What Do Race, Reading, Billy Joel, and Jeopardy Have in Common with our Nation’s Students?

 They are All Putting our Nation’s Students At-Risk

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Last week, I was in the Student Center of a suburban high school that could be anywhere in this country just outside a major U.S. metropolis. . . listening to a group of high school students. The focus group and the ensuing open-ended conversation was set up because I did not feel that the high school was listening to its students’ voices as it tried to address its current climate and culture, and the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students in general and as related to the Pandemic.

   Approximately 25 students were in the focus group—the Presidents, Vice Presidents, Public Relations Officers, Secretaries, and other student government leaders from the Freshman through Senior classes. While the participating Freshmen were brand new to the High School, both the Junior and Senior class students noted that they were almost as new to the school and their peers given their all-virtual instruction from March, 2020 through August, 2021.

   Significantly, the racial composition of the focus group reinforced the reality that there are more students of color in our nation’s schools than White students. Indeed, more than 90% of the group were students of color— Black, Hispanic, Islamic, and Asian. Some of the students shared their different sexual orientations. And religious points and differences periodically infused the cultural and racial discussions.

   With the Principal and other school staff (e.g., counselors and staff sponsors/advisors) in attendance, my District colleague and I introduced the session by telling the group that we wanted them to share their perspectives, feelings, and recommendations relative to how the school and District were meeting their social, emotional, and behavioral needs—discussing what was working, what was not working, and what was missing.

   There was almost no delay between our introduction and the first student’s contributions. The discussion then went non-stop for the next 90 minutes with virtually everyone contributing. The students were honest and candid, articulate and passionate, and mindful to include all of their peers in the conversation while maintaining full respect for differing perspectives.

   In so many ways, these students handled this forum better than many adults. . . for example, in school board meetings, candidate forums, and town meetings. . . over the past few months.

   In the end, three important themes emerged. . . themes that could only be fully understood by listening to the “student voice.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jeopardy Answer #1. Why are many students handling their diverse, multi-cultural communities better than the adults?

   The very first comment was about how the High School avoided, stereotyped, misrepresented, or oversimplified race and culture in the curriculum. This comment was echoed by many of the Islamic, Black, and Hispanic/LatinX students in the Focus Group.

   Two students stated:

   “Islamic students are forever connected to 911, and the curriculum rarely extends beyond that event.”

   “Black history is consumed with slavery. Notable Black writers, activists, inventors, politicians, and others are under-emphasized, and issues of implicit bias and white favoritism are avoided altogether.”

   This conversation evolved to include religion and religious holidays, as well as different students’ gender/sexual orientations and explorations.

   For example, the Muslim students noted teachers’ insensitivities to the effects—on students—of the month-long fasting, from dawn to sunset, during Ramadan. The students noted that the fasting sometimes made it difficult to concentrate in class and complete work.

   Other students noted that some staff would not use specific students’ preferred gender identification pronouns.

   Relative to the former, one student noted a comparative religion class at the High School and suggested that many of its topics should be integrated into periodic “student professional development days” so that all students are educated in the racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds of the students represented in the school.

   Relative to the latter, one student expressed her feelings that the rejection of her preferred gender identification pronouns equated to disrespect and a rejection of her—as a person—in the involved teachers’ classrooms.

_ _ _ _ _

   In the end, the Focus Group students most-communicated the need for ongoing education, discussion, and understanding of the individual racial, cultural, and religious histories, traditions, and current practices of students and staff at the High School and across the community.

   This should be supplemented by including issues related to gender, gender identity/sexual orientation, national origin, socio-economic status, disability, and age.

   All of this could be accomplished by:

·       Completing a comprehensive needs assessment and current status review in these areas—resulting in a five-year Action Plan;

·       Reviewing and upgrading the quality, equity, and comprehensiveness of the curriculum and its instruction in these areas;

·       Infusing the discussion and training of these areas into the professional development (for students and staff) and extracurricular clubs and activities, respectively, at the High School; and

·       Motivating and holding students and staff accountable for translating the discussions and trainings above into consistent, positive, and respectful interactions and practices.

