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

ABSTRACT

This case study examined the first two years of adult preparation or “readiness” for an elementary school’s adoption and implementation of a trauma-informed, social emotional learning (SEL) universal curriculum. SEL programming served as a key lever for improving the academic growth and achievement of students over a 3-year period. The primary objective of the current study was to identify the process used to increase the school’s capacity for implementing and sustaining an SEL program. Study 1 examined the utility of a needs assessment conducted in year 1 as a measure of school readiness, which included a leadership questionnaire, observations of school/classroom climate, and focus groups with school community leaders and teachers. Results informed school strengths and key areas for improving capacity to support an SEL program, including indicators of positive climate, expertise-building among teachers and staff, aligning resources and disciplinary policies, and identifying SEL standards. This information guided the types of professional development implemented in year 2. Using artifact review and focus groups, study 2 examined whether the year 2 professional development assisted in improving the targeted school capacities. Most areas indicated improvement, and the changes are likely critical first steps for effectively implementing and sustaining an SEL program.

KEYWORDS:

• Case study
• early childhood
• social-emotional learning

Students learn best in the context of caring, supportive relationships with their teachers and peers (Allensworth et al., 2018; Klem & Connell, 2004; MacNeil et al., 2009). In an environment of safe relationships, they are more likely to be in a regulated state needed to focus and make good decisions. Many students arrive at school in a dysregulated state due to various adversities experienced at home and/or in their neighborhood. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs, e.g., abuse, neighborhood violence, parental incarceration) can impact individuals and families within any socioeconomic or demographic category (Pechtel & Pizzagalli, 2011), but ACEs are more prevalent in environments where children and families lack access to facilities and services needed to support their basic needs (e.g., housing, food, health care) as well as enrichment opportunities that enhance social, emotional, and cognitive development (e.g., parks, museums). According to Bethell et al. (2017), 62% of children living within the lowest levels of income were reported to have experienced one or more ACEs, compared to 26% of children in the highest income levels.

Without mitigation efforts, ACEs are associated with disruptions in neurodevelopment and poor mental and physical health outcomes (Gilbert et al., 2010; Harms et al., 2017). Various frameworks and programs have been developed to mitigate the negative effects of ACEs (Sege & Browne, 2017). An important type of mitigation is school-based mental health prevention. The primary objective of the current study was to describe the preparatory phases of an effort to integrate a mental health prevention program in an elementary school. The study focused on the first 2 years of increasing the school’s readiness, or capacity, for the program.

A goal of mental health prevention programs is to enhance the social and emotional competencies of both adults and children. In this way, these programs fall under the umbrella of social emotional learning (SEL) programs. Examples of SEL competencies include the ability to understand and manage emotions, thoughts, and behaviors (i.e., self-awareness and self-regulation skills) as well as the ability to get along with others (i.e., social awareness and relationship skills). These skills are critical for both adults and children to flourish in their schools and communities. Durlak et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis, or summary of the effects, of over 200 experimental studies of the impact of SEL prevention programs in elementary and secondary schools. They found that compared to students not participating in the programs, students who did participate showed greater improvement in self-regulation and relationship skills, had fewer conduct problems, and better academic achievement – in particular they scored 11 percentile points higher on achievement tests than students in control schools.

Frameworks for enhancing school readiness

The programs included in the Durlak et al. (2011) meta-analysis involved explicit curricula from which students were directly taught core social emotional skills, such as self-regulation, self-awareness, and relationship skills (Bierman, Domitrovich et al., 2008; Bierman, Nix et al., 2008; Domitrovich et al., 2008; Lynch et al., 2004; Vestal & Jones, 2004). Extant studies of such SEL programs typically involve randomized control trials or quasi-experimental studies with a primary focus on demonstrating that the curriculum improved targeted skills in students. However, recent reviews and commentaries of the state of SEL integration in schools have called for increased attention to approaches for facilitating adults’ readiness for adopting and implementing SEL programs (Wanless & Domitrovich, 2015). Implementation theories and frameworks suggest that this component of SEL program implementation is a critical initial step and likely affects the long-term sustainability of any curriculum adopted (Meyers et al., 2012).

According to conceptual models of program implementation, the effectiveness of curricula is affected by many contextual factors at the community level, district/school level, and teacher level. Domitrovich et al. (2008) proposed a multi-level quality of implementation framework for SEL programs. Factors at the core that support high-quality implementation are the intervention/program-specific supports in place, such as standardization of the program, delivery of the program, and core elements of the program. Surrounding these intervention-specific supports are three levels of systems that must be attended to before the specific curriculum is implemented: 1) individual level (e.g., teacher professional and psychological characteristics), 2) school level (e.g., school culture and climate, availability of resources), and 3) macro level (e.g., policy and finances). In support of the importance of individual, teacher level factors, one study Thierry et al. (2020) found that early childhood teachers’ self-efficacy for managing classroom behavior and the quality of their instructional support predicted better initial implementation fidelity of an SEL curriculum. Similarly, Ransford et al. (2009) found that teacher self-efficacy for behavior management was positively related to teachers’ adherence to the Providing Alternative Thinking Strategies curriculum pacing guide. At the school level, Malloy et al. (2015) found that teachers’ perceptions of the following organizational climate factors were positive predictors of dosage adherence and quality of teachers’ delivery of the Positive Action program: 1) a school’s openness to innovation, 2) having a more participatory decision-making process, and 2) collaboration among teachers, or teacher-teacher affiliation. Studies involving other types of community programs have shown similar implementation benefits as a result of organizations having a positive culture and climate (Dane & Schneider, 1998; Durlak, 2016; Durlak & DuPre, 2008). At the macro level, federal, state, and/or local policies, such as legislative requirements to develop SEL standards, can directly influence the types of SEL programs adopted along with the choice of assessments used to evaluate impact once the program is implemented. Furthermore, the availability of district-level funding and leadership support of SEL programs can enhance or impede implementation processes (Barrett et al., 2008; Elliott & Mihalic, 2004).

