assessment, resource analysis, and strategic action plan); (b)
continues by building on the effective practices and resources of the school or
district; (c) involves reaching a consensus on the multi-tiered
procedures— focusing not just on prevention, but also on the challenging
students already identified and in need of immediate services—that all district
schools will use; and (d) immediately builds in both short- and long-term
evaluations of student, staff, and school outcomes to ensure that successes are
sustained, and mid-course corrections are quickly implemented.
[CLICK
HERE for the Entire Blog]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Summary
The primary goal of this two-part Blog
Series was to help districts and schools that are “looking for SEL in all the
wrong places,” because they are placing too much trust in CASEL (and others’)
public relations-driven SEL movement.
Indeed, too many districts and schools have
already chosen incomplete, ineffective, and inconsequential (if not
counterproductive) SEL strategies and approaches that are wasting classroom
time, squandering schools’ precious resources, and undermining districts’
professional development decisions.
It’s time to take a Time-Out.
District and school leaders need to “take a
breather” to look at what they are doing, planning, or considering within their
SEL initiatives.
There is no pressure to implement
anything right now.
In fact, at this point in the school year,
most districts and schools should be strategically building their “SEL
infrastructure” for implementation during the next school year.
And there still are many months available to
build the right infrastructure . . . that will lead to quality
implementation, and sustainable student, staff, and school results.
There are sound, field-tested,
evidence-based SEL models that are separate from CASEL. Typically, they incorporate many of the
constructs and global approaches advocated by CASEL, but they prevent or
eliminate many of the CASEL flaws discussed in this two-part Blog.
Districts and schools need to strategically build their “SEL infrastructures”
with these models. SEL is a noble and
needed addition to our school and schooling process. It can directly address students’ social,
emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs—from prevention to strategic
intervention to intensive need/student crisis management.
As noted in the Introduction, all
students need to learn, master, and apply effective interpersonal, social
problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control and
coping skills.
Let’s do it once. Let’s do it right. And let’s do it so that we can connect our
student outcomes directly to our staff and school actions.
_ _ _ _ _
The Coming Federal School Climate
Transformation Grant
At some point during the coming months, the
U.S. Department of Education will announce the availability of the second School
Climate Transformation Grant. The
first Grant (June, 2014) resulted in awards to over 70 school districts
nationwide for five years. Depending on the size of the district/school, the
total Grant Awards ranged from $1 million to $4.5 million.
The coming Grant will focus on virtually all
of the areas discussed in this two-part Blog series.
If you are interested in exploring the
possibility of applying for this Grant, and including Project ACHIEVE’s
SEL/PBSS/MTSS model as the foundation of your implementation, please contact me
immediately.
For the first Grant, I helped 15 school districts write their grant
proposals and two of these proposals were successful (in Michigan
and Kentucky). I can write virtually the
entire grant proposal for you, and guide you through the submission process.
Best,
No comments:
Post a Comment