   One incredibly articulate Focus Group student noted the importance of communication in addressing their needs in this area.

   A second student noted that staff and peer respect and validation in these areas were essential to establishing the positive climate, culture, and collaboration—and the individual feelings of acceptance and inclusion—that everyone wanted from their school and for their educations.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jeopardy Answer #2. Why are parents and educators so focused on having students “catch-up” academically?

   A second theme from the Focus Group centered on the academic pressure that they were feeling from parents and teachers, and experiencing (as a result) in their classrooms and courses—currently, due to the Pandemic.

   [This academic pressure is symbolically represented in the title of this Blog in the reference to “Reading.”]

   While this may vary from student to student, many students emerged from the academic and instructional disruptions of the last two school years with content, information, skill, and mastery gaps in different academic areas (especially reading/literacy, mathematics, writing, and science).

   But now instead of teachers identifying and helping to remediate these gaps—even when new or more advanced topics and skills are being taught, the students felt that they were singularly responsible both for doing their own remediation and mastering the new material.

   Beyond this, the Focus Group students also noted that (a) some teachers were “doubling-up” their instruction and homework in order to “catch up” for the last two years; (b) many teachers were not coordinating their assignments and tests across teachers so that students had the quality time for work completion and test preparation; and (c) many students were “completing assignments,” but not deeply understanding and mastering the material.

   While this discussion fed into the third Focus Group theme (see below), I commented in this area by saying:

If you teach students at a level of academic frustration, they will not effectively learn and master the material—education’s ultimate goal.

 

If you academically frustrate students enough, you will also create social, emotional, and behavioral frustration. At its extremes, this will result—along a continuum of responses—to some students getting angry, aggressive, and acting out, and other students getting anxious, depressed, and checking out.

   [Cue the head nods of the students.]

_ _ _ _ _

   Another student, reflecting on this area, noted that many Advanced Placement courses in the High School were more about “more work,” than “advanced and higher conceptual level work.” In some ways, the Focus Group students taking AP courses almost felt that it was not worth taking these courses given this “more work” status.

   This, of course, is both philosophically and functionally antithetical to the availability of AP courses in a high school curriculum. What would happen if some of these students “abdicated” and simply avoided these AP courses? Would any high school continue to offer these courses with low student enrollments, and given the absence of its most-capable students?

_ _ _ _ _

   In the end in this area, the Focus Group students most-communicated the need for:

·       A student- and mastery-centered focus and modification of their coursework that integrates the need for content and skill remediation into the realistic and scaffolded introduction of new information and material; 

·       The coordination of assignments and assessments across teachers so that the student- and mastery-centered goal can best be accomplished; and

·       The recognition that academic learning and mastery is interdependent with the social, emotional, and behavioral status of students, and that academic pressure can trigger negative social, emotional, and behavioral reactions and interactions.

   Because I understand the dynamic nature of this area in a high school, the suggestions above would need to be accompanied, in some schools, by a concomitant modification of how teachers are being evaluated.

   This modification would need to (a) adjust the depth and breadth that teachers are expected to teach in each specific course; (b) reinforce the importance of embedding in-class remedial instruction, as needed, to address the missing prerequisite skills of students; and (c) adapt the teacher-evaluative criteria of “student success.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jeopardy Answer #3. Why are we forgetting health, mental health, and wellness in the context of anxiety, stress, and trauma?

   A final theme from the student Focus Group centered on their “mental health” status. Here, the students emphasized their perceptions that teachers were almost exclusively focused on academics to the detriment of students’ social, emotional, and mental health status and correlates.