The Interactive Systems Framework (Scaccia et al., 2015; Wandersman et al., 2008) summarizes these system levels according to two types of capacities important for successful implementation of a new program. One type involves general capacities needed to effectively implement any kind of new program (e.g., reading, math, SEL), such as the climate of an organization. The second type involves specific capacities needed for a particular program, such as resources to support the program (e.g., funding and staff with expertise in content area) and professional development for staff. Related to building staff expertise, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) provides a conceptual framework for how adult SEL capacities can be developed and sustained. This framework is guided by raising adults’ awareness of the impact of traumatic stress or ACEs on all levels of the school system, including students, families, and staff. The NCTSN System Framework for Trauma-informed Schools involves a tiered approach ranging from universal prevention efforts to more intensive, targeted support.

The current study

Because few studies have focused on the preparatory phase of SEL curriculum implementation, the goal of the current case study is to examine the first two years of adult preparation, or readiness, for a school’s adoption and implementation of a trauma-informed, SEL curriculum. Guided by both the Interactive Systems Framework (Wandersman et al., 2008) and the NCTSN System Framework for Trauma-informed Schools, the study explores a partnership between a community-based mental health organization and an elementary school located within a public school district. The community-based nonprofit organization, founded in 1920, works side-by-side with children, families, and communities to build and repair social emotional health through education, therapeutic services, research, and training so that all children can achieve their full potential. The organization’s work with other schools is based on its decades-long model implemented within its elementary school, which involves weaving rich experiences in SEL with a rigorous curriculum.

The partner elementary school, located within a small-sized school district, serves prekindergarten through 5th-grade students. The long-term goal of the partnership was to improve students’ academic achievement by fully integrating SEL into the school, which would serve as a demonstration model for the other schools located in the school district (16 total schools, 10 of which are elementary, total student enrollment = 13,000). By the end of the third year of the partnership, the school made substantial improvements on the district’s annual academic accountability indicators. The academic progress index, which measures how much growth students demonstrate on reading and math assessments relative to academically similar students (calculated on a scale from 0 to 100), increased from 61.0 to 87.4. The closing gaps index, which measures whether all students and all subgroups are making improvements in achievement rates (also calculated on a scale from 0 to 100), increased from 37.5 to 97.2. To build a strong foundation for the work, the first two years of the partnership focused on understanding the needs of the school in order to inform adult learning opportunities. Consistent with the NCTSN framework, the adult learning or professional development centered around raising awareness of how trauma experiences can impact students’ brain development and behavior. Other components drew from the Interactive Systems Framework and included working with the school to enhance general and specific capacities for the SEL program (e.g., aligning resources, modifying existing school policies and practices to better support the program). Although not the focus of the current study, the third year involved school-wide implementation of a trauma-informed, SEL curriculum and testing impact on students’ social emotional competence using a quasi-experimental design.

The current case study is presented as a series of two studies conducted over two years. The primary aim of study 1 was to identify the assessment process used in year 1 to understand the needs of the school community, in particular the school’s general and specific capacities to effectively adopt and implement a trauma-informed SEL curriculum. Observational tools were used to capture the climate of the school and classrooms, and a leadership questionnaire and stakeholder focus groups were used to gauge school capacities. A second aim of study 1 was to describe how the results of the needs assessment were used to inform the professional development provided in year 2. Study 2 examined whether and how these trauma-informed professional learning opportunities were associated with improvement in general and specific capacities, which were evaluated by conducting artifact reviews and focus groups with school leaders and teachers.

Study 1

Method

Characteristics and context of school community

The participating school is geographically positioned on the edge of a residential area facing major intersections that feed into a highway transecting the city. The neighborhoods surrounding the schools are, according to U.S. Census average income, below the poverty line. Reflective of the surrounding community’s demographics, the majority of students in the elementary school qualified for free or reduced price lunch (94%). With an average enrollment of 523 students (3-year range = 562 to 495), percentages of students by ethnicity/race were as follows: 69% African American, 17% Latinx or Hispanic, 7% White, and 6% two or more races. About 16% of the students were classified as English language learners.

The elementary school first opened in the fall of 1943. The current school was built in 1999, on the original site of the old building. Among community members, there is a persistent negative description of the school fueled by low, stagnant academic achievement results of students and problems with student behavior. When the partnership began, the principal of the school was a first-year administrator facing a high turnover rate of faculty and staff (49%). She was thus eager to network with others to support her students and faculty. Toward that end, she sought funding for a summer school program for new kindergarten students who had not attended preschool. During this program, the administrator was introduced to the work of the nonprofit organization and decided to pilot selected SEL strategies during implementation of the summer program, in consultation with organization staff. A focus on SEL was novel to the school district at that time. Addressing students’ social and emotional issues tended to center around extinguishing student behavior problems using punishment and external reward systems.

Participants

Administrators, teachers, and selected community members from the elementary school participated in Study 1 (all of whom provided informed consent). The school leadership team (n = 5) consisted of the principal, two assistant principals (one for lower elementary and one for upper elementary), an instructional coach, and a parent liaison. The elementary school employed 24 prekindergarten through 5th-grade teachers, with the majority of teachers being White (85%). Teachers had an average of 11 years of teaching experience (see Table 1 for participant demographic characteristics).

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%

Procedure

During the first semester of year 1 of the partnership, SEL program staff and the school leadership team participated in introductory meetings to begin planning the partnership. Plans were developed to conduct the needs assessment, which took place during the second half of year 1. At that time, a readiness questionnaire was completed by the school leadership team. In addition, three SEL program staff visited the school to conduct school and classroom observations (see description of assessments below). During this time, three focus group sessions were also held, one with school community leaders, a second with the school’s lower elementary teachers, and a third with the school’s upper elementary teachers.

