Social emotional learning (SEL) is gaining momentum across the nation. Evidence shows that SEL positively influences student academic growth and achievement. Current SEL implementation efforts focus on developing social emotional domains and measurable competencies that integrate developmental psychology, educational theory, and cultural relevance.
This article focuses on a case study of how a school district implemented SEL using the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework during the COVID-19 pandemic. We start the article with the barriers to SEL implementation and the need for trauma-informed instruction. We then present a district-wide implementation of SEL through an exploratory single case study by sharing the methodology and the strategies used by the district for implementing SEL.
We conclude with effective trauma-informed teaching practices and lessons learned. Studies show barriers and resistance to district-wide SEL implementation. Two known barriers to implementation are resources (such as professional development), support, and time. Teachers report that they do not have the time for SEL Implementation.
A report from the Foundation for Young Adult Success questions the practicality of giving “another thing” for teachers to design and disseminate. Another implementation barrier at the district level is a lack of SEL skills in the instructional staff, specifically in the competency of self-awareness. This might suggest that educators ought to frame their SEL experiences in a pluralistic context, thereby allowing students to apply multiple values to their experiences rather than assign meaning to the experience by the power structure operating in the district.
One common thread of inadequate implementation is the belief that SEL is just another fad in instruction. In addition to the known barriers to implementation, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted the mental health of students. For many students, the pandemic created feelings of isolation, uncertainty, and profound loss. Within this environment, students experienced stressors that are known to increase the risk of toxic stress, defined by adverse experiences that lead to strong, frequent, and prolonged activation of the body’s stress response system.
In any given classroom across the U.S., it is estimated that two-thirds of all students will have experienced at least one traumatic event by age 16. For families already facing daily stressors such as poverty, illness, community violence, racism, discrimination, intergenerational trauma, or family dysfunction, the challenges brought forth by the pandemic only increased the risk of psychological trauma.
Microaggressions negatively affect the biological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral well-being of marginalized populations. What might appear to some as trivial or unintentional slights are often experienced as major stressors for persons of color, individuals from marginalized ethnic or religious backgrounds, and individuals in the LGBTQ+ community.
There are other psychological challenges such as the digital age, where students face obstacles in terms of navigating their social worlds and their evolving ego identities. These experiences can lead to psychological trauma for students in significant numbers. Research has demonstrated that psychological trauma impedes school performance, given its direct impact on social, emotional, and cognitive development. With the primary goal of educational institutions to prepare children for their future, it is no wonder why the importance of trauma-informed practices in the classroom and school community has become a national movement. Teachers are the engine that drive SEL implementation (Ross & Tolan, 2018).
Almost every state has specific SEL implementation standards, and these SEL standards align with the Every School Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) However, the literature regarding how SEL is implemented in a district is sparse. The absence of comprehensive district-wide implementation in the literature suggests a need to understand how all the pieces of implementing SEL fit together. Therefore, an exploratory single case study looked at how a school district implemented an SEL framework. The study focused on relationships that were interdependent in the phenomenon of SEL Implementation.
The intent was to investigate and capture complex action, perception, and interpretation of that implementation as applied to the synthesis of Greenberg's model of implementation. The case study focused on a medium-sized school district in the Midwest with a student population of 3,000–5,000 students. While the district did receive a small implementation grant from the state, the district administrators have stated that money is not a limiting factor. The data collection focused on the experience of administrators and teachers regarding the implementation of SEL using the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework.
The greatest limiting factors are personnel models with school counselors, counselors as SEL coaches, using a k-12 district language related to SEL competencies, and personal self-awareness and self-management. The discovery of participants’ constructivist understanding occurred through semi-structured open-ended interview questions. This research afforded the opportunity to focus on the participant experience, including the historical and cultural context (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The degree of interconnectedness of resources and processes was unique to the district and across the levels of leadership and teachers.
Data collection consisted of 15 semi-structured interviews for a duration of 40-60 minutes each. Participants included district and school-level administration, including members of student services, SEL coaches, and teachers. Students were not interviewed in this case study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and recorded with the permission of the participant during the pandemic.
Table 1 Study Participants. Admin/Teacher Level Gender Experience Years of Experience. Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted using the Elemental methodology, using descriptive and process coding, and the Affective methodology. (Miles et al., 2014)
Elemental methods are a type of first cycle coding that provides both the description and detail of the process (descriptive and process coding) (Miles et al., 2014) Effective methods allow for the coding of the participants’ subjective experiences. This includes the values, attitudes, and beliefs associated with implementation (values coding) and the judgment and value that the participants have for the process, policies, and organizational structures. Subcodes were developed after interviews were transcribed and provided more specific qualitative analysis of the data. Analysis of the subcodes led to the development of patterns, second cycle coding, that emerged from cross-referencing values and evaluative codes with descriptive and process codes.