   They experienced this because:

·       The vast majority of teachers, this school year, have never asked about or openly discussed with students their social, emotional, or mental health status;

 

·       The school began in September by immediately immersing students in academic instruction—without ever giving students an opportunity—after almost 18 months of virtual instruction—to socially transition back to school, re-develop important student-to-student and student-to-staff relationships, and debrief the experiences and emotions of their “instructional quarantine”; and

 

·       The only visible acknowledgement of students’ social-emotional needs is a “required” break in the middle of most classes to “give students an emotional breather.”

   Relative to the “emotional break,” some Focus Group students saw that as inconsequential to their needs, and others saw some teachers begrudgingly providing the breaks “because they were required by the District.”

_ _ _ _ _

   Without being dramatic, if this High School had experienced a school shooting or a significant collective crisis, the first days after would include a wide variety of social, emotional, and behavioral services and supports.

   How many schools or high schools did not see this Pandemic as a similar crisis and missed the mark by either (a) thinking that the “best” thing for students was to re-establish the “normalcy” of their school experience by getting immediately back into academics; or (b) were too uncomfortable—overtly or covertly—to acknowledge the social-emotional “elephant in the room.”

   As this Focus Group discussion proceeded, I offered two reflections.

   First, I extended the students’ focus on their “mental health,” by noting the importance of more broadly discussing their “health, mental health, and wellness.”

   Here, I expressed my concern about the students’ disrupted schedules and lack of sleep, the stress (as opposed to trauma) that they are under, and the impact of their own (sometimes unrealistically) high expectations.

   My second reflection (and I was saying this for the administrators and staff attending the Focus Group session) was that the High School had an opportunity for a “re-boot.”

   Here, I suggested that a staff and student Task Group be established—including a subset of the students attending the Focus Group, and that they plan a series of schoolwide activities for the first day or two after the Winter Holiday break (to also include additional days during the remainder of the school year).

   These days—which might involve no formal class or academic sessions—would be dedicated to helping students (and staff) to socially transition back to school, re-develop important student-to-student and student-to-staff relationships, and debrief the experiences and emotions of their “instructional quarantine” and the first semester of the school year.

   These days also could be used to begin discussions regarding (a) students’ gender, gender identity/sexual orientation, national origin, socio-economic status, disability, and age differences (Jeopardy Question #1); and (b) issues related to the academic program and students’ need for a modified instructional pace and skill remediation (Jeopardy Question #2).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Over the past few months, articles in the professional press have begun to discuss False or Toxic Positivity in the educational arena.

   False Positivity occurs when you are experiencing situations that are inherently stressful or emotional, and you “put on a positive or courageous face” in order to (a) cope and maintain emotional control; (b) plan and act in behaviorally beneficial ways; and (c) change your perceptions of reality in an attempt to actually change reality.

   All things being equal, however, False Positivity can be organizationally, interpersonally, and even psychologically harmful.

   Indeed, I have seen many district and school administrators practice False Positivity with the students and staff. . . even to the point of ignoring their obvious stress and evident emotions.

   Toxic Positivity, meanwhile, works at the extremes. Here, we not only ignore stress, but we also reject or deny the stress and our emotions—telling ourselves to focus only on the positive.

   In schools, this occurs when administrators remind teachers to “take care of themselves,” but (a) maintain the pre-Pandemic routine of evaluating staff on their curricular pace and student proficiency; (b) load teachers up with extra meetings and responsibilities; (c) investigate how teachers cover topics that relate to race, culture, and politics; and (d) arrange professional development sessions led by “motivational” presenters who encourage, in essence, a toxic positivity mindset. These presenters either have no clue what teachers and other educators have experienced (and are experiencing) due to the Pandemic, or they believe that their presentations have some kind of long-term impact (which they don’t).

_ _ _ _ _

   And what about our students?

   How many of them are receiving similar false or toxic positivity messages?

   And how many of them then hide the pressure, stress, and other emotions that they are feeling. . . from parents, peers, teachers, and even themselves?

_ _ _ _ _

   So where does Jeopardy and Bill Joel come in?

   The discussion and themes from the High School Focus Group (shared above) reinforce the social, emotional, and behavioral pressure that our students are under, and the mental health jeopardy that they are in.