Data collection

A combination of data sources or informants were used to assess general and specific capacities for SEL implementation. General capacities were primarily captured from school climate observations and a school leadership SEL capacity questionnaire. Specific capacities related to effective implementation of an SEL program were captured from classroom observations, the school leadership questionnaire, and focus groups with school leaders and teachers.

Observations of school and classrooms

School climate

In the spring semester of year 1, two SEL program and research staff conducted independent observations of the school climate using the Responsive School Scan (Murphy, 2009). Indicators (16 total items) from the following school climate categories were observed: 1) Welcoming School Environment (e.g., respect for parents and students conveyed by signs and other communications), 2) Information and Access (e.g., whether visitors, parents, etc. can access information about school and community services), and 3) Student Voice (e.g., displays of diverse student work and language-appropriate explanations of the work; procedures honor students while offering a safe environment). A fourth category involving classroom climate was not assessed as another observational assessment was used for that purpose (description below).

For each item of the Responsive School Scan, the following rating categories could be selected: museum quality (i.e., evidence of extremely high quality), meets the target (i.e., met the operational definition and was on target), and needs work (i.e., evidence shows either preliminary or partial effort; varying and/or inconsistent evidence was noted). Immediately after independently observing and rating, the two staff members compared ratings, discussed any ratings where there was disagreement, and came to an agreed upon rating.

Classroom climate

Classroom climate was defined by the quality of teacher-student interactions, captured using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta et al., 2008). CLASS observations were conducted with prekindergarten through 2nd-grade teachers only (N = 13). Three certified CLASS observers rated teachers on the quality of their interactions with students. One observer, certified on prekindergarten CLASS, rated the one prekindergarten classroom. The other two observers, certified on kindergarten through 2nd-grade CLASS, rated the kindergarten, 1st-, and 2nd-grade classrooms, with each of the observers rating an equal number of classrooms within each grade level. CLASS captures three primary domains of teacher-student interactions: 1) emotional support, 2) classroom organization, and 3) instructional support. Each domain consists of dimensions of specific teacher-student and student-student interactions shown to predict students’ social-emotional and academic outcomes (Burchinal et al., 2010; Downer et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2008). Emotional support includes four dimensions: positive climate, negative climate, teacher sensitivity, and regard for student perspectives. Classroom organization consists of three dimensions: behavior management, productivity, and instructional learning formats. Instructional support includes three dimensions: concept development, quality of feedback, and language modeling. Teachers and students were observed for three to four 20-minute cycles (60–80 minutes total). Classrooms were rated on each of the 10 dimensions using a scale from 1 to 7, with 1–2 indicating low levels of the dimension, 3–5 indicating mid levels, and 6–7 indicating high levels. Dimension scores were averaged across each cycle. Overall dimension scores within each of the three CLASS domains were then averaged to create domain scores for each teacher.

School leadership SEL capacity questionnaire

A school leadership questionnaire was developed to gauge general and specific school capacities for an SEL program, with items drawn from previous SEL implementation studies (e.g., Malloy et al., 2015) as well as the CASEL Guide to Schoolwide SEL. A total of 15 questions, comprising 9 indicators, were included in the questionnaire (see Appendix A), which was completed in the early spring semester of year 1 by the school principal in consultation with other members of the school leadership team. Five items covered the following indicators of general capacity: (1) school staff’s general openness to new programs, (2) collaborative decision-making structure among school leaders/teachers, (3) presence of competing priorities within the school, (4) previous fidelity of implementation of new programs, and (5) evaluation of continuous improvement. Nine items covered the following indicators of specific capacity: (1) the state of SEL expertise-building among school leaders and teachers, (2) alignment of school resources to support an SEL program, (3) alignment of the school’s disciplinary policies with trauma-informed SEL practices, and (4) availability and use of SEL standards.

Responses to the school leadership questionnaire were independently scored by two research assistants using a rubric created in consultation with two educators and one researcher who all had expertise in SEL (see Appendix A). For each question, level of capacity was indicated by a scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicated the lowest level of capacity (i.e., improvement required) and 4 indicated the highest level of capacity (i.e., strength). After independently rating the responses using the rubric, the assistants compared ratings, discussed any ratings where there was disagreement, and came to an agreed-upon score.

Focus groups

During late spring of year 1, an SEL program coordinator conducted three focus groups with members of the school community and prekindergarten through 5th-grade teachers within the school. The focus group with the school community included the school leadership team and community participants, including members of clergy and local nonprofit organizations (n = 10). The other two focus groups consisted of teachers from the school, with one including lower elementary teachers (prekindergarten through 2nd grade; n = 13) and the second including upper elementary teachers (3rd grade through 5th grade; n = 11). Each of the focus group sessions followed the same general structure, which consisted of initial engagement questions to establish the topic of discussion and help participants feel comfortable followed by exploration questions (the bulk of the questions). The session ended with exit questions to query participants for any information they would like to add.

In each of the focus group sessions, the following five general topics were used to guide discussions: (1) current strengths of the school, (2) current challenges faced by the school, (3) how an SEL program could help address challenges, (4) previous strategies used to address social emotional needs of students and families and any barriers to implementation, and (5) greatest need for support if an SEL program were to be implemented (see Appendix B for list of specific questions).