This allowed for the identification of how teachers and administrators felt or valued certain processes or the value of certain resources. An example of coded data can be found in Table 2. Coded as an Implementation Process statement (I.P.) can also be used as an Informational Resource (R.I.)
Evaluation Administrator: “SEL is becoming more important in this district, with the state moving in the direction of, and providing support for, a comprehensive school counseling model.” Coded as an Evaluative statement (E) Data Triangulation The study used three forms of data triangulation to increase the accuracy of the findings: 1.) interview data with different district and school leadership and teachers (themes were built on converging data and perspectives given by participants. The coding of the interview transcripts validated the reviewer's lens), 2.) colleague coding of transcripts to check for consistency, and 3.)
Study participant feedback (three participants responded to the coded data with a sense of affirmation) (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Strategies for Implementing SEL in a School District. The case study sheds light on important strategies for implementing Sel in a school district. The first step in implementing SEL was to select a framework. The district in the case study chose the CASEL framework for two reasons: 1.) the district's existing programs were flexible enough to be integrated into the SEL framework, and 2.) the Sel framework was adopted by the state and aligned well with existing programs.
The school district used human resource strategies to implement the SEL framework in the classroom. The first key resource management decision to implement SEL was to create new positions, dedicated SEL coaches. The teachers were not involved in the framework decision-making process, but were highly engaged in the implementation process.
The SEL coaching position was a realignment of the school counselor role and integrated with student services. One innovative component of the role was to work with both students and teachers. Professional development for both instructional practice and teachers’ self-management and self-awareness was a large component.
Coaches were asked to analyze local survey data, specifically for school perceptions. They were also asked to co-teach with teachers in the classroom. Professional development started with the coaches’ training. Following their own training, the coaches provided professional development for the teaching staff. This process allowed teachers to integrate the SEL framework into the classroom, collaborate with other peers, and develop their own SEL self-awareness and self-management.
SEL coaches co-taught with content teachers in the classroom. Coaches as co-teachers helped the classroom teachers perfect their craft of SEL integration into classroom instruction. Co-teaching model included working with students in large group instruction, problem-solving with students and working and planning with staff.
One SEL coach said, “co-teachers have a more proactive role with students and in SEL implementation in the classroom.” Part of the district’s organizational structure for managing resources for implementation was the development of a Professional Learning Community (PLC) The PLC had a focus on data assessment and support for implementation improvement. Teachers and administrators referred to data assessment as a core function in their PLC.
Data assessment teams developed learner profiles from grade-level data and culture and climate surveys. The data sets are used to assess the growth of the program at grade levels. Learner profiles travel with the student, and as the student moves onto the next grade level, the new teacher receives the learner profile. This process increases the productivity of implementing SEL.
These data allow PLCs to determine the growth areas and areas of success that can be used across the district. The staff that stays in the district develops self-awareness and self-management that promotes continuous improvement. One key factor was COVID-19, which became a catalyst for implementation. The pandemic highlighted the need for SEL support for students.
Two types of intervention that have been identified as effective means for teachers to utilize in their classrooms to meet the needs of students impacted by trauma are 1.) teacher assistance of student self-regulation followed by 2.) teacher engagement in a positive connection. Both interventions were supported in the case study through professional learning for staff, addressing and increasing their own self-awareness and self-management skills. SEL coaches were instrumental in this professional learning and development.
It has been established in trauma-informed literature that when students increase self-regulation and develop teacher and peer relationships based on positive regard, new learning is enhanced. Brunzell et al. (2016) explored how teachers implemented a practice pedagogy model referred to as Trauma-Informed Positive Education (TIPE) TIPE presents a tri-consecutive method of teacher practice to engage their trauma-impacted students in the classroom. The first two phases of this intervention, outlined above, increased student self- regulation through teacher assistance and teacher engagement in positive connection.
The third phase involves increasing student agency in accessing psychological resources. This final step is a part of wellbeing-informed education models. Literature provides evidence of the success of increasing student access to psychological resources with the integration of well-being interventions in the classroom. The ability to be open to new learning and new skills is inherent in the strategies required for students to increase Psychological resources.
The case study outlined in this article demonstrated the success of using SEL coaches to assist teachers throughout the school year. Coaches became a bridging factor for the learning community and the informational resources in the school district. Without the coaches, the professional development of teachers and the development of learning communities would not occur. One limiting factor for SEL implementation is the limited self-awareness and self-management of teachers.
The root problem lies in the teachers’ inability to address ways to develop the self-awareness of students. This case study offers options for professional development for teachers by working with the SEL coaches who have backgrounds in clinical psychology. While professional development is often difficult for teachers, this case study provided professional development to the teachers in a non-threatening and personalized manner. Though the process was stressful for some teachers, there was no evidence of long-term stress on teachers. One teacher stated, “I feel like COVID might have helped us with respect to understanding that kids’ needs are beyond the four walls.”