   These students are under enormous pressure. . . something that a “15-minute” break is not going to resolve. In fact, it is almost embarrassing that this is the primary strategy used at this High School—from the students’ perspectives—to help them to emotionally cope and maintain their social-behavioral balance.

   At the same time, I know that this High School is representative of other districts and schools nationwide.

   And so, once the word “jeopardy” came to mind, I immediately connected the students’ questions regarding the school’s commitment to recognizing and responding to their needs with the game show “Jeopardy.”

   And when I saw the pressures—real, self-induced, and perceived—that these students are experiencing, I immediately recalled the Billy Joel song “Pressure.”

Pressure  [Billy Joel]

You have to learn to pace yourself
Pressure
You're just like everybody else
Pressure
You've only had to run so far
So good
But you will come to a place
Where the only thing you feel
Are loaded guns in your face
And you'll have to deal with
Pressure

You used to call me paranoid
Pressure
But even you cannot avoid
Pressure
You turned the tap dance into your crusade
Now here you are with your faith
And your Peter Pan advice
You have no scars on your face
And you cannot handle pressure

All grown up and no place to go
Psych 1, Psych 2
What do you know?
All your life is Channel 13
Sesame Street
What does it mean?
Pressure
Pressure

Don't ask for help
You're all alone
Pressure
You'll have to answer
To your own
Pressure
I'm sure you'll have some cosmic rationale
But here you are in the ninth
Two men out and three men on
Nowhere to look but inside
Where we all respond to
Pressure
Pressure

All your life is Time Magazine
I read it too
What does it mean?
Pressure
I'm sure you'll have some cosmic rationale
But here you are with your faith
And your Peter Pan advice
You have no scars on your face
And you cannot handle pressure
Pressure, pressure
One, two, three, four
Pressure

_ _ _ _ _

   As a school psychologist, I recommended a number of social, emotional, and behavioral actions and activities to address the most essential student issues voiced during the High School Student Focus Group.

   But one additional idea emerged that captures the importance of actively and frequently listening to our students’ voices and functionally addressing their needs.

   This idea involved a recommendation that the students, staff, and administration at the High School develop a Health, Mental Health, Wellness, and Individual Differences Bill of Rights.

   This Bill of Rights would be created like a school district’s five-year plan. . . utilizing surveys, Town Hall forums, retreats, strategic planning sessions, guided debates, and open writing sessions.

   The Bill of Rights product would detail the principles, practices, and actions needed to facilitate (a) the health, mental health, and wellness of all students and staff; and (b) their right to be accepted—based on gender or gender identity, race or national origin, religion or color, sexual orientation or socio-economic status, or disability or age.

   I would love to see a school-centered Health, Mental Health, Wellness, and Individual Differences Bill of Rights movement begin across this country. And I hope to share this High School’s journey to this end in future Blogs.

_ _ _ _ _

   I appreciate everything that you do to support our students and colleagues in the field. Know that many of my Blogs emerge from the interactions that I experience in real schools with real staff and real students. While my interpretations necessarily come from my psychoeducational background, the experiences described are accurate and unexaggerated.

   As always, I enjoy the comments and reflections that you send to me. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.

   If I can help you in any of the areas discussed in this message, I am always happy to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help clarify your needs and directions on behalf of your students and colleagues.

   I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

The Current State of SEL in our Schools: The Frenzy, Flaws, and Fads (Part II)

 If the Goal is to Teach Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skills, Why are We Getting on the Wrong Trains Headed “West”?

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Dear Colleagues,

The Current State of SEL in our Schools

   In Part I of this two-part Blog Series on the frenzy, flaws, and fads surrounding SEL in today’s schools, we noted that many news stories in the popular and professional press have accurately reported on the increased social, emotional, and behavioral needs of students (and staff) due to the Pandemic. However, the authors of many of these stories have jumped on an “SEL train to nowhere” and indiscriminately recommended that schools “do SEL” as the panacea to these needs.