Results

School climate

Results of the Responsive School Scan are summarized in Table 2. For each item, the agreed-upon rating category (museum quality, meets target, needs work) is indicated. For the Welcoming School Environment and Information and Access categories, the school met the target for most of the indicators (4 of 5 indicators met for Welcoming Environment and 4 of 7 indicators met for Information and Access). The Student Voice category was the lowest scoring, with 3 of the 4 indicators scored as “needs work.” Across all of the categories, indicators categorized as “needs work” were as follows: 1) high quality and friendly tone of directions on exterior entrances of school building (Welcoming Environment); 2) providing visitors and families with places near the office or front entrance where they can review information about the school (Information and Access); 3) displaying the school’s mission and vision for parents and visitors to see (Information and Access); 4) providing a bulletin board on which parents can post announcements or news (Information and Access); 5) displaying student work and achievements in sensitive and attractive ways in common areas (Student Voice); 6) noting the purpose of student work (Student Voice); and 7) showcasing culturally relevant posters, pictures, or displays (Student Voice).

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

Classroom climate (CLASS)

CLASS domain scores, the indicator of the quality of teacher-student interactions in the classroom, were entered into a MANOVA, with CLASS Domain (emotional support, classroom organization, instructional support) as the multivariate factor. Results indicated a main effect of domain, F(2, 11) = 83.99, p < .01 (see Table 3 for means by CLASS domain and dimension). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that classrooms scored higher on emotional support (M = 4.12, SD = 1.44) than on classroom organization (M = 3.14, SD = 1.15) and instruction support (M = 1.45, SD = .47). Classrooms also scored higher on classroom organization than on instructional support. Overall, classrooms scored in the mid-range for emotional support, lower mid-range for classroom organization, and low range for instructional support. These CLASS domain levels are somewhat lower than that found in other studies involving larger samples of lower elementary teachers in different parts of the country (Pianta et al., 2008).

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.

School leadership SEL capacity questionnaire

Ratings of the school leadership questionnaire were used to inform the school’s current level of general and specific capacities for an SEL program. Scores for each indicator are shown in Table 4. Results are summarized for each type of capacity below.

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.

General capacity

For general capacity indicators, areas of strength were indicated for teachers’ openness to new programs, with a large majority of staff being encouraged by a new program and willing to change their current practices to better align with an SEL program, if needed. In addition, there were no other new initiatives underway at the school that would conflict with the goals of the SEL program. Areas in which the school was proficient involved the collaborative nature of decision-making processes, which involved eliciting input from teachers/staff, albeit without having all levels of staff represented in the process. Also, continuous improvement efforts occurred frequently during the school year and included objective indicators related to academic performance, student behavior, and school culture and climate, although there were no student level indicators of social emotional competence.

The main area for improvement involved the school’s previous history of implementing new programs with fidelity. Although school leaders reported that many teachers were open to new programs, they indicated that based on past implementation of new programs, only about half of the teachers had implemented with fidelity.

Specific capacities

Overall, specific capacity indicators were scored lower compared to general capacity indicators. Most ratings for specific capacity were in the improvement recommended or required range. For indicators of SEL expertise-building, although members of the school administrative team had exposure to introductory SEL trainings in the previous academic year, none of the teachers had received any introductory SEL professional development. With respect to resource alignment, funding through a private foundation was available to support the fees of the SEL program partner (needs assessment and professional development planned). However, no planning had been done to ensure there were key school staff who could support the effort once it got underway. With respect to alignment of current disciplinary policies with a trauma-informed SEL approach, the school used a disciplinary system that relied primarily on external rewards and punishment to improve student behavior, which did not align with the proactive, problem-solving approach of a trauma-informed SEL program. Finally, the school and district had not adopted any comprehensive SEL learning standards.

Focus groups

Responses to focus group questions were recorded and transcribed. For each session, a thematic analysis of responses was conducted using the grounded theory method of coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). A single coder, trained in qualitative analysis methods, identified themes directly from the participant responses. Following the identification of focused themes, a second coder independently reviewed the coded themes. Any discrepancies or disagreement between the coders were resolved through discussion with each other. Results from these analyses are presented below for each of the three focus groups.

School community leaders

With respect to the discussion of current strengths of the school, three primary themes emerged: (1) Teachers and staff truly care about students; (2) There exists a recognition or awareness that students have significant social and emotional challenges and need support; and (3) There is some existing mental health support for students with challenges through Communities in Schools. With respect to current challenges, the responses were organized around two general categories, one involving the role of parents and home-related issues and the second involving teachers. With respect to parents, the following two themes were identified: (1) Staff find it difficult to engage parents due to complexities in family systems (e.g., grandparents serving as primary caregivers, homeless families, high mobility rates); and (2) There is a stigma associated with seeking mental health services among African-American families. With respect to teachers, three themes identified were related to: (1) high staff turnover, (2) high levels of teacher burn-out, and (3) the need for staff training focused on SEL. In response to the prompt about how an SEL initiative could help address these challenges, there was overwhelming agreement that such an initiative would help to equip teachers/staff and leaders with tools that they could use to support students with dysregulation and support effective relationship-building with students and families.

When asked about any previous SEL strategies that the school/district has tried, two programs were referenced, but barriers existed in effectively implementing, in particular: (1) a lack of buy-in among teachers for the programs and (2) concern among teachers and leaders that less time was devoted to academic instruction, which is the primary focus of state accountability ratings. Areas of greatest need for effectively implementing and supporting an SEL initiative included: (1) staff resources, (2) teacher training, (3) funding, and (4) gaining parent trust and engagement.

Teachers

The responses provided by lower and upper elementary teachers had many overlapping themes, so these stakeholder responses are presented together. For current strengths of the school, themes that were consistent with those that emerged from the school/community leader focus group were: (1) Faculty and administrators care about students and families; and (2) There is an awareness of the need to support the social and emotional needs of students. However, teachers went beyond these themes and indicated that: (3) There is a need to do something different, recognizing that their current practices were not effective; (4) School faculty are supportive of one another; and (5) Teachers have high levels of appreciation for the new school principal’s efforts to address the social and emotional needs of students. For challenges, a similar theme related to difficulty engaging parents was mentioned by teachers. In addition, teachers went into detail about specific student challenges: (1) problems addressing student behavior, in particular dysregulation, disrespect, and aggressive acts (e.g., throwing things, physical fights between students); (2) low levels of intrinsic motivation among students; and (3) the need to gain the trust of students. Teachers also noted the general negative perception of the school among colleagues working at other schools within the district. Similar to school community leaders, teachers mentioned the need for strategies and tools to help students manage strong negative emotions. They also noted that having SEL trainings on these strategies and tools would help to build their own confidence in their abilities to use the strategies and tools.

