Improving School Readiness for a Social Emotional Learning Curriculum: Case Study of a School-Mental Health Agency Partnership

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.

Variable	School Administrators	Teachers
Participants (n)	5	24
Teaching experience (years)
M	16.01	11.68
SD	5.95	2.91
Gender
Female	100%	96.2%
Male	0%	3.8%
Ethnicity/Race
African American	40.0%	15.4%
White	60.4%	84.6%

Table 2. Results of responsive school scan: year 1.

Category	Indicator	Museum Quality	Meets Target	Needs Work
Welcoming School Environment	Is there inviting, accurate, and language- appropriate information on the outside school sign?		X
	Are the school’s physical surroundings attractive to visitors and families?		X
	Is the tone of directions on all exterior entrances high quality and friendly?			X
	Are visitors and families greeted and directed to sign in when they first enter the building?		X
	Are visitors and families warmly and appropriately greeted in the office?		X
Information and Access	Do staff in the main office exhibit friendliness, focus, and organization?		X
	Do visitors and families have a comfortable place to wait in the office?		X
	Do visitors and families have places near the office or front entrance where they can review information about the school?			X
	Does the school provide displays or make information readily available for parents to connect with community resources?		X
	Are the school’s mission and vision current and displayed for parents and visitors to see?			X
	Does the school have a bulletin board on which parents can post announcements or news?			X
Student Voice	Are quality student work and student achievements displayed throughout the common areas in sensitive and attractive ways?			X
	Is the purpose of the displayed student work communicated in writing and in appropriate language?			X
	Do common areas showcase culturally relevant posters, pictures, or displays?			X
	Do students in common areas demonstrate a sense of focus, purpose, and orderliness?		X

Table 3. Teachers’ CLASS scores by domain and dimension: means (M) and standard deviations (SD).

CLASS Domain	Pre-K – 2nd Grade M (SD)
Emotional Support	4.12 (1.44)
Positive Climate	4.19 (1.48)
Negative Climate	5.17 (1.57)
Teacher Sensitivity	3.58 (1.55)
Regard for Student Perspectives	3.53 (1.43)
Class Organization	3.14 (1.15)
Behavior Management	3.81 (1.55)
Productivity	3.28 (1.29)
Instructional Learning Formats	2.33 (1.06)
Instructional Support	1.45 (0.47)
Concept Development	1.36 (0.46)
Quality of Feedback	1.58 (0.51)
Language Modeling	1.42 (0.49)

Negative Climate ratings were reverse scored to place on same scale as other dimensions.

Table 4. Scores on school leadership questionnaire: year 1.

Indicator	Score (Max = 4)	Explanation
General Capacities
1. Staff openness to new programs	4	At least 75% are encouraged by a new program.
2. Competing priorities at school or district level	4	SEL program would be only new program.
3. Practices to support continuous improvement
Frequency of review of indicators	4	Monthly review with staff.
(b) Types of indicators used to assess progress	3	Multiple sources (parent or teacher report culture/climate, student academic, behavioral), but no student SEL indicator.
4. Collaborative decision-making	3	Decisions made by school leaders with representation of teachers.
5. Previous history of implementation fidelity	2	50% – 65% of teachers implemented with fidelity.
Specific Capacities
1. SEL expertise building
Introductory training: school leaders	2	Some school leaders have received training.
(b) Introductory training: school staff	1	No teachers have received training.
2. Alignment of school resources to support SEL
Budget, funding, and years covered	3	Multi-year budget to support SEL program, but no plans to sustain program long-term.
(b) School staff to support adoption and implementation	2	One person selected who has a teacher evaluative role.
3. Alignment of school disciplinary policy with a trauma-informed/SEL program
Current system for student behavior management and discipline	2	Reactive, punitive, linear approach to behavior management and discipline, BUT staff acknowledge approach is ineffective.
(b) Willingness of school leaders to change practices	4	All administrators.
(c) Willingness of teachers to change practices	2	50% of teachers.
4. Identification and use of SEL standards	1	No SEL standards.

Table 5. School readiness capacities: year 2 scores and source of evidence.

Indicator	Year 1 Score	Year 2 Score	Description of Improvement	Source of Evidence
General Capacities
1. Staff openness to new programs	4	4	n/a	n/a
2. Competing priorities	4	4	n/a	n/a
3. Continuous improvement practices
Frequency of review	4	4	n/a	n/a
(b) Types of indicators	3	4	Added SEL challenges to student multi-tiered system of support, with plans to include SEL assessment	Artifact
4. Collaborative decision-making	3	3	No change	n/a
5. Previous history of FOI	2	n/a	n/a	n/a
Specific Capacities
1. SEL expertise building
School leaders	2	4	All attended PDs and monthly consultations	PD participation
(b) School teachers	1	4	All attended PDs	PD participation
2. Alignment of disciplinary policy
Current system	2	3	Incorporated proactive, problem-solving strategies but not consistently used	Artifact; Focus groups
(b) School leader willingness to change	4	4	n/a	n/a
(c) Teacher willingness to change	2	3	At least 65% willing to change	Focus groups
3. Alignment of school/district resources
Budget	3	3	No change in long-term funding
(b) Staff to support SEL	2	3	Plan for teacher support within existing school leadership team	Artifact
4. Identification and use of SEL standards	1	2	Began operationalizing expectations for student behavior	Artifact; Focus groups