[CLICK HERE to re-read Part I]

   In doing this, they have largely provided:

• No SEL definitions or criteria of success;

• No objective, causally-related research to support their recommendations or to differentiate which SEL practices help what social, emotional, or behavioral student challenges; and/or

• No counsel on how much time, professional development, money, or other resources will be needed both at start-up and to sustain the initiative over time.

   In a figurative sense, in Horace Greeley’s words, educators are being told to “Go West, young man (woman), go West and grow up with the country.”

   And, unfortunately, many educators across the country are “going West”. . . but they are ending up in different and unpredictable destinations, encountering different roadblocks and unintended effects, with many ending up with no sustainable results and others worse off than when they started.

   I can’t imagine a school committing to a reading or math series or curricular approach that way some schools have chosen their SEL approaches. . .for example, based on others’ endorsements, marketing, or testimonies; the apparent ease and speed of implementation (regardless of the results); or the fact that “we need to do—so let’s try—something.”

_ _ _ _ _

   Indeed, moving back to the first point at the beginning of this piece, our school-aged students are struggling on a social, emotional, and behavioral level. While assessments of individual students in a specific school are needed to validate their struggles and determine if they are related to the Pandemic or not, a recent U.S. Department of Education Report gives us a global picture.

   Summarizing data and studies from 2020, the first year of the Pandemic, the Report noted that:

• Emergency department visits for mental health-related issues increased 24% for 5 to 11 year old and 31% for 12 to 17 year old students;

• More than 25% of U.S. parents reported mental health declines in their children, and 14% reported increased behavioral problems; and

• 13 to 19 year old adolescents reported increased feelings of stress, unhappiness or depression, and losing sleep due to worry.

_ _ _ _ _

   Relative to our second introductory point, a recent Education Week article (Prothero, October 22, 2021) cited information from a report written by consulting firm Tyton Partners and published with the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). This report was based on surveys of more than 100 SEL providers and over 2,000 teachers and school/district administrators.

   Let’s explore the results of this survey as one assessment of where schools are in today’s “SEL world.”

   But let’s also close this Introduction to Part II of this SEL Blog series by stating,

Intervention is not a benign act. It is a strategic act.

 

Every time you do an intervention and it does not work, you potentially make the student, staff, school, or system more resistant to the next intervention(s). Moreover, you also potentially make the original problem worse.

 

Thus, we do not want to do random intervention. We need to do strategic intervention that is based on and linked to the objectively validated reasons that explain why specific problems are occurring.

 

As educators, we do not get “credit” for “doing interventions.” We get “credit” for doing the “right” interventions at the right time with the right people in the right way such that we solve our problems by sustainably changing student and/or staff behavior.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Results and Implications from the Tyton/CASEL Survey

   In contrasting their Pandemic versus pre-Pandemic priorities, the teachers and administrators who responded to the Tyton/CASEL survey identified (a) improving students’ mental health, and (b) promoting students’ social-emotional competence as their top-two Pandemic-driven priorities.

   Given this, and drawing from the October 22nd Education Week article and the October, 2021 Tyton Partners/CASEL report, it was also noted that:

• A majority of survey respondents—especially at the middle and high school levels—connected their increased interest in social and emotional learning in their schools to the Pandemic and to a greater need to focus on racial injustice; and

• They reported that their SEL activities had increased most notably in the areas of Curriculum, Measurement, and Programmatic Implementation in Grades 6 through 12, and Programmatic Implementation in Grades K through 5.

•  Significantly, in response to questions evaluating their functional understanding of SEL, only 40% of the school respondents and 60% of the district respondents were aware of the most popular SEL frameworks, even as90% of them said that they were broadly aware of what SEL is.

   Based on the survey, the Tyton/CASEL report concluded that awareness and adoption of SEL quality standards/frameworks remain low today, and that many schools and districts are not using them to guide the adoption, implementation, and evaluation of their SEL initiatives.

   But there is a critical dilemma here.