Previous strategies that teachers in upper elementary grades had tried included a specific SEL curriculum; however, they identified a number of barriers to effective implementation, including: (1) the lack of ongoing training, (2) a need for resources to support implementation (e.g., supplies, books needed for lesson delivery), (3) difficulty making time for the lessons, and (4) difficulty in using the curriculum with students served by special education. With respect to the greatest areas of need in implementing or supporting an SEL initiative, teachers, like community leaders, reported a need for regular professional development focused on SEL. Teachers also identified the need for a unified vision around SEL, shared among all school leaders, faculty, and staff.

Discussion

The information gathered from the observations, questionnaire, and focus groups was triangulated to gain an understanding of the school’s needs related to SEL programming. For general capacities important for implementing any type of program, the different sources of information indicated a number of strengths, in particular staff openness to new programs and a lack of competing priorities. The sources also converged on general capacity indicators that could be improved. For instance, school climate observations suggested a need for enhancing the school’s welcoming environment for families and visitors. Similarly, in focus groups, both school leaders and teachers acknowledged that they have difficulty engaging families, which they related to various challenges surrounding families’ individual life circumstances; however, few examples were offered with respect to the role of the school in family engagement efforts. For specific capacities related to effective implementation of an SEL program, the school leadership questionnaire suggested that most indicators were in need of improvement (SEL expertise-building among staff, alignment of resources and disciplinary policies, and existence of SEL standards). The additional data sources pinpointed the particular types of SEL expertise-building and disciplinary policy alignment needed. CLASS ratings indicated the need to improve the emotional supportiveness of teachers and use of positive behavior management. Although CLASS scores were higher for emotional support and classroom organization compared to instructional support, scores across all three domains were lower in relation to averages typically found in national samples of kindergarten through 2nd-grade classrooms (Pianta et al., 2008). These CLASS findings were reflected in the results of the school readiness questionnaire and in themes identified from the focus group sessions. In particular, school leaders acknowledged that their current strategies were too focused on external reward systems designed to extinguish student misbehavior. This type of punitive system obviates opportunities for teachers and staff to engage in meaningful connections with students and families that would help them to build positive relationships. Similarly, teachers consistently indicated a need for training in strategies to better manage student behavior. Although the school readiness questionnaire indicated issues with fidelity of implementation of new programs in the past, focus group sessions uncovered possible reasons for lower fidelity, in particular the need for more training opportunities to support quality implementation and the lack of teacher buy-in to previous programs. In the focus group, teachers also indicated a need to develop better relationships with students and gain students’ trust, which was consistent with CLASS observations of teachers’ emotional support and classroom organization.

SEL program staff held discussions with the school leadership team regarding these indicators and used this information to inform the professional development activities implemented in year 2. To address the specific capacity areas, an introductory professional development seminar on how ACEs and stress can impact children’s developing brain and behavior was planned, which would be followed by more specific seminars focused on trauma-informed strategies to proactively manage student behavior and intervene when students demonstrate dysregulated behavior. In addition, a hands-on learning opportunity for teachers to observe exemplary SEL classrooms was planned. These professional learning opportunities should help to address the barriers to effective implementation encountered in past implementation efforts, in particular teachers’ reported need for more regular trainings. In addition, monthly consultation sessions were also planned with members of the school leadership team. Topics included other capacity areas in need of improvement, including school climate and family engagement efforts, disciplinary policy review, resource alignment to support teachers’ growth in SEL, and initial work on identifying SEL standards.

Study 2

Study 2 examined whether the professional development opportunities provided in year 2 were associated with changes in school capacity for SEL programming. Primary qualitative indicators for this study involved review of artifacts to examine changes in specific capacities for SEL (alignment of resources, disciplinary policies, SEL standards), observations of school climate indicators (e.g., creating a more welcoming atmosphere), and school leader and teacher reflections of whether and how the professional development improved their knowledge and skills. CLASS observations were not repeated in year 2, as previous research indicates that improvement on CLASS scores requires more intensive coaching with teachers (Hamre et al., 2012; Pianta, Mashburn et al., 2008), which was beyond the objectives of this readiness phase of SEL programming.

Method

Participants

The same school administrators (n = 5) who participated in study 1 also participated in study 2. In study 2, all teachers participated in professional development opportunities, and teacher representatives from each grade level (n = 7) participated in a focus group session. The majority of teachers from the previous school year (72%) returned during the school year under investigation in study 2.

Procedure

Professional learning opportunities were provided at the beginning of year 2 and mid-year. To capture changes in capacity, the following types of evidence were gathering during the school year: professional development attendance logs and artifacts indicative of changes in policies, procedures, and behaviors. Toward the end of the school year, observations of the school climate were conducted again using the Responsive School Scan and focus groups were conducted with school leaders and teacher representatives from each grade level.

Professional development

At the beginning of the school year, two full-day training sessions were presented to all faculty and administrators. The first, Social Emotional Health: A Classroom Gamechanger, outlined the neuroscience of stress, trauma, and learning, followed by introduction and practice of classroom strategies to mitigate the effects of stress and trauma in order to increase learning. The second, Classroom Management Reimagined, was presented in January to the same audience. This session emphasized the long-term goal of discipline, the difference between punishment and discipline, and how to select effective consequences. Small groups practiced leading effective conversation in response to misbehavior. This “discipline conversation” followed an action-based process that included: regulate self and student, describe the problem, invite student viewpoint, work together to problem-solve, and re-connect by affirming students’ engagement in the process.