Co-teaching coaches allowed for real-time coaching in the classroom. Co-teachers worked with students in large group instruction, problem-solving with students and working and planning with staff. Developing a co-te teaching structure increases caring student-teacher relationships and provides a foundation for increased self-management (Rabin, 2020). Professional development of scope and sequence integration and common language development happened in real time as SEL coaches co-taught with content teachers.
An added benefit was discovered that teachers developed their own self-awareness and self-management. Coaches as co-teachers helped the classroom teachers perfect their craft of SEL integration into classroom instruction. Social awareness and responsible decision-making competencies of CASEL aligned well as the district worked through the challenges presented by the pandemic.
PLC in the district addressed student needs associated with social awareness by developing empathy for students in their socially restricted lives. Coaching occurred in the PLC as teachers recognized the increasing needs of students. COVID-19 quarantines and isolations heightened the need for developing social awareness among students. The SEL coach position provides the bridging factor between the professional development of teachers and the teaching and learning of informational resources.
Both coaches and teachers spoke to the pandemic as a factor that allowed the acceptance of professional development. The adjustment from face-to-face instruction to virtual learning increased the potential for social isolation. SEL instruction and coaching is the most likely process that could equalize the setbacks to students due to COVID-19.
Meaningful progress in district initiatives requires commitment and effort from many moving parts. Coordinated programs in the context of the systemic district and school-wide programming can provide the most significant benefit for students. Administrative and policy support is necessary for teachers to effectively provide SEL programming. Without coordination between teachers, administrators, policymakers, district leaders, and support staff, a district may not realize the benefits promised by SEL implementation.
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. The framework is based on the OECD study on social and emotional skills for student success and well-being. For more information on the framework, visit: http://measuringsel.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Framework-A.3.pdf.
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth edition) . SAGE publications. Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Gullotta, T. P. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: Basic issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333–345. Gorski, P. C., & Dalton, K. (2020). Striving for critical reflection in multicultural and social justice teacher education: Introducing a typology of reflection approaches. Journal of Teacher Education, 71 (3), 357-368.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. The Future of Children, 27(1), 13–32. Kamei, A., & Harriot, W. (2021). Social emotional learning in virtual settings. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(3). Miles, B. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña,. J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third edition). SAGE Publications.
Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G. A. (2014). Historical trauma as public narrative: A conceptual review of how history impacts present-day health. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 128–136. Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for school-wide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277–297. Overstreet, S., & Chafouleas, S.
Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2019). An empirical basis for linking social and emotional learning to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 193–204. Quraishi, S. O. ( 2019). Teachers’ individual and collective sense-making of a social andotional learning program. (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University). ProQuest LLC. Rabin, C. (2020). Co-teaching: Collaborative and caring teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 135–147. Rosanbalm, K. (2021).
Social and emotional learning during COVID-19 and beyond: Why it matters and how to support it . Hunt Institute. Social and emotionallearning in adolescence: Testing the CASEL model in a normative sample. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(8), 1170–1199.
Do universal social and emotional learning programs for secondary school students enhance the competencies they address? A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 56(10), 1545–1567. The Guilford Press. The Handbook of Social and emotional Learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19)
The heart of learning and teaching: Compassion, resiliency, and academic success. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Compassionate Schools. The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international transferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Interview Protocol Guide for District Level Administration. Introduction and Demographics. Deciding on a Framework. Allocating Resources. Looking back, what turned out to be the most critical resources. How much time does it take to implement SEL? What would you have done differently, or did it go as planned?
Research suggests that there is an 11:1 return on every dollar invested. What are some examples of professional development for the staff? Do you feel that the professional development was sufficient? How did you know when you implemented SEL or when you achieved the goal? Wrap up and concluding thoughts: Thank you very much for your time, is there anything else you would like to share that we have not covered?
For School Level Administration, we want to know about your background. Tell us about the first time you heard about SEL, and what were your impressions of the idea. What advice would you give a school leader regarding the implementation process? What resources would you say are required for implementation? Was there a perception of “building the plan while you were flying?” What did the professional development look like for the staff? Was the staff compensated?
All SEL frameworks have competencies. Can you tell me how you track student advancement? What are your thoughts on students assessing and tracking their progress? Interacting human resources: Did you ever think that SEL implementation was too difficult? If yes, what kept you moving? If no, would your staff agree? Who were the key stakeholders that make-or-break implementation?
What positions have you had over that time? Deciding on an SEL Framework Tell me about the first time you heard about SEL, and what were your impressions of the idea. What were the key resources that allowed the teachers to implement SEL? Can you tell me how SEL planning is different from content area planning? How much time were staff allowed for development? Was the staff compensated for their implementation work?
Can you tell me about the technology resources such as the learning management system software (LMS) specific for SEL? Would you suggest something specific for tracking and reporting competency progress? How did you know when you had implemented SEL in the Classroom? If you were to advise a teacher just starting out with SEL, what would you tell them? How important is the support of other leadership or counselors in the implementation process? Can you share a story about the positive impact of SEL on students?