   A Harvard Graduate School of Education research group recently identified over 40 different SEL frameworks. As much as CASEL wants to be the dominant framework (see Part I of this Blog series), conceptually and empirically, SEL is in a state of confusion.

   Reflecting on this, the Harvard group has stated:

Throughout its history, the field of social and emotional learning (SEL) has been defined or characterized in a variety of ways. In some respects, the term SEL serves as an umbrella for many subfields with which many educators, researchers, and policy-makers are familiar (e.g., bullying prevention, civic and character education and development, conflict resolution, social skills training, life skills, “soft” or “non-cognitive” skills, 21st century skills). However, discussion of this broad non-academic domain lacks clarity about what we mean and is beset by dilemmas about how best to measure and promote skills in this area. Underlying this challenge, and in some ways compounding it, is the fact that the field more generally is structured around a large number of organizational systems or frameworks that often use different or even conflicting terminology to talk about a similar set of skills.

   So. . . connecting these dots. . . if the school and district respondents in the Tyton Partners/CASEL survey are representative of their colleagues across the country. . . and if only 40 to 60% of them are aware of the most popular SEL frameworks. . . and if there are at least 40 different frameworks. . . .

   How are ALL of our schools and districts reviewing the research and practice across all of these frameworks to ensure that they are selecting the “right” field-tested and objectively validated one for their students, staff, and schools?

   This is both very daunting and concerning, especially as the Tyton/CASEL surveys indicated that schools are currently purchasing more SEL curricula, and investing more time in SEL professional development, coaching, implementation, and evaluation now than before the Pandemic.

   Indeed, the report states that district spending on SEL programming has grown about 45% between the 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years, from $530 million to $765 million. And with the current availability and flexibility of American Rescue Plan funds, it is likely that 2021-2022 SEL expenditures will increase again.

   Recognizing (a) the quality-control concerns inherent in this rush to purchase SEL resources, (b) the dearth of well-evaluated SEL practices, (c) the lack of consensus on how to evaluate SEL outcomes and efficacy, and (d) the lack of well-validated formative and summative evaluation tools, the Tyton/CASEL reported stated:

As schools and districts expand their grade 6-12 implementation, and providers follow suit with their offerings, it will be important for the field to evolve best practices to best meet the needs of older students.

 

Can the SEL marketplace rise to meet the growing demand?

 

Quality in the SEL marketplace may not keep pace with demand. And while awareness of SEL is high, administrators and teachers are not as familiar with popular SEL standards and frameworks.

 

In the push to rapidly address these important issues, it is tempting for schools and districts to unintentionally implement half-measures, or low-quality measures, that are masquerading as high quality ones (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

   According to the Education Week article discussing the Tyton/CASEL report:

There are a surprisingly large number of different frameworks considering the SEL marketplace is a mature one. Furthermore, the field does not seem to have coalesced around a common concept of what quality SEL looks like.

 

Quality control issues are common with fast-growing markets, the report says, in part because growth beckons low-quality providers to enter (my emphasis). And when high-quality providers cannot meet fast-growing demand, low-quality providers fill in the gap.

 

In the report’s survey of SEL suppliers (another way that Tyton evaluated SEL’s current national status), only 37 percent of those surveyed have conducted third-party quantitative studies of the effectiveness of their programs or products with a comparison group (my emphasis).

 

Looking ahead, the report flagged additional issues around managing the demand for social-emotional learning programs.

 

Schools and districts are relying too heavily on federal funds that will run out to pay for their social-emotional offerings. Federal relief dollars were tied for the second most-used funding source to support SEL in districts along with Title I money and projected to be the top funding stream next year.

   What are the implications of all of this?

   First of all, let’s inject a tempering dose of reality relative to CASEL’s involvement in co-publishing this survey. Indeed, in Part I of this Series, we discussed some critical flaws in the SEL world according to CASEL, and presented a more scientific cognitive-behavioral alternative to SEL instruction that emphasizes directly teaching students’ observable and measurable social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills.

