Impact of a Social-Emotional and Character Development Program on School-Level Indicators of Academic Achievement, Absenteeism, and Disciplinary Outcomes: A Matched-Pair, Cluster-Randomized, Controlled Trial

Abstract

This article reports the effects of a comprehensive elementary school-based social-emotional and character education program on school-level achievement, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes utilizing a matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled design. The Positive Action Hawai'i trial included 20 racially/ethnically diverse schools (M enrollment = 544) and was conducted from the 2002–03 through the 2005–06 academic years. Using school-level archival data, analyses comparing change from baseline (2002) to 1-year posttrial (2007) revealed that intervention schools scored 9.8% better on the TerraNova (2nd ed.) test for reading and 8.8% on math, that 20.7% better in Hawai'i Content and Performance Standards scores for reading and 51.4% better in math, and that intervention schools reported 15.2% lower absenteeism and fewer suspensions (72.6%) and retentions (72.7%). Overall, effect sizes were moderate to large (range = 0.5–1.1) for all of the examined outcomes. Sensitivity analyses using permutation models and random-intercept growth curve models substantiated results. The results provide evidence that a comprehensive school-based program, specifically developed to target student behavior and character, can positively influence school-level achievement, attendance, and disciplinary outcomes concurrently.

Keywords:

• Randomized experiment
• matched-pair
• academic
• achievement
• discipline
• social and character development

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA13474). Additionally, The National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA018760) provided financial support for the completion of the work on this manuscript. The authors would like to thankfully recognize the support and involvement of the Hawaii school district and the principals, administrators, teachers, staff, students and their families at the participating schools. We also thank Howard Humphreys and Jonathan Wang for help with data collection and management. Notice of potential conflict of interest: The research described herein was done using the program and the training and technical support of Positive Action, Inc. Dr. Flay's spouse holds a significant financial interest in Positive Action, Inc.

Notes

†Positive Action schools continued to implement the program after completion of the randomized trial; three control schools chose to receive Positive Action after the trial.

^aStandardized test scores included SAT (Stanford 9) for 2002–06 and TerraNova (2nd ed.) for 2007.

^aTwo-tailed t test; 18 df.

^a N = 8.

^b N = 10.

^aTwo-tailed t test; 18 df for all variables except achievement-related variables (16 df).

^bMean difference = posttest − baseline; 1-year post trial − baseline.

^cTwo-tailed paired t-test difference score; 8 df for achievement-related variables and 9 df for other variables.

^dHedges’ g effect size (unbiased adjusted g) of mean difference.

^eRI = [(PA _mean − C_mean)_posttest − (PA _mean − C_mean) _baseline]/C_{mean posttest}. ^fStandardized test scores included Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford 9) for 2002–06 and TerraNova (2nd ed.) for 2007.

^aStandardized test scores included SAT (Stanford 9) for 2002–06 and TerraNova (2nd ed.) for 2007.

^bB estimate based on random-intercept model.

^† p < .10.

* p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001; all two-tailed.

^a B estimate based on random-intercept model.

^b B estimate based on random-intercept Poisson model.

^cIRR estimate based on random-intercept Poisson model.

^† p < .10.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001; all two-tailed.