In addition to this introductory seminar, all faculty participated in a two-day visit to a model SEL school. The first day began with a school tour and a Q&A session with the school’s teachers followed by a whole-group faculty discussion concerning possible SEL strategies to be implemented at the partner school. This discussion resulted in four “big buckets” of focus areas for implementation: (1) Work with Families, (2) Communication, (3) Visibility of Administrators, and (4) Teacher Empowerment. The second day involved a half-day professional learning workshop focused on the connection between classroom management and SEL.

Virtual monthly sessions were held with the assistant principals. The goal was to facilitate administrators’ adoption of an SEL coaching lens when working with faculty to address student behavior challenges. Topics included “chasing the why” behind student behavior challenges, supporting teachers’ own social emotional health, and using cognitive coaching language. Focus was placed on application of the emotional support and classroom organization domains of CLASS, on which both administrators received training. Each session reserved space for questions and collaborative problem-solving.

Virtual sessions with the principal were held monthly. These sessions were reserved for planning, implementing, and monitoring the progress of the areas of need identified by the year 1 needs assessment. Topics came from the administrator and included issues related to curriculum, teacher buy-in, teacher efficacy, discipline policies, and family connections. These sessions were meant to be a safe place for the administrator to “unload” concerns, while having a thought partner to discuss a variety of issues that required her attention.

School climate observations

Toward the end of year 2, two SEL program and research staff conducted a second observation of the school climate using the Responsive School Scan (Murphy, 2009). The same indicators were observed: (1) welcoming school environment, (2) information and access, and (3) student voice. The same scoring procedures followed in study 1 were followed in study 2.

Artifacts

Staff participation in the professional development sessions were captured from sign-in sheets provided during faculty seminars. For monthly consultations with school leaders, SEL program staff kept records of participation.

To assess how the professional development might have changed school policies and procedures, documents reflecting previous and current disciplinary policies and teacher guidance for addressing the management of student behavior were reviewed by two research staff. Areas reflecting qualitative changes in ways of addressing student behavior were discussed and noted. In addition, school level disciplinary data for the previous years and the current year under investigation were obtained from school records.

Focus groups

Toward the end of year 2, focus groups were held with the school leadership team and teacher representatives in order to gather feedback on perceived impact of the professional learning opportunities on specific capacities for SEL identified in Study 1 (see Appendix C for questions). Four questions were asked related to perceived impact of the SEL training on teachers’ knowledge and skills, interactions with students and families (particularly related to disciplinary practices), and specific professional learning formats that they found to be particularly helpful.

Results

The following capacities identified for improvement in study 1 were captured from the different sources of evidence reviewed in study 2:

1. Improving indicators of school climate (observation using Responsive School Scan)

2. Expanding types of indicators used to inform continuous improvement (artifacts)

3. SEL expertise-building (professional development attendance logs)

4. Alignment of disciplinary policies and procedures (artifacts, focus groups)

5. Alignment of school/district resources (artifacts)

6. Identification of SEL standards (artifacts; focus groups).

School climate observation

Areas of need identified in the initial (year 1) Responsive School Scan observation are shown in Table 2. Observers agreed that the school improved on all indicators rated as “needing work,” with the school meeting the target on each of the indicators. For the Welcoming School Environment category, more positive language was used in the tone of directions on exterior entrances of school building (e.g., replaced sign at front desk reading, “Stop and sign-in,” with “Welcome to Our School! Please sign in.”). For the Information and Access category, bulletin boards were set up near the front entrance with an area devoted to information about upcoming school events and opportunities for parents and visitors to become involved in events and activities. The school’s mission and vision were displayed for parents and visitors to see, which was revised to emphasize the importance of a safe environment, positive self-awareness, and empathy for others. For the Student Voice category, hallways included more engaging displays of culturally relevant student work and achievements with explicit reference to the learning objectives of student work.

Artifacts

Attendance in the faculty professional development seminars and school tour was high, with attendance rates ranging from 95% to 100%. School leaders participated in all scheduled consultations with SEL program staff. These findings were used to document the level of SEL expertise-building completed by staff, resulting in improvements in these specific capacity indicators for school faculty and leaders, with each receiving the maximum score based on the school readiness rubric (see Table 5).

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

Other artifacts obtained were documents outlining disciplinary policies and procedures produced as part of the monthly consultations with school leaders. Prior to the partnership, processes for managing disruptive behavior in the classroom and common areas included few strategies for proactively addressing behavior and tended to revolve around reactive procedures leading to negative consequences for student behavior problems (e.g., sending students to the principal’s office). This punitive approach resulted in high numbers of office disciplinary referrals (i.e., an average of 518 behavioral incidents recorded in two prior years according to school records). School administrators worked with teachers to change the process for managing disruptive classroom behavior, based on information learned during the professional development sessions. Specifically, procedures for disciplining students outlined more of a problem-solving approach, based on one of the strategies featured in introductory seminars (e.g., “Chasing the Why”). Before sending a student to the principal’s office, teachers and staff would seek to understand possible reasons for students’ acting out, while also using self-regulation strategies. As shown in Table 5, the score for this specific capacity thus improved from a 2 to a 3. Disciplinary records for the current year indicated a total of 342 behavioral incidents, which represented a 34% decrease.

An example of the focus on students’ self-regulation as a behavioral strategy was the provision of a safe physical space where students could opt to go to regulate their emotions. To create this space, an office was re-purposed as a calm down area for students who were in a dysregulated state. This room, known as the “reflection room,” was open to teachers who needed space to work with a child in a quiet and relaxed environment. In such an instance, the teacher would contact an administrator who would come to the classroom and take over the class, leaving the teacher free to walk with the child to the reflection room. This gave the student time to regulate emotionally, consider the issue, and talk through it with his or her teacher. After a few minutes, when the student was regulated, the teacher would walk with the student to the classroom and relieve the administrator. The importance of having the teacher work with the child was an outcome of recognizing that the most important relationship students should have in the school is with their teachers. The reflection room provided the opportunity for teachers to maintain and deepen their relationship with students while solving a problem in the classroom.