[CLICK HERE to re-read Part I]

   We further noted that CASEL is an independent organization that is not certified by the U.S. Department of Education or any other statutory or accreditation body as an official spokesperson or approving body of SEL or SEL programs and practices. This directly implicates CASEL’s Program Guide to Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs which recognizes the SEL programs that CASEL has internally decided meets its own criteria for inclusion.

   In a striking example of the disconnect here, we described and documented how CASEL includes the PATHS (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) SEL curriculum in its Program Guide, while the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) at the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences stated (March 17, 2021) that, “(b)ased on the research, the WWC found that PATHS® has no discernible effects on academic achievement, social interactions, observed individual behavior, or emotional status.”

   Given this, the first implication of the Tyton/CASEL report is that districts and schools need to know the existing independent research-to-practice results of those who are recommended different SEL frameworks, curricula, or practices.

   The second implication is consistent with the effective selection and implementation practices that we have recommended for many years in our Blogs. Districts and schools looking to select and implement SEL frameworks, curricula, or practices need to:

• Independently review and vet the testimonials, claims, and research that is available (focusing on the latter) to ensure that the approaches being considered have been objectively validated and have demonstrated their causal impact on student behavior; and

• Evaluate the research-to-practice applications of the approaches that make “the first cut” to ensure that they are relevant to and have a probability of success with the actual students, staff, and schools that are being targeted.

   From this science-to-practice perspective, we want to reiterate that schools should know the universal social, emotional, and behavioral skill outcomes that they want their SEL initiatives to produce.

   In Part I of this Series, we provided a working list of these specific skills, from preschool through high school that were organized into the following clusters:

• Ready to Learn Skills
• Safety Skills
• Responsibility Skills
• Interpersonal/Prosocial Skills
•  Social Problem-Solving Skills
• Conflict Prevention and Resolution Skills
• Emotional Control, Communication, Coping Skills

[CLICK HERE to read Part I of this Series and the specific skills embedded in each of these clusters]

_ _ _ _ _

   Finally, from a science-to-practice perspective, we want to re-emphasize that all social, emotional, and behavioral skills are most successfully taught by applying social learning theory and cognitive-behavioral approaches. These involve:

• Teaching the steps, scripts, and behaviors for specific, targeted skills;

• Modeling or demonstrating the steps, scripts, and behaviors for the skills;

• Having students role-play or physically practice (with explicit, critical feedback) the steps, scripts, and behaviors;

• Having students role-play or physically practice the steps, scripts, and behaviors under simulated conditions of emotionality so that they learn how to handle real emotional situations effectively in the future;

• Transferring the practice of the behaviors (with continued supervision and feedback) into progressively more challenging and emotional real-life simulations, settings, and situations;

•  Using teachable, real-life moments to infuse the behaviors into real-life settings and situations; and

• Continuing the practice and infusion until the behaviors are automatic, conditioned, and able to be demonstrated in different stressful situations or emotional conditions or circumstances.

_ _ _ _ _

   Finally, from a science-to-practice perspective, we want to reinforce the fact that students’ social, emotional, and behavioral self-management learning and application exist within a five-component ecological context.

   These five interdependent components are:

• Positive Relationships and School/Classroom Climates

• Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skill Instruction

• Student Motivation and Accountability

• Consistency and Fidelity

• Special Situations and Multi-Tiered Services and Supports

These components were described in the context of eliminating disproportionate school discipline referrals and suspensions for students of color and with disabilities in our August 14, 2021 Blog.

[CLICK HERE for a Description of these Five Interdependent Components]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Schools are Also “Buying Stock” in SEL Software Applications: Is There a Crash Coming?

   As we move back from virtual and hybrid instruction to full-time, on-site instruction, I am also concerned about another SEL purchasing trend occurring across the country.

   This trend involves teachers putting students—who are sitting right in front of them—on on-line, software-driven SEL programs. . . to “teach” them how interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolutions, and emotional control, communication, and coping skills.

