University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

(USC Thesis Other)

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: Social-Emotional Learning in K-12 Populations 1

LEVERAGING SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING TO IMPROVE SCHOOL CLIMATE,
MENTAL HEALTH, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN K-12 STUDENT
POPULATIONS

by

Stephanie Burroughs

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Stephanie Burroughs
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

2
2
DEDICATION

To my husband, Brendan, for being my strength and my motivation. You have done more
for me than any one person deserves. Most importantly, you have given me the confidence to
pursue my passion and have selflessly put everything on hold to get me to this finish line. I love
you.
To my children, Jackson and Sophia, for being my inspiration. There’s nothing I love
more than being your mom. Every day I watch as you grow into amazing humans and I hope to
be the example for you to never give up on happiness and never give up on pursuing your
dreams. You deserve it.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

3
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my incredible dissertation chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey, for her encouragement
and support throughout the dissertation process. You have kept me calm and supported me in
crafting a study for which I am proud. Thank you also to my committee members Dr. Larry
Picus and Dr. Jennifer Crawford for taking the time to support me on this process and offering
invaluable feedback along the way. I would also be remiss if I did not thank Reginald Ryder for
talking me off the ledge as many times as I needed it and for being a listening ear. Lastly, I am
incredibly grateful for my USC Family. My peers in the program have been encouraging and
supportive. I will forever remember my time at USC and the remarkable people I have had the
privilege of getting to know.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

4
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 8

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 9
Background of the Problem 10
Related Literature 11
Social-Emotional Learning and Mental Health 11
Student Achievement and Mental Health 12
School Climate and Mental Health 13
Importance of a Promising Practice Project 14
Organizational Context and Mission 15
Organizational Performance Status 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholder Group of Focus 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Methodological Framework 19
Definitions 21
Organization of the Project 22

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23
School Culture 24
School Culture and Student Achievement 24
School Culture and Teacher Professional Culture 25
School Culture and Teacher-Student Relationships 26
Mental Health 27
Mental Health and School Culture 27
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

5
5
Mental Health and Student Achievement 28
Mental Health and Student-Teacher Relationships 30
Social-Emotional Learning 30
Social-Emotional Learning and Mental Health 30
Social-Emotional Learning and School Culture 32
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 32
Knowledge and Skills 33
Motivation 38
Organization 43
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context 49
Conclusion 51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 53
Purpose of the Project and Questions 53
Methodological Framework 54
Sampling and Recruitment Narrative 55
Participating Stakeholders 55
Sampling Criteria and Rationale 55
Interview Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale 56
Data Collection and Instrumentation 56
Documents and Artifacts 57
Interviews 58
Data Analysis and Reporting 60
Credibility and Trustworthiness 61
Ethics 62
Limitations and Delimitations 63
Conclusions Section 64

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

6
6
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 66
Participating Stakeholders 66
Results 68
Knowledge Results 68
Motivation Results 72
Organization Results 77
Findings 81
Research Question 1 82
Research Question 2 89
Synthesis 93

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 96
Organizational Context and Mission 97
Organizational Performance Status 98
Description of Stakeholder Groups 98
Stakeholder Group of Focus 99
Purpose of the Project and Questions 100
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 101
Knowledge Recommendations 101
Motivation Recommendations 105
Organization Recommendations 110
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 114
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 114
Organization Purpose, Need, and Expectations 114
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 115
Level 3: Behaviors 116
Level 2: Learning 120
Level 1: Reaction 123
Evaluation Tools 124
Summary 125
Strengths and Weaknesses of Approach 126
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

7
7
Limitations and Delimitations 127
Recommendations for Future Research 128
Conclusion 129
References 131
APPENDIX A 142
Interview Protocol
APPENDIX B 145
Administrator Training Evaluation Tool
APPENDIX C 146
Guiding Protocol for Stakeholder Reflection

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

8
8
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the strategic planning process for school
districts in the Commonwealth that have engaged in implementing social-emotional learning
programs to improve student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom. The intentions
were to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that may have
contributed to or hindered district progress in successfully implementing social-emotional
learning across a K-12 education environment. The study looked at three school districts in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts that had engaged in multiple years of implementing social-
emotional learning programming and were in a position where they could reflect on their
progress. The study found that while motivators for engaging in this work varied, the
participating districts had all focused on building capacity by supporting the utility value of
social-emotional learning programming, placing an emphasis on professional learning and
professional learning communities, and leveraging systems for accountability and measurement
to set clear targets for school improvement outcomes. While each of the districts had found
success in purchasing a program at the elementary grade bands, each of the participating districts
voiced concerns with the lack of cohesive resources for social-emotional learning at the
secondary level. Recommendations for future research would be to explore the teacher
stakeholder group response to social-emotional learning programs and also to research the
implementation of social-emotional learning programming at the secondary level.

Keywords: social-emotional learning, teacher leadership, strategic planning, K-12 education

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

9
9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction of the Problem of Practice

Social-emotional learning and educating the whole child have been recent initiatives
within national, state, and local education organizations in an effort to improve school climate
for the benefit of student well-being. According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning or CASEL (2018), state funding opportunities related to social-emotional
learning have been embedded in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and all 50 states have
integrated social-emotional learning into their pre-school standards. As this movement has
progressed, eight states have integrated social emotional learning standards into their elementary
grades and eight more have initiated a K-12 framework (CASEL, 2018). The American
Institutes for Research, the largest global research organization for behavioral and social
sciences, has grouped these issues together under the umbrella of mental health awareness and
coupled this conversation with establishing “safe, supportive learning environments” (AIR,
2017). The reasoning behind this shift in focus toward mental health awareness is a 24% increase
in suicide rates across all age groups since 1999 and statistics that highlight 1 in 5 youths and
forty-four million adults suffer from mental illness (AIR, 2017). Connections have been forged
with K-12 education systems as a growing body of research has suggested our K-12 student
populations are disengaged academically and socially. According to Gallup Education, students
from ages 5 through 17 have been experiencing declining engagement in the classroom across
the nation (Gallup, 2015). This data also highlighted a trend in disengagement as it pertains to
school climate and culture, specifically highlighting the student-teacher relationship and the
student belief that adults in the building care about them (Gallup, 2015). Together, this data
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

10
10
supports a social-emotional concern in K-12 student populations and a need to focus on mental
health awareness.

Background of the Problem

Twenty-two states have engaged in education policy on accountability and school
improvement to support social-emotional learning in an effort to address national mental health
concerns (Cohen, 2009). According to Cohen, there are four major influences of school climate
that include safety, teaching and learning, relationships, and environmental-structural (Cohen,
2006; Freiberg, 1999). These influences speak to placing value on social-emotional learning,
increasing student connectedness to their teachers and the greater school community, and
establishing a learning environment that is physically and emotionally safe for students. In a
2015 Gallup study on student engagement and its impact on student achievement, nearly one
million students were surveyed and only 39% of students identified that there is an adult in the
building who cares about them (Gallup, 2015). When looking at this percentage across grade
levels, there was a 30% decline from grade 5 to grade 12, with the lowest percentages of 23% in
grades 10 and 11 (Gallup, 2015). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a national
organization committed to supporting research and policy to improve health and well-being in
the United States, has identified student disconnectedness along with mood swings and
decreased student achievement as early indicators of mental health issues and has recommended
social-emotional learning and a positive, safe school environment as interventions to support
mental health in K-12 student populations (HHS, 2017).

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

11
11
Related Literature
Student mental health in K-12 education systems has been directly connected to student
achievement, school climate, and social-emotional learning. These connections vary in their
cause and effect relationships across research, but their relationship is undeniable. In this next
section, the relationship between each of these facets in child development will be discussed
through related literature and recent research studies.
Social-Emotional Learning and Mental Health
Social-emotional learning as an integrated focus, as opposed to a separate intervention
strategy for mental health incidences, can have a greater impact on student well-being,
improving school climate and preventing mental health incidences. Cohen (2009) discusses that
historically research has made strong connections between school climate and student well-
being. Studies dating back more than 100 years connect student well-being and academic
achievement to school climate, making the argument for an emphasis on social emotional
learning in education accountability systems given the clear connection between social-
emotional learning, school climate, and student well-being (Cohen, 2009). In a similar context,
Ringeisen (2003) recommends that Mental Health Research should not solely focus on
intervention, but should capitalize on school environment as being an opportunity to integrate
mental health research into academics and learning. Ringeisen (2003) described the gaps in
research with regard to a lack of focus on the impact of mental health on student achievement,
behavior, and attendance, further citing 2001 statistics from the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services that 78% of children with emotional disorders do not graduate high
school. Ringeisen (2003) argued that mental health interventions cannot be successful if they are
viewed as a separate item from the contextual, academic environment. The National
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

12
12
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health examined 36,000 7th-12th grade students and the
impact of protective factors on student health and well-being, indicating a positive correlation
between social-emotional supports and prevention of mental health crisis (CDC, 2009). This
qualitative study involved an analysis of interview data from interviews conducted in participant
homes. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that enhancing student
connectedness in school promotes student health and may prevent incidences of mental health,
violence, substance abuse, and self-harm (CDC, 2009). Research and national studies have
concluded that social-emotional learning programs support student well-being and prevent
mental health crisis. Inattention to mental health has an adverse impact on student achievement.
Student Achievement and Mental Health
Student academic achievement declines in incidences of Mental Health Disorders,
namely those associated with anxiety, depression, and stress. Quiroga (2013) affirmed that
students with depression have an increased probability of academic failure and are 23% more
likely to drop out. His longitudinal study from 2000 to 2006 consisted of a subgroup of students
identified as high risk for academic underperformance in two secondary schools. The results of
the study showed that students with depression were more likely to feel less competent and in
control of their academic domain (Quiroga, 2013). Andrews (2004) found external factors in
student life contributed to increased incidences of mental health, reporting that 9% of symptom
free students became depressed and 20% of symptom free students became anxious by the
middle of their first semester in an undergraduate program. The study included a heterogeneous
group of 351 undergraduate students that ranged in having pre-existing mental health conditions
to no pre-existing conditions. Increased incidences in anxiety and depression were identified as
predictors for declining exam scores in individuals (Andrews, 2004). While this study was done
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

13
13
at the undergraduate level as opposed to the secondary level, the implication that external
factors in student life can increase anxiety and depression in student populations and in turn
decrease academic achievement was clear. Cohen (2006) claimed that positive school climate
was predictive of academic achievement. The research review examined multiple empirical
research studies on school climate, specifically connecting social-emotional well-being and a
positive learning environment to academic achievement. Cohen (2006) discussed the need for
systems of measurement to assess the impact of social-emotional learning on mental health and
academic achievement, but also identified that indicators of measurement for both categories
were identical in school settings. Mental health disorders were thus linked to decreases in
academic achievement. School climates that support social-emotional health and a safe and
positive learning environment support academic achievement and student well-being, preventing
mental health crisis.
School Climate and Mental Health
A school climate that integrates social-emotional learning with improvements in the
learning environment, student supports and interventions, and fostering positive relationships can
improve student mental health. Improvements in school climate positively impacted student
perception on scales measuring satisfaction with school and support for academic achievement
(Anderson, 2008). The longitudinal study on school climate involved 9th-11th grade students and
their teachers, totaling 1886 students. Methods for the study involved looking at a control group
of schools in comparison to schools that focused on school climate improvement initiatives. The
study found teacher and student perceptions of school climate to change with targeted school
climate improvement initiatives (Anderson, 2008). Lester and Cross (2015) also confirmed that
school climate factors of feeling safe at school, peer support, and feeling connected to school are
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

14
14
all protective of mental and emotional well-being. Their longitudinal study began with 5
th

graders and identified over time the strongest predictors of student well-being as it relates to
school climate (Lester & Cross, 2015). In a study dating back to 1973 that focused on teacher
impact on student well-being, there was a positive correlation between teacher and student
anxiety (Doyal & Forsyth, 1973). Evidence included a study of 234 3
rd
graders across 10
different teachers and concluded that teachers with increased anxiety levels had students with
increased anxiety levels. This study further defined the role that education personnel play in
maintaining a positive school climate. Research has determined that focused improvements in
school climate can improve student well-being and decrease incidences of mental health crisis.
Improvement in school climate can help to improve mental health incidences in K-12 student
populations.

Importance of a Promising Practice Project

A 2015 study by the American Enterprise Institute highlighted that K-12 school reform
efforts have failed to focus on the components of social-emotional learning that are necessary to
improve education, employment, and family life, making recommendations that both federal and
state policy commit to expanding social-emotional learning standards and improving on SEL
practices (CASEL, 2018). It is the obligation of K-12 public education systems to address this
problem as the Department of Education has identified improving school climate as a guiding
principle for school improvement, highlighting the need for social-emotional learning and mental
health supports to prevent crisis and foster student achievement (U.S. Department of Education,
2014). A 2016 report from the Rennie Center on Education Research and Policy articulated the
need for school districts in the Commonwealth to begin to integrate social-emotional learning as
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

15
15
growing numbers of students are experiencing anxiety, emotional trauma, and poor self-
control (Rennie Center, 2016). The Center developed an action guide for school districts that
specifically addressed these concerns and layed out a comprehensive frame for action that
included a set of four priorities for Massachusetts school districts, prioritizing that school
districts build K-12 systems for social-emotional support (Rennie Center, 2016). Since this
guide, the exSEL Network has been established at the Rennie Center to facilitate school district
engagement in integrating social-emotional learning programs. The exSEL Network has
provided a collaborative professional development experience to support school districts on
developing an understanding of social-emotional learning and engaging in best practices that
support the effective implementation of K-12 social-emotional supports in their home districts
(Rennie Center, 2016). Given this progress, it is necessary to better understand district success in
implementing social-emotional learning into school improvement plans in order to inform future
work.

Organizational Context and Mission
Research supports the development of K-12 strategic plans on improving student sense of
social-emotional security in the classroom. This area of performance has affected K-12 school
districts’ ability to provide a safe learning environment for all students as recommended by the
U.S. Department of Education (US Department of Education, 2014). National research centers,
including the National School Climate Center (2017) and Gallup Education (2015), have
highlighted student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom as being a critical area of
focus for school improvement based on data collected from student, teacher, and parent
stakeholder groups over time. In particular, the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory has
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

16
16
specifically found student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom to be a top three
concern across all stakeholder groups for participating districts across the nation (NSCC, 2017).
This survey data supports school improvement recommendations at the state level for integrating
social-emotional learning curriculum into K-12 school districts, supporting organization
performance goals on exploring social-emotional learning curriculum, collecting data on staff
knowledge of social-emotional learning, and determining the action steps necessary to improve
student sense of social and emotional security.

Organizational Performance Status

School districts in the Commonwealth have established organizational performance goals
to improve student sense of social and emotional security in the classroom through the
integration of social-emotional learning throughout K-12 education systems. The intent of
exploring social and emotional learning as an organizational goal is directly connected to
national school improvement recommendations, which are intended to improve school climate
and decrease mental health incidences in K-12 student populations. The organizations studied
were school districts that have been identified as early adopters in social-emotional learning
programming in the Commonwealth. These organizations have recognized the need to focus on
student mental health, employing a variety of programming and professional development for
staff to support a focus on social-emotional learning. In the past few years, the Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has become more specific in their
use of social-emotional learning language in curriculum frameworks, strategic planning, and the
state educator evaluation tools. This progression has made it necessary to look at school districts
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

17
17
who have engaged in this work for years to understand their process and the impact it has had
on school climate, student achievement, and mental health.

Description of Stakeholder Groups

Stakeholder groups include administrators, students, teachers, and parents in the school
community. The administrator stakeholder group is comprised of K-12 district administrators
that contribute to the strategic planning and school improvement process. This group includes K-
12 district administrators in addition to building level administrators as both levels of
administration contribute to the organizational change process. The student stakeholder group is
defined as school age students to include grades kindergarten through twelfth grade. The teacher
stakeholder group is comprised of all classroom teachers at the elementary, middle, and high
school grade bands. The parent stakeholder group includes parents of students enrolled in public
schools within K-12 school districts in Massachusetts.

Stakeholder Group of Focus

Although a complete analysis would include the input from all stakeholder groups, for
practical purposes the administrator stakeholder group was the area of focus for this study. This
decision was made in part due to the direct connection of this stakeholder group to the school
district’s outlined goals for organization improvement. Embedded within school improvement
planning and district strategic planning processes is a commitment to determine the action steps
required to move a district forward on identified initiatives. State education policy around social-
emotional learning has driven many districts to embed goals on the implementation of social-
emotional learning into district level strategic planning and school improvement plans. While the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

18
18
strategic planning process and product may look different across districts, participating
districts intended to focus on gaining an understanding of the social and emotional learning
curriculum available to K-12 school districts and the ways in which the district and building
administrators could support staff in obtaining the knowledge and skills necessary to implement
it. Given that administrators are the primary manager of professional development and
implementation of programming, it could be inferred that the administrator stakeholder group’s
work on planning the implementation of social-emotional learning would be critical to
understanding how to initiate organizational change and thus a necessary focus for this study.
Data collected on administrators strategic planning and rollout of social-emotional learning can
thus be used to understand how districts have improved teacher knowledge and motivation as it
relates to integrating social-emotional learning in the classroom. Should the administrator
stakeholder group not focus on strategic planning with regard to integrating social-emotional
learning programs, it would be likely that student sense of social and emotional security would
remain a concerning data point on school climate inventories.

Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that have contributed to or interfered with the organization’s goal to implement social-
emotional learning initiatives in-line with state education policy recommendations. The analysis
began by examining the strategic planning process for participating school districts and
understanding the variances in action steps associated with social-emotional learning initiatives.
The intention of the study was to better understand these variances and determine how districts
have been successful in improving teacher knowledge and motivation, and thus maximizing the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

19
19
impact of integrating social-emotional learning in the classroom. A key focus of the study was
to look at the differences in the implementation of social-emotional learning initiatives at the
elementary and secondary level. While a complete analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis was administrators.
The questions that will guide the promising practice study were intended to address
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization causes and solutions for the stakeholder
group and included:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets in relation to implementing
social emotional learning initiatives in a K-12 setting?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?

Methodological Framework
The design of the methodology for this project incorporated a KMO gap analysis of the
administrator stakeholder group’s ability to develop strategic plans to improve student sense of
social-emotional security in the classroom. The gap analysis required the collection of data as it
pertains to administrator knowledge of social-emotional learning in the classroom, administrator
motivation to integrate social emotional learning in the classroom, and organization influences
relative to the adoption of social-emotional learning in the classroom. The qualitative study
involved interviewing district administrators in K-12 school districts in Massachusetts. In this
design, qualitative data was collected in order to gain a better understanding of district
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

20
20
implementation of social-emotional learning initiatives and its perceived impact on school
climate, mental health, and student achievement.
As explained by Creswell (2014), qualitative research design allows the researcher to
look in depth at the topic of a study to gain a thorough understanding of the stakeholder group’s
interaction with the topic of study and influences on the topic. Given the potential variances in
interpretation of social emotional learning by K-12 school districts, a qualitative study in the
form of interviews will allow the researcher to better understand the similarities and differences
apparent in district implementation of state policy recommendations. In approaching data
collection in this manner, it was possible for the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of the
research questions as it relates to the stakeholder group.
The qualitative portion of the study involved interviews of K-12 district administrators
that have engaged in a strategic planning process that has integrated social emotional learning
initiatives and action steps. Interviews included four districts administrators from K-12 school
districts in the Commonwealth. The intention of the interviews was to gain an understanding of
the administrator stakeholder group’s understanding of social emotional learning as it pertains to
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. Interviews were structured to better
understand how administrator interpretation of social-emotional learning policy
recommendations has manifested into a key component of the district’s strategic plan. Further
intentions of the interviews included collecting data on the variances in implementation of
social-emotional learning in school districts in the Commonwealth. These variances, coupled
with the KMO influences impacting strategic planning, provided a deeper understanding of how
social emotional learning has been integrated into school improvement planning. Lastly, the
interviews provided the researcher with an opportunity to understand district successes in
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

21
21
implementing social-emotional learning and make recommendation for school districts
beginning this process.
Definitions
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL): The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
learning defines “Social and emotional learning (SEL) [as] the process through which children
and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to
understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for
others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions” (CASEL,
2018).
Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan is a multi-year plan written by district administrators and
presented to the School Committee. The plan outlines the vision and goals for improvement that
have been prioritized by the superintendent of schools and district administrators.
School Improvement Plan: School Improvement Plans are building specific annual plans that
principals develop with their leadership team. The plan aligns to the district strategic plan and
represents the building response to the district vision and district goals for improvement.
District Administrator: District Administrators are K-12 education leaders who responsibilities
expand across multiple buildings. These administrators are responsible for the execution of the
district strategic plan and the accountability structure in place to ensure that buildings are
carrying through the district strategic plan work.
Elementary: Elementary schools are schools that include grades kindergarten through five.
Secondary: Secondary schools are schools that include grades six through grade twelve. This can
include middle schools, junior high schools, middle high schools, and high schools.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

22
22
Mental Health: According to the US Department for Health and Human Services, “Mental
health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being” (US Department of Health
and Human Services, 2017).
Student Achievement: Student achievement includes academic performance measures such as
local, state, and national assessment, academic grades, and pursuit of K-12 advanced
coursework.
School Climate: School climate refers to the classroom and community environment for a K-12
school districts and encompasses the relationships, attitudes, values, and supports available to K-
12 student populations.
Organization of the Project
This study sought to determine whether the administrator stakeholder group has
effectively identified the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that pertain to the
improvement of student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom. In the context of the
organization and organizational performance goal in this particular study, it was important that
the researcher was able to determine whether the administrator stakeholder group has been able
to identify and create action steps for implementing social-emotional learning initiatives that
align with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within their school district.
The qualitative study examined administrator knowledge and motivation in relation to social-
emotional learning, organizational influences that have informed the strategic planning process,
and the perceived successes in relation to implementing social-emotional learning programming.
Through this research, informed recommendations have been made by the researcher to improve
an organization’s ability to engage in a strategic planning process that was effective in
implementing district-wide social-emotional learning improvement plans.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

23
23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This literature review will discuss historical research and findings that will provide
context to the action steps necessary to address student sense of social emotional security in the
classroom. Based on national comprehensive school climate inventory data, student sense of
social emotional security in the classroom has been identified as a top priority across teacher,
parent, and student stakeholder groups at the secondary education level (NSCC, 2017). This
problem parallels a growing national concern over student mental health, increased instances of
anxiety and depression, and a commitment to creating a safe and positive school environment for
all students (US Department of Education, 2014). The Collaborative for Academic, Social and
Emotional Learning has worked in concert with federal education agencies to develop school
improvement recommendations that address this national concern, including the development of
a framework of social emotional learning competencies to promote the mental health and well-
being of all students (CASEL, 2017). In this chapter I will first review historical research on
school culture, mental health, and social emotional learning. I will review the role of the
administrator stakeholder group followed by an explanation of the theories of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences used in this study. Next I will turn my attention to the
administrator stakeholder group specifically and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences associated with administrator involvement in addressing the problem of practice. I
will complete the chapter by presenting the conceptual framework to be used for this study.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

24
24
School Culture
School Culture and Student Achievement
Research has consistently demonstrated a correlation between school culture and student
academic achievement. Pritchard (2005), discusses the noticeable impact school culture has on
student achievement. His study looked longitudinally at 2000 students in grades four, eight, and
eleven, examining trends in tone throughout the study. Through this study, Pritchard was able to
examine the relationship between district culture, student achievement, and student attitudes
about their school over time (Pritchard, 2005). Contributing to this discussion, Marcoulides
(2005) looked deeper at the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) data
to examine the relationship between student perceptions of school culture and its impact on
student achievement. This study looked at results from 1026 students in grade 8, challenging
existing models on culture and student achievement, and determining that there was a correlation
between student perception of their school’s environment and achievement on this particular
assessment (Marcoulides, 2005). Adding to this discussion in 2009, MacNeil found a
relationship between school achievement ratings and the ten dimensions of organizational health
inventory (MacNeil, 2009). In using this inventory to analyze rates of success in individual
school districts, this study found that healthy learning environments had higher rates of student
achievement (MacNeil, 2009). In contrast to the argument for the relationship between increased
student achievement and positive perceptions of school culture, Ripski (2009) looked deeper at
the negative impact perceptions of school culture can have on academic achievement. In his
study of high school students, Ripski looked at the relationships between perceived unfairness
and found these perceptions to be predictors of lower individual student engagement and lower
achievement in reading and mathematics.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

25
25
Through this research on the potential relationship between school culture and student
achievement, recommendations for improving school culture and creating a “culture of learning”
have been made consistently through research, policy, and position papers. One such example is
Taylor’s study that focused on leadership’s role in improving student achievement (Taylor,
2010). Through a study of 62 leaders at the district and school level across ten states, Taylor
developed leadership recommendation to improvement student achievement and create a culture
of learning within school districts, recognizing the relationship between student achievement and
school culture (Taylor, 2010). Adding to these recommendations at the secondary level, Tichnor-
Wagner, Harrison, and Cohen-Vogel (2016) looked specifically at four case study schools to
analyze the prevalence of an established learning culture across schools. The study interviewed
135 administrators, teacher, and students to compare the learning culture between the adults and
the students and gain an understanding of the impact of school culture on student engagement
(Tichnor-Wagner, 2016). Findings of this study suggest that the culture amongst adults in a
school building impacts student culture, highlighting a need to look at the impact of teacher
professional culture on school culture in order to ultimately support student achievement.
School Culture and Teacher Professional Culture
Teacher professional culture and engagement impact school culture. Given the teacher’s
role in the classroom and direct impact on students, recent research has looked specifically at the
relationship between teacher professional culture and school culture. This research has included
discussions on working conditions, collaborative culture, and job satisfaction, to determine
whether improving the teacher culture in school districts can impact the school culture. Recent
work by Ohlson (2016), examined the relationship between a collaborative school culture and
student suspension rates. The study looked at 50 public schools in the southeastern region of the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

26
26
United States and found that as teacher collaboration increased, student suspensions decreased
by 6.709% (Ohlson, 2016). This indicates that teacher professional culture has an influence on
student behavior. To further this connections, a more substantial study was done in the state of
New York that involved a longitudinal sampling of 130,00 students, 9,000 teachers, and 225
New York City public schools (Weiner, 2017). The study’s intention was to investigate the
relationship between teacher professional culture and student engagement (Weiner, 2017). The
findings support a positive relationship between teacher views of school culture and student
views of school culture (Weiner, 2017). The study findings point to the influence that teachers
have on the learning culture in a school district and the influence that teachers have on student
attitude. Another longitudinal study that focused on early childhood education found a positive
relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student reading growth (Banerjee, 2017). While
the study solely focused on students in grades kindergarten through grade five, findings support
that school culture and teacher job satisfaction interactively affected student achievement in both
math and reading (Banerjee, 2017). This research on school culture and teacher professional
culture thus suggests that teachers can influence student behavior, student perception of their
school culture, and student achievement. Overall, findings support a connection between teachers
and students, highlighting a need to look deeper at the impact of student-teacher relationships on
school culture.
School Culture and Teacher-Student Relationships

Positive teacher and student relationships positively impact school culture and climate. In
2011, several studies were published that explored this relationship and support the claim that the
relationship teachers have with students has a strong influence on student perception of school
culture. One such study explored teacher distress and found a negative impact on student-peer
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

27
27
relations, indicating that teachers have an impact on student culture (Barr, 2011). Barr (2011),
focused on understanding the impact teacher empathy may have on perceptions of school culture.
The study interviewed 100 teachers enrolled in a graduate program that taught in elementary,
middle, and high school levels. While the assumption of the researcher was that teacher empathy
would impact school culture these findings were minimally supported, however there was a
relationship between teacher distress and student-student relationships (Barr, 2011). A second
study in Belgium looked at more than 2000 secondary school teachers to explore teacher trust
(Maele, 2011). The study found that teacher perceptions of student teach-ability directly
correlated with student trust and a positive student-teacher relationship (Meale, 2011). Meale
(2011), makes the argument that teacher trust is directly connected to the organizational culture
of the school and thus the bridge between school culture and positive student-teacher
relationships. A third study on school culture examined multiple relationships between the
aspirations of middle school students (McCollum, 2011). Within this study, McCollum (2011)
looked at perceptions of academic culture and teacher regard as an influencer on student
aspiration. The study found that perceptions of school culture and perceptions of student-teacher
relationships were relevant factors for the aspirations of middle school students (McCollum,
2011). In summary, it is clear that there is a connection between teacher-student relationships
and student perception of school as it relates to both school culture and student motivation.

Mental Health
Mental Health and School Culture
Research recommendations have consistently been made to improve student mental health
through the development of a positive school environment and culture. This overlap between
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

28
28
student mental health and school culture is not a new concept. Dating back to 1996, Carlson
suggested ways to reform the structure of school systems to provide integrated mental health
services (Carlson, 1996). Carlson (1996) discussed the need to reform current efforts to support
mental health and student achievement, arguing that amending school culture to be one that
supports student mental health can likely solve mental health concerns and student achievement
concerns. In 2005, Barnes focused on reports on the mental health of children in the United
Kingdom, United States, and Europe. Barnes (2005) established a global concern over the mental
health of children as researched by the World Health Organization. He further discusses the need
to promote student sense of security and happiness as a means to address student achievement,
suggesting that improvements in school environment are linked to both student achievement and
student mental health (Barnes, 2005). To add to this argument, Trussell (2008) asserts that school
districts are in a unique position to target youth mental health. According to Trussell (2008),
instructional approaches that are inclusive combined with training teachers on social problem
solving and mentoring can provide a classroom culture that is supportive of student mental well-
being. Rowling (2009) makes recommendations on school mental health promotion in this same
regard. According to Rowling (2009), ten years of research in Australia on the MindMatters
student mental health program supports that the critical factors to improving mental health for
students in schools are through leadership and professional learning. When school culture and
teacher professional learning focus on valuing mental health programs, mental health supports
have their best chance (Rowling, 2009).
Mental Health and Student Achievement
Student mental health has been determined to be a predictor of academic achievement. McLeod
(2012) discusses the complexities associated with mental health, behavior, and academic
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

29
29
achievement for adolescents. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health, McLeod looked at how student behavior intersects mental health diagnosis and which
combinations of behavior and mental health concerns were most likely to predict decreased
academic achievement (McLeod, 2012). The study involved more than 6,000 students and
controlled for academic aptitude in order to focus specifically on achievement as it relates to
mental health and student behavior (McLeod, 2012). While the study found that depression and
attention problems were not direct predictors of decreased student achievement, when these
symptoms were combined with student behaviors such as delinquency and substance abuse the
result was decreased academic achievement (McLeod, 2012). Although this research does not
directly implicate student mental health as a predictor of academic achievement, the argument
can be made that the absence of mental health supports may lead to student behavior trends for
mental health students that do impact their academic achievement. In this same vein, Allen
(2017) compared academic motivation, mental health, and school belonging to student
achievement. The study looked at 287 secondary schools and the effects of mental health
promotion on student academic performance, finding that the highest academic scores for
students occurred when mental health promotion was included as a school-wide focus (Allen,
2017). Adding to this discussion, Minkkinen (2017) found in a longitudinal study on Finnish
adolescents that class-level health was as strong of a predictor as student-level health on
academic achievement. The study looked at 7,773 twelve and thirteen year olds across 125
schools, finding that student mental health and the mental health of the collective student
environment equally predicted academic achievement (Minkkinen, 2017). The implications of
this study again place an emphasis on student mental health, but also a school culture that
promotes student health, in order to provide an optimal education environment.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

30
30
Mental Health and Student-Teacher Relationships
Student-teacher relationships impact student mental health. Studies in 2013 point toward the
importance of the student-teacher relationship in supporting school connectedness and promoting
student mental health. Drugli (2013) looked at student-teacher relationships and their correlation
with mental health for students ranging in age from six to thirteen. The study found conflict in
student-teacher relationships to correlate with child mental health problems (Drugli, 2013).
Drugli (2013) argues that the study findings support the need to focus on strategies to support
positive student-teacher relationships in order to reduce conflict and foster student mental health
and well-being. Tillery (2013) discusses the importance of adult connections for adolescents,
arguing for an emphasis on adult connections in school improvement efforts. Adult connections,
according to Tillery (2013), support student belonging in schools which is directly connected to
motivation, academic achievement, and self-efficacy. The research discussion supports the
overlap between school connectedness and recent social emotional learning recommendations
that support student success, targeting the critical role that adult relationships play in shaping
student commitment to academics and their schooling (Tillery, 2013).

Social-Emotional Learning
Social-Emotional Learning and Mental Health
The five key competencies of social-emotional learning are intended to address a growing mental
health problem in school age children. These competencies have been articulated by CASEL
(2017) and developed from consistent research that supports a public health approach to public
education to increase student academic achievement, reduce risk behavior amongst adolescents,
and reduce rates of student mental health crisis across the nation. Merrell (2010) looked
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

31
31
specifically at the Oregon Resiliency Project, a project that led to the development of the
Strong Kids program, a school-based SEL curriculum. The project involved an eight-year
research study on the impact of SEL programming at the primary and secondary levels within k-
12 school districts (Merrell, 2010). Despite the purpose of the project being to develop
curriculum and not necessarily arrive at a specific conclusion on the effectiveness of social
emotional learning curriculum on student mental health, throughout the study tweaks were made
to the format and structure of the curriculum based on apparent trends (Merrell, 2010). Merrell
(2010) specifically found a reduction in mental health problem symptoms when implementing
social-emotional learning curriculum. To add to this discussion, Reicher (2017) argues that
improving student social emotional competencies increases engagement, reduces bullying, and
provides insight into the emotional worlds of adolescents. Recommendations from this research
study focus on the need to teachers to be responsive to student social emotional issues and to
leverage SEL curriculum to establish a safe and positive classroom for adolescents (Reicher,
2017). According to Reicher, it is common for the onset of depression to begin in adolescence
and that building supportive and caring relationships with teachers can help offset the impact of
depression in teens (Reicher, 2017). Greenberg (2017) further supports this conclusion in his
research on a public health approach to education. Greenberg discusses both short and long term
impacts of social emotional learning curriculum on students, siting the improvement in school
culture when integrating social emotional learning curriculum as being beneficial for both
students and teachers (Greenburg, 2017). In the long term, students who improve on their social
emotional competencies are more likely to become socially and emotionally competent adults
which will in turn improve public health (Greenberg, 2017).

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

32
32
Social-Emotional Learning and School Culture
Research has demonstrated a connection between school culture and integrating a social
emotional learning curriculum. Payton (2000) outlines a framework for social emotional learning
to support the development of mental health programs for students. Within this framework there
are recommendations for the social emotional competencies teachers should focus on to improve
student mental health and reduce risk behavior (Payton, 2000). Much like the social emotional
learning competencies identified by CASEL (2017), Payton’s competencies focus on relationship
building and social-awareness skills that support a positive school culture and climate (Payton,
2000). Recommendations made within this research study focus on the strategic planning and
professional learning components to integrating social-emotional learning curriculum in order to
support improving school culture through social emotional learning competencies (Payton,
2000). The strategic planning process often includes an emphasis on professional learning and is
a critical component to changing organizational culture. Bracket (2012) speaks to this
importance in his research on understanding how teacher beliefs on social-emotional learning
impact implementation and fidelity of programming. In alignment with Bracket (2012), it is
necessary to understand the conceptual framework required to successfully roll out a social
emotional learning curriculum given its potential to improve school culture, student mental
health, and student achievement.

The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clarke and Estes (2008) prescribe a process for identifying organization performance
goals and determining the gap between the identified goals and the targeted performance level of
stakeholders. After identifying the gap, Clarke and Estes (2008) provide a conceptual framework
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

33
33
for examining the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that may be hindering
stakeholders from meeting the performance goals. It is assumed that, from this analysis,
organizations can develop the action steps necessary to close the performance gap.
Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences will be discussed below in the
context of the administrator stakeholder group as it pertains to meeting the organization
performance goal of improving student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom
through the implementation of social-emotional learning programming. Administrator
knowledge will be addressed as it pertains to their conceptual understanding of social-emotional
learning and their procedural knowledge of the goal setting process embedded in the strategic
planning and school improvement process. Administrator motivation will be addressed as it
pertains to self-efficacy and utility value with respect to engaging in professional development
on social-emotional learning. Organization influences will include a discussion on the school
climate and culture as it pertains to district commitment and execution of social-emotional
learning curriculum. The stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organization influences
discussed here will then be applied to the methodology discussed in Chapter 3.
Knowledge and Skills
The first dimension is the knowledge influences required for the stakeholder group to
meet their performance goal on improving the implementation of social-emotional learning in the
classroom. Clark and Estes (2008) identify knowledge and skills gaps as being one of the top
three reasons why an organization does not meet their performance goals. All administrators will
plan for and provide opportunities for teachers to engage in professional development on social-
emotional learning initiatives aligned to the strategic plan. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
it is important that the performance goals of individuals match the organization’s performance
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

34
34
goal in order to effect performance improvement. In this instance, the organization is the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the administrator stakeholder group is charged with
engaging in school improvement and strategic planning efforts that align with the
recommendations for integrating social-emotional learning in strategic planning from the state
department of education. Given that the organization performance goal includes planning for
social-emotional learning programming, it is important that the administrator stakeholder group
commits to the organization goal by engaging in a professional practice goal that is directly
connected to the action steps required for implementation. In order for the stakeholder group to
engage in this goal, administrators must have an understanding of how social-emotional learning
connects to classroom practice and develop goals with the purpose of improving on the
integration of social emotional learning in the classroom. The Massachusetts State Educator
Evaluation tool is an effective guide on the goal-setting process, its necessary data collection,
and action steps. In accordance with the evaluation cycle, the administrator stakeholder group
would need to set a measurable goal and participate in the collection of evidence to provide proof
that the administrator has effectively engaged in the process for meeting or exceeding this goal.
Fauske (2005) recommends that organizations assess whether the organizational change sought
will require an adjustment to conceptual or procedural knowledge, recommending that
organizations plan support for teachers around the type of organizational change being
implemented. In accordance with Rueda (2011), this would involve focusing on both
administrator and teacher conceptual knowledge of the content of their goal and procedural
knowledge of how to engage in the improvement of their professional practice.
Connecting the five key competencies of social emotional learning to classroom
practice. In order for administrators to engage in the stakeholder performance goal, they must
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

35
35
develop an understanding of the five key competencies of social-emotional learning and how
they connect to the classroom. According to Rueda (2011), this type of knowledge acquisition
can be categorized as conceptual knowledge as the administrator stakeholder group develops an
understanding of the ‘theories, models, and structures’ related to a given topic. Mayer (2011)
further emphasizes the importance of knowledge construction in learning as it enables the learner
to connect the content to its application, engaging the learner in active sense-making. In applying
Mayer’s research to the context of the five key competencies of social emotional learning, the
administrator stakeholder group would be an active sense-maker and more likely to make
connections between social-emotional learning and classroom practice.
Clark and Estes (2008) highlight that it is necessary to understand the perceptions and
beliefs of stakeholder groups with respect to the organizational performance goal in order to
identify gaps in knowledge and assist with the development of the action steps necessary to
achieve organization goals. Mubeen (2016) also discusses the impact that knowledge
management and emotional intelligence have on organizational performance. In their study of
150 people, there was a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and organizational
performance. Improving the emotional environment can deeply influence an organization’s
dynamics, making the development of the administrator stakeholder group’s conceptual
knowledge on social-emotional learning beneficial to both student and teacher stakeholder
subgroups (Mubeen, 2016). In a study involving six teachers, Fauske (2005) discussed the
importance of teachers developing mental models of what integrating technology in the
classroom might look like in order to support the organizational change associated with
increasing the technology available in the classroom. The benefit to improving administrator
knowledge on social-emotional learning and how it connects to classroom practice is thus that it
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

36
36
will serve to support the development of administrator’s mental models of what effective
social-emotional learning looks like.
Engaging in the implementation, reflection, and collection of evidence to implement
social-emotional learning programs. It is important for management to support the setting,
monitoring, and communication of performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). In accordance with
the existing educator evaluation tool, each academic year teachers and administrators must create
two goals: a student learning goal and a professional practice goal. Much like Clark and Estes
(2008) recommendations on goal setting, teacher and administrator goals within the educator
evaluation system must be specific, measurable, and timely. Both teachers and administrators
often require guidance on the development of these goals and recommendations for how to track
their improvement. This guidance is often provided at the beginning of the academic year for
each educator participating in the evaluation cycle. Teachers and administrators alike are
encouraged to self-regulate their professional growth and take responsibility for closing gaps in
their knowledge and skills through the evaluation system’s goal setting process. Rueda (2011)
would classify administrator commitment to the goal setting process as being procedural
knowledge as it relates to administrator knowledge on what steps to take in order to meet their
performance goal under the existing system.
Clark and Estes (2008) highlight the importance of engaging in discussions on how to do
the work and not simply what to work on. In this regard, the educator evaluation system and
goal-setting process support the administrator stakeholder group’s ability to meet their goal as it
involves discourse, consistent check-ins, and a specific timeline for which administrators need to
collect evidence and provide proof of meeting their goal. Were the administrator stakeholder
group to engage in this process together as indicated by the stakeholder performance goal,
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

37
37
supports in the form of models and professional learning networks would support all
administrators in the process on meeting their professional practice goal. Rueda (2011) would
categorize this as a social cognitive approach to improving administrator procedural knowledge
as administrators would have consistent opportunities for discussion amongst their peers on
meeting their goals. Providing opportunities for administrators to have access to reputable
models that support their attitude toward the evaluation and goal setting process is an integral
part of the professional practice goal process and defined as a social cognitive approach (Rueda,
2011). Table 1 describes the stakeholder goal, its connection to the organization’s global goal,
and the knowledge and skills gaps required to be addressed in order to support the teacher
stakeholder group meeting that goal. While the conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge
components appear to be separate, the conceptual knowledge piece articulated in the table is a
precursor to administrator development of their professional practice goal and a contributing
factor to whether the administrator stakeholder group is able to engage in the procedure of
setting, monitoring, and the evaluation of meeting their professional practice goal.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

38
38
Table 1

Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment

Organizational Mission

School districts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will engage in a strategic planning
and school improvement process that embeds social-emotional learning as a critical area of
focus for school improvement.

Organizational Global Goal

All district administrators will contribute to the strategic planning process to develop action
steps aligned with the integration of social-emotional learning initiatives in the district.

Stakeholder Goal

All administrators will plan for and provide opportunities for teachers to engage in
professional development on social-emotional learning initiatives aligned to the strategic plan.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Administrators must be able
to connect classroom
practices with the five key
competencies of social
emotional learning.
Declarative Conceptual Interviews
Administrators must engage
in the implementation,
reflection, and collection of
evidence to support the
implementation of social
emotional learning programs.
Procedural Interviews

Motivation
The second dimension is the motivational influences required to support the administrator
stakeholder group in meeting the performance goal. Clark and Estes (2008) identify three
indicators critical to motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. For administrators
to engage and persist in their engagement with the stakeholder goal, they will need to remain
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

39
39
committed to the improvement of the integration of social-emotional learning in their
classroom practice. This commitment will be contingent on an administrator’s internal belief, or
commitment to having an impact and accepting responsibility for their individual efforts toward
achieving a performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) defines motivational theories
that may be pertinent to supporting administrator continued commitment to social-emotional
learning. The first motivational theory, self-efficacy theory, focuses on the belief an individual
has in their ability to complete a task (Rueda, 2011). In this context, self-efficacy theory would
focus on administrator belief that they are able to improve on social emotional learning
integration in the classroom. The second motivational theory, expectancy value theory, focuses
on the perceived utility value of engaging in a task (Rueda, 2011). In this instance, the
administrator stakeholder group must be convinced of the benefits of improving the integration
of social-emotional learning in the classroom in order to engage with the task and persist in that
engagement.
Self-Efficacy – Administrators must believe that they can have an impact on the
mental health and wellness of their students through supporting classroom culture with
social-emotional learning integration. According to Rueda (2011), it is important for
organizations to support an individual’s self-efficacy by providing the structure required to meet
success. It is recommended that organizations use evaluation systems that support mastery and
self-improvement and that management’s structure is one that supports social and personal
responsibility toward completing that task (Rueda, 2011). Although Clark and Estes (2008) argue
the importance of individual performance goals connecting to organization goals, self-efficacy
theory supports the need for voice and choice over the manner or methods used to meet an
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

40
40
individual’s performance goal to sustain an individual’s beliefs in their ability to meet that
goal (Rueda, 2011).
In education it is important to recognize the parallels drawn between the classroom and
teacher professional development. While self-efficacy theory appears to inform organizational
structures, it is also a part of the five key competencies for social-emotional learning (CASEL,
2017). It would appear that supporting administrator self-efficacy would then model and parallel
what is required of teachers in the classroom, making self-efficacy theory an integral component
to the administrator stakeholder group meeting their professional practice goal. CASEL (2017)
defines self-awareness as being one of the five key competencies of social-emotional learning.
Within this domain is student self-efficacy, but also their motivation and discipline toward
sustaining their engagement in a task. The concept of believing in your ability to complete a task
and sustaining your engagement when a task proves difficult is often referred to as “growth
mindset” (CASEL, 2017). This concept pertains directly to the stakeholder performance goal as
it relates to the stakeholder engagement in meeting their goal, but it also serves as a direct
translation to what should be occurring in the classroom with respect to integrating social-
emotional learning. Encouraging this task-specific confidence would provide an effective model
for the classroom (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Utility Value – Administrators need to see the benefits of social-emotional learning
in terms of improvement of the classroom culture and improved student performance.
Rueda (2011) defines the parameters for expectancy value theory to include providing utility
value to a given task. An individual’s understanding of the utility value of a task is critical to
their motivation to complete that task (Rueda, 2011). The value of completing that task might
refer to the accountability system in place that requires completion, but should also encompass
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

41
41
an individual’s belief that completing a task is useful to their future goals (Rueda, 2011). Clark
and Estes (2008) also discuss utility value, arguing that stakeholders must see the benefits of
completing a task in order to engage in meeting that goal. Connecting goals to an individual’s
interest is one way to support the utility value of a task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In order to assist administrators in understanding the utility value of integrating social-
emotional learning in the classroom, they must be aware of the benefits of improving student
social-emotional learning competencies. According to CASEL (2017), students with increased
social-emotional competencies have higher academic achievement, better attendance, and
decreased incidences of poor behavior in school systems. Making connections for the
administrator stakeholder group to current work on school improvement will support
concretizing social-emotional learning for teachers (Mayer, 2011). According to Mayer (2011),
individuals learn better when material that is unfamiliar is related to familiar knowledge. This
concept is repeated within expectancy value theory and attaching social-emotional learning to
school improvement efforts would provide utility value to the task, motivating the stakeholder
group to engage in the work to meet their goal (Rueda, 2011). Table 2 identifies the organization
performance goal and stakeholder performance goal, but also articulates the motivational
influences required to sustain engagement within the administrator stakeholder group. Although
the knowledge gaps previously discussed are critical in shaping the stakeholder performance
goal, the motivational influences of self-efficacy and utility value will support administrator and
teacher engagement in their professional practice goal while also drawing meaningful
connections between the professional development provided and work in the classroom on
integrating social-emotional learning for the benefit of student populations.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

42
42
Table 2
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission

School districts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will engage in a strategic planning
and school improvement process that embeds social-emotional learning as a critical area of
focus for school improvement.

Organizational Global Goal

All district administrators will contribute to the strategic planning process to develop action
steps aligned with the integration of social-emotional learning initiatives in the district.

Stakeholder Goal

All administrators will plan for and provide opportunities for teachers to engage in
professional development on social-emotional learning initiatives aligned to the strategic plan.

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Utility Value – Administrators need to see the
benefits of Social-Emotional Learning in
terms of improvement of classroom culture
and improved student performance.

Written survey item:
• “Supporting students in their work
with the five key competencies of
social emotional learning can improve
the culture of my classroom.”
• “Supporting students in goal setting,
self-efficacy, and reflection can
improve student performance.”

Self-Efficacy – Administrators must believe
that they can have an impact on the mental
health and wellness of their students through
supporting classroom culture with SEL
integration.

Interview item:
• How has providing feedback to your
students supported their confidence in
the classroom?
• How has goal setting and reflective
practice supported student confidence
in the classroom?
• How has improving teacher-student
partnerships reduced student anxiety
in the classroom?

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

43
43
Organization
The third dimension is the perceived organization influences that support the stakeholder
group’s ability to meet their performance goal on improving the implementation of social-
emotional learning in the classroom. Clarke and Estes (2008) discuss the purpose of establishing
performance goals that are aligned with the organization’s mission and vision, also highlighting
the need for there to be some level of choice with respect to the establishment of the language of
that goal with an understanding that complete autonomy is not critical for success. For this
reason, the stakeholder group of focus has reacted to state level recommendations on social-
emotional learning by engaging in a professional practice goal on social-emotional learning, but
has also had the ability to choose how to connect school improvement plans to the social-
emotional learning focus in the Commonwealth’s strategic plan.
In order to support the administrator stakeholder group on achieving their performance goal,
it is imperative that the organization is aware of the type of organizational change required to
integrate social-emotional learning into teaching practices. The stakeholder professional practice
goal is in response to external environmental factors in the K-12 education landscape that have
targeted social-emotional learning as an integral component to school improvement plans (US
Department of Education, 2014). Kezar (2001) would define this type of organizational change
as being evolutionary or adaptive change given that the integration of social-emotional learning
in the classroom is in response to federal and state education policy mandating its emphasis.
Given the context of the organizational change, implementation of social-emotional learning can
be best described using a social evolutionary model. In this sense, the organizational change
imposed on the stakeholder group of focus requires an understanding of the systems,
interactivity, and homeostasis of the organization (Kezar, 2001). To gain a better understanding
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

44
44
of the interconnectivity of systems within the organization, it is important to examine the
cultural models and cultural settings that contribute to the administrator stakeholder group
meeting its performance goals.
Cultural Model Influence 1: Organizations need to commit to engaging in a professional
practice goal related to social-emotional learning. For the administrator stakeholder group to
engage in a professional practice goal on improving social-emotional learning in the classroom,
the group would first need to understand why they need to improve. In utilizing formative
assessment as a means to test administrators on their knowledge and understanding of social
emotional learning strategies in the classroom it would be possible for administrators to identify
areas of growth in their understanding of the five key competencies of social emotional learning.
The repetition of this assessment throughout the school improvement cycle and the commitment
of administrators to engage in discourse on district progress would provide the stakeholder group
with opportunities for feedback on their improvement.
Langley (2009) articulates a process through which organizational change and
improvements can be tested to ensure that the change is effective prior to putting the change into
practice. As part of this process, Langley defines two central principles of improvement:
knowing why you need to improve and having a way to get feedback on your improvement
(Langley, 2009). The Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Tool is structured to support
improvements through the professional practice goal setting process (DESE, 2018). Within this
process, administrators target an area of improvement in their professional practice and define a
course of action that would support meeting this goal. As part of this process, the educator and
their evaluator engage in conversations on the need for this improvement, whether the systems of
measurement are effectively measuring improvement, and what action steps need to be modified
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

45
45
in order to guarantee improvement with respect to the administrator goal. Through the use of
formative assessment and through leveraging the state evaluation system, it is possible to satisfy
each of Langley’s parameters for the improvement cycle.
Cultural Model Influence 2: Organizations must establish a culture of support between
faculty and administrators to help forge connections between classroom practices and
social-emotional learning. Given the nature of the organizational change as being a social
evolutionary model, it will be important that the organization focuses on creating a culture of
support and a culture of learning on the integration of social-emotional learning in the classroom.
Moran (2000) stresses the importance of leaders to recognize the depth of change management
within organizations, highlighting the three drivers of work behavior to include: purpose,
identity, and mastery. Further, it is important for leaders to understand the impact of
environmental change on these three factors and to focus on supporting staff through this
adaptive change. Moran (2000) also identifies change as being both top down and bottom up,
creating the need for leadership to articulate purpose, identity, and mastery in parallel with the
teacher stakeholder group’s professional practice goal. In terms of purpose, it will be important
that the administrator stakeholder group connect social-emotional learning to what drives their
commitment to educating youth. The leadership role will be to provide a professional
development structure that supports the administrator and teacher stakeholder groups ability to
adopt social-emotional learning as being aligned with their purpose. In establishing a
professional development schedule focused on learning, support, and professional discourse,
leadership can support the continued alignment of social-emotional learning to the teacher and
administrator stakeholder group’s purpose.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

46
46
The concepts of identity and mastery also must be addressed through professional
development and leadership’s support of the organizational change. In terms of identity, the
administrator stakeholder group will be able to engage in the evaluation cycle goal setting
process to support their individual professional growth, internalize organization improvement
efforts and take ownership over their individual growth. Leadership will need to support this
improvement through professional conversations on individual improvement coupled with a
commitment to targeting knowledge gaps with professional training opportunities throughout the
year. This dichotomy between the top down and bottom up efforts of organizational change will
allow for the administrator stakeholder groups to achieve mastery in the area of integrating
social-emotional learning in the classroom by creating an environment where leadership supports
the professional growth of their teachers.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Organizations need to provide faculty with time outside of
regular teaching duties to learn about social-emotional learning and collaborate with
colleagues on its connections to the classroom. According to Bernstein and Linsky (2016), the
process through which employees collaborate on a practice and test a prototype is known as
design thinking. In a design thinking cultural setting, the administrator stakeholder group would
have the time and opportunity to engage in professional discourse on improving the integration
of social-emotional learning in the classroom, developing a series of prototypes or strategies to
test out in the classroom over the cycle of their professional practice goal. The establishment of
these professional learning communities on continuous improvement will support a