Another artifact reviewed included documents outlining the school’s process for a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Prior to the partnership, academics was a primary area of focus in this process. The administration team added “social emotional challenges” as a core indicator, along with existing indicators for reading and math. To provide objective indicators of students’ social emotional competence, the school would begin using standardized tools (e.g., Devereux Student Strengths Assessment) starting with kindergarten through 2nd-grade students in the next school year. These adjustments resulted in the continuous improvement indicator improving from a 3 to a 4 (see Table 5).

A final artifact reviewed consisted of planning documents for the subsequent school year, specifically those laying out how staff would be supported during the implementation of the SEL curriculum adopted. One document described the re-alignment of school leaders to support teachers in their use of the curriculum. According to this plan, the two existing assistant principals would work with one another’s teachers to emphasize their role as “supporters” of teacher growth rather than as “evaluators.”

Focus groups

School leadership

Members of the school leadership team were asked to reflect on the different specific capacities from the initial school readiness questionnaire, in particular SEL expertise building, alignment of resources, alignment of disciplinary practices with a trauma-informed SEL program, and the identification and use of SEL standards. A summary of changes identified in focus groups for each of these capacity areas can be found in Table 5. With respect to expertise building, school leaders indicated that one of the more effective approaches to professional learning was the visit to the SEL model school where teachers had an opportunity to observe trauma-informed, SEL strategies being used in classrooms. In one person’s words, “Telling teachers about effective SEL practices was not enough.” By having both introductory SEL seminars and the school visit, staff felt that teachers were able to better connect with the practices. This connection prompted school leaders and teachers to co-develop concrete ideas about how they could begin making immediate changes in their practices.

For alignment of disciplinary policies and procedures (and consistent with the artifact review), school leaders described how they modified their disciplinary procedures, placing less emphasis on the use of punishment/external rewards (e.g., food) and more emphasis on problem solving reasons for off-task behavior, which should help teachers to be more proactive in their management of student behavior.

For identification of SEL standards, school administrators indicated that they were able to make a clear connection between SEL and school policies by focusing on the school’s mission and vision in more action-oriented ways. For instance, rather than including more philosophical statements in the mission/vision, such as the need for students to be “good citizens,” they added concrete actions associated with being a “good citizen.” Examples cited by school administrators included students showing empathy and compassion toward others, treating peers fairly and recognizing one another’s strengths. Similarly, for teachers, “connecting with students” meant referring to students by their name, using kind words, etc. These operational definitions represent important initial steps toward the development of SEL standards.

Teachers

The focus group with teachers focused on perceived benefits of the professional learning opportunities, particularly in relation to changes in the way they interact with students and families. Teachers indicated that the training helped them to connect with their students in more authentic ways. One teacher noted, “Students had evidence that the school and teachers cared about them. Before, we would focus on what students liked about the school (e.g., having pizza parties). Now – we talk to them about their families and we notice when they are absent.” When students return, teachers make more of an effort to find out why they were absent to make sure they are aware of any challenging circumstances that the families may be experiencing.

Similarly, staff talked about the deepening connections with parents/caregivers. For instance, one person noted, “Students get to see their parents at school in a positive light. Before, parents would only come when there was a discipline issue. This past year, the school set up times for parents to engage in school activities (e.g., help with morning news, book fair) that allow opportunities for more meaningful parent engagement.” Teachers indicated that these changes in how staff interact with students and families have allowed students to recognize that staff are there to support them, which helps to build trust between staff and students.

Discussion

In sum, the results of year 2 suggest that the professional development opportunities helped to build the general and specific capacities of the school. Areas that did not show signs of improvement were the collaborative nature of decision-making among school leaders and the school’s budget for SEL programming. Both of these capacity indicators were in the proficient range in year 1; as a result, SEL program staff devoted more energy to improving those areas that were on the lower end (i.e., improvement recommended or required).

The current case study demonstrates one approach for strengthening a school’s readiness for SEL programming. An in-depth needs assessment improved understanding of the school’s general and specific capacities for the program. This information was used to design trauma-informed SEL professional development opportunities with school leaders and teachers that resulted in important changes in foundational practices and policies needed to support and sustain an SEL program.

Few studies have examined the use of a comprehensive assessment of a school’s need for SEL programming. Although program implementation frameworks recommend conducting a needs assessment, schools have little guidance on what specific measures should be included in the needs assessment and how those results then should be used to guide SEL plans. In the current study, multiple methods of assessment were used to inform the needs of the school. The school leadership questionnaire and focus groups focused on understanding key indicators of general and specific capacities that previous research has shown to be important for effectively implementing SEL programs in schools (Dane & Schneider, 1998; Durlak, 2016; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Malloy et al., 2015). In addition, observations of the school and classroom climate provided objective descriptions of how the school’s environment and teachers’ interactions with students aligned with trauma-informed SEL practices. Together, the results indicated school strengths, particularly teachers’ openness to new programs, few competing priorities, existing continuous improvement processes, and collaborative decision-making. Areas in need of improvement were largely related to specific SEL capacities, although some general capacity issues were identified by the leadership questionnaire, and other sources of information were used to expand on these identified areas. For instance, according to the leadership questionnaire, the general capacity indicator with the lowest rating and marked for improvement was the school’s previous history of implementing programs with fidelity. The focus groups with teachers allowed for a deeper exploration of this indicator, the results of which identified specific barriers to previous program implementation, including lack of teacher buy-in and regular training to support implementation.

Although the two observational tools used to gather evidence of the climate of the school and classrooms (Responsive School Scan and CLASS) involved more time investment to administer (compared to questionnaires and focus groups), the knowledge gained from these observational assessments was worth the time expended. School climate is difficult to capture using a questionnaire or survey alone, and the Responsive School Scan included specific environmental indicators that could be easily identified by an observer and objectively shared with school leaders. Similarly, the CLASS observations directly informed the emotionally supportive and positive classroom management practices that teachers provided to their students, which previous research has shown to be positive predictors of teachers’ initial fidelity of implementation of SEL curricula Thierry et al. (2020). Based on these findings, the professional development provided to faculty in year 2 could be tailored to target knowledge and skill development related to these CLASS domains. Furthermore, informed by the more punitive approach to discipline indicated by both the school readiness questionnaire and teachers’ scores on the classroom organizational domain of CLASS, significant time in the professional development seminars was devoted to the provision of more proactive, non-punitive strategies for managing student behavior.

Consistent with the guidelines of the NCTSN framework, the introductory professional learning focused on raising staff awareness of the impact of trauma and ACEs on children’s physiological and psychological development. The hypothesis was that becoming more trauma-informed would trigger shifts in school leaders’ and teachers’ mindsets regarding the kinds of positive interactions that are foundational for effectively implementing an SEL program. Hence, the professional development opportunities were not designed to effect widespread improvement in CLASS domains, as more intensive coaching with teachers would be required for that level of behavior change (Hamre et al., 2012; Pianta, Mashburn et al., 2008). Reflections of the school principal and teachers during the focus groups in study 2 suggested that the professional development succeeded in raising awareness of trauma and ACEs and how practices among school staff can better align with a trauma-informed approach. In particular, the opportunity to observe trauma-informed SEL practices in action by visiting a model school appeared to be a particularly helpful way for teachers to more deeply connect with these practices. This awareness-raising was likely critical for staff to recognize any areas of misalignment of current practices with trauma-informed practices.

Furthermore, addressing these misalignments assisted administrators and teachers as they began the process of deciding what practices to keep, modify, or throw out. This type of reflection set the stage for the more intensive professional development (i.e., one-on-one coaching with teachers) that was implemented in the third year of the partnership along with the adopted SEL curriculum. Year 2 observations of the school climate and review of artifacts related to disciplinary practices provided further evidence of these shifts in mindsets. In particular, the review of revisions to disciplinary procedures indicated less of a focus on zero tolerance models for managing student behavior and more of a focus on trauma-informed, problem-solving approaches. For example, administrators, teachers, and staff began to seek understanding of the reasons for student behavior challenges (i.e., “chase the why”). This type of policy change alone can lead to positive shifts in school climate, which is critical for building trust with students and families (Augustine et al., 2018). The disciplinary policy changes were accompanied by more specific expectations for student behavior, which can serve as initial steps in the formulation of SEL learning standards.

Taken together, the indicators reviewed provided evidence of early changes that are likely critical for effectively implementing SEL programs. These kinds of early changes have been largely ignored in extant studies of SEL curricula, which tend to focus on experimental or quasi-experimental designs that have the primary goal of showing how programs implemented with high levels of fidelity affect student outcomes (Durlak et al., 2011). Furthermore, the use of a needs assessment to assess SEL program readiness has not been described in any previous studies of SEL programs of which the authors are aware. The results provided by a needs assessment can allow SEL program providers to meet a school community where they are and build out a program tailored to the school community’s specific needs, which, in the long run, should increase sustainability of any SEL program adopted. In addition to the improvement indicated by state academic accountability indicators at the end of the third year of the partnership, two years later, the school received state recognition for its efforts to engage families and the community as they adapted to meet students’ needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, which serves as another example of the strength of SEL integration efforts.

Areas that were not impacted by the initial professional development included the alignment of financial resources to support the program in the long term and the extent to which faculty and staff are included in decision-making among school leaders. These areas were rated in the proficient range based on the school leadership questionnaire and were thus not prioritized during the year 2 professional learning. As the program moved forward in subsequent years, the support for school leaders did expand to address these capacity indicators.

Limitations of study and directions for future research

The current study focused on qualitative indicators of initial improvements in capacity for SEL programming among school leaders and faculty. Future studies might incorporate quantitative measures, such as self-efficacy scales administered to teachers before and after professional development. In addition, the school leadership questionnaire should undergo validation studies by expanding use to a larger number of schools that are beginning implementation of SEL programs. Correlations between scores on the assessment and initial fidelity of implementation of SEL programs, for example, could be conducted to ensure that the indicators are capturing areas important for effective program implementation. Another limitation of the study was the lack of focus on district leaders. Although the school principal received the support from her direct report district administrator to undertake the SEL partnership, there was not much engagement of other district leaders representing other departments. Future studies should seek to engage district staff from other key departments, such as curriculum and instruction, student health, and student assessment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Roger C Ryan.

Appendix A.

Scoring rubric for school leadership SEL capacity questionnaire

General Capacity Indicators:

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

Specific Capacity Indicators:

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.

Appendix B.

Focus group questions: Study 1

1. What are the current strengths of the school?

2. What are the current challenges faced by the school?

3. How could a social emotional learning initiative help to address the challenges?

4. What strategies have been previously used by the school to address the social and emotional needs of students and families? What barriers, if any, were encountered in implementing the strategies?

5. What would be the greatest need for support if an SEL program were implemented?

Appendix C.

Focus group questions: Study 2

1. What impact, if any, has the SEL professional learning opportunities had on your interactions with students?

2. What impact, if any, has the SEL professional learning opportunities had on your interactions with families?

3. Have there been any changes in disciplinary policies and procedures as a result of the professional development? If so, describe these changes.

4. If positive impact occurred, what aspects of the professional development opportunities were particularly helpful to you?