   Talk about a contradiction!

   This is comparable to teachers “teaching” academic skills using on-line, asynchronous programs or courses with no live instruction. . . even though, once again, their students are right in front of them.

   Critically, research and practice tells us that computer-based instruction results in academically less knowledgeable, skilled, prepared, and proficient students. We know this from evaluations of computer-dependent credit recovery programs, from the emerging research with on-line textbooks, and from differences in the State Proficiency Test performance of students who take these tests on-line versus using paper and pencil.

   But even if computer-assisted academic instruction worked (and it doesn’t), why would we relegate the instruction of critical social, emotional, and behavioral real-life preparation and skills for all students to a “sit alone” process of instruction mediated by a static computer and two-dimensional screen?

   And I say this with all due respect to the SEL softwares that use AI (artificial intelligence)-generated characters, complex algorithms, and even virtual reality to present socially complex and ”realistic” scenarios to train students’ social-emotional thinking and response sets.

   Indeed, one of the reasons why some of our students have so many interpersonal conflicts and social skill gaps is because of the significant time they have spent “interacting” on computers.

   And let’s not get into how much cyber-teasing and bullying occurs on-line, and the mental health issues (e.g., low self-esteem, thoughts of suicide) correlated to excessive social media use.

_ _ _ _ _

   When schools—and this occurs at both elementary and secondary school levels—relegate their primary SEL instruction for students to computers, they abdicate their educational responsibility of effectively teaching them the skill-based outcomes needed in this essential area.

   This should not be about “checking off an SEL instructional box” so that educators on their drive home from school can say, “At least, we’re doing something.”

   This is about preparing our students to handle personal, interpersonal, social, and conflict-triggering situations so that they are (a) contributing to safe and positive school and classroom settings, (b) sustaining their academic engagement—individually and when working in groups; and (c) maximizing their social, emotional, behavioral—and academic—learning, progress, and proficiency for this school year, the next school year, and for all their post-graduation years.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   There is no question that students have many different social, emotional, and behavioral needs from preschool through high school. They had them before the Pandemic began, and some students certainly have different or greater needs due to or that have occurred during the Pandemic.

   As such, students need social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, and interventions.

   But these needs need to be assessed using a systematic, data-based, functional assessment, problem-solving approach that identifies their root causes, and the resulting services, supports, strategies, and interventions need to be explicitly linked to the root causes and the goal of enhancing students’ self-management strengths and competencies.

   There are well-established research-to-practice blueprints to accomplish this process. These include (a) direct student instruction and practice focusing on teaching and applying observable and measurable social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and (b) embedding that instruction in the ecological contexts (through the five interdependent components outlined above) that make it meaningful to the students and relevant to their home, school, peer, and community lives.

   If this is what a school embraces as the foundation to their SEL initiative, they will have a high probability of success.

   However, if schools fall into the traps that (a) were identified in the Tyton/CASEL report, (b) are inherent in the Harvard group’s recognition of over 40 SEL frameworks, (c) are represented in the contradiction of having CASEL tout a specific SEL (PATHS) program while the What Works Clearinghouse basically pans it, and (d) were cited in the empirically-based concerns with the CASEL framework. . . then SEL will predictably fail. . . meaning that we will be failing our students.

   This is the challenge of today. . . a time of seemingly never-ending challenges. But this is a challenge that can be won.

   The Question is: Will education take on this challenge using wisdom and courage, research and data, common sense and pragmatism?

   Some will need to get off the “bandwagon headed West,” and get on the “train to the specific destination” where we and our students should be.

_ _ _ _ _

   I appreciate everything that you do to support our students and colleagues in the field. My Blog analyses and comments are not designed to emphasize what is not working in our field. Instead, they are designed to critique why some things are not working, while emphasizing field-tested, science-to-practice alternatives.

   I always look forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.

   If I can help you in any of the multi-tiered areas discussed in this message, I am always happy to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you clarify your needs and directions on behalf of your students.

   I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]