Table

Question	4 = Strength	3 = Proficient	2 = Improvement Recommended	1 = Improvement Required
Staff Openness to New Programs
1. Percent of teachers encouraged by new program?	At least 75% of teachers are encouraged by a new program.	At least 65% of teachers are encouraged by a new program.	Between 50% and 65% of teachers are encouraged by a new program.	Less than 50% of teachers are encouraged by a new program.
Collaborative Decision-Making Among School Leaders and Teachers
2. How are decisions made for beginning a new program?	Any new program decisions are made by considering the opinions of both school leaders and majority of faculty/staff.	Any new program decisions are made by considering the opinions of both school leaders and representatives of faculty/staff.	Any new program decisions are made by considering the opinions of mostly school leaders with non-representative description of needs of faculty and staff.	Any new program decisions are made by considering the opinions of only school leaders.
Competing Priorities
3. Are any other new initiatives underway or expected?	The SEL program will be the sole new initiative.	Only one other new initiative OR an existing initiative that either conflicts or competes with the SEL program.	Only one other new initiative AND an existing initiative that either conflicts or competes with the SEL program.	Two or more other new initiatives.
Previous Fidelity of Implementation
4. Percentage of teachers who previously implemented a new program with fidelity?	At least 75% of teachers implemented with fidelity.	At least 65% of teachers implemented with fidelity.	Between 50% and 65% of teachers implemented with fidelity.	Less than 50% of teachers implemented with fidelity.
Continuous Improvement
5. Types of indicators used to assess student progress?	Multiple sources of information, including parent, teacher, student report of culture/climate, SEL, student academic, and behavior.	Multiple sources of information, including parent or teacher culture/climate, student academic, and behavior.	Sources restricted to student academic and behavior only.	No objective indicators Or student academic only.
6. Frequency of touchpoints with staff to discuss indicators	At least monthly	At least quarterly	At least one each semester	At least once a year

Table

Question	4 = Strength	3 = Proficient	2 = Improvement Recommended	1 = Improvement Required
Expertise Building Around Trauma-informed SEL Approaches
1. SEL training completed by district supervisors?	All key district supervisors have received introductory SEL training.	Most key district supervisors have received introductory SEL training.	Some key district supervisors have received introductory SEL training.	No key district supervisors have received introductory SEL training.
2. SEL training completed by school leaders?	All school leaders have received introductory SEL training.	Most school leaders have received introductory SEL training.	Some school leaders have received introductory SEL training.	No school leaders have received introductory SEL training.
3. SEL training completed by school faculty/staff?	All school faculty/staff have received introductory SEL training.	Most school faculty/staff have received introductory SEL training.	Some school faculty/staff have received introductory SEL training.	No school faculty/staff have received introductory SEL training.
Alignment of Resources to Support SEL program
4. Does the school have a budget and funding to support SEL program? How many years does it cover?	School has a multi-year budget to support SEL with plans to sustain funding in the long term.	School has a multi-year budget to support SEL but no plans to sustain funding in the long term.	School has a short-term budget for SEL (1-year funding only).	School has no budget or funding to support SEL.
5. Have school staff been selected to guide adoption and implementation of SEL program?	Representatives from key layers within school are selected (e.g., Associate Principal, counselor, instructional specialists, grade level leaders, parent liaison).	Multiple persons have been selected, but not from all key layers.	One or more persons selected who all have teacher evaluative roles (e.g., Associate Principals).	No one has been selected.
Alignment of Disciplinary Policies With Trauma-informed SEL Practices
6. What is the current system for management of student behavior and discipline?	Current disciplinary practices are based on proactive, problem-solving, and restorative approaches.	Current disciplinary practices are based on a combination of proactive, problem-solving approaches and reactive, punitive, and linear approaches.	Current disciplinary practices are based on mostly reactive, punitive, and linear approaches, BUT school leaders acknowledge these practices are ineffective.	Current disciplinary practices are based solely on reactive, punitive, and linear approaches, AND school leaders rigidly adhere to these practices as effective.
7. Willingness of school leaders to change disciplinary practices?	At least 75% are willing to change disciplinary practices.	At least 65% are willing to change disciplinary practices.	Between 65% and 50% are willing to change disciplinary practices.	Less than 50% are willing to change disciplinary practices.
8. Willingness of teachers to change disciplinary practices?	At least 75% are willing to change disciplinary practices.	At least 65% are willing to change disciplinary practices.	Between 50% and 65% are willing to change disciplinary practices.	Less than 50% are willing to change disciplinary practices.
SEL Standards
9. Does the school use SEL standards or benchmarks for all grades?	Comprehensive SEL standards included and used to guide decision-making.	Comprehensive SEL standards included in student report card but not used to guide decision-making.	Some SEL-related standards as part of student report card.	No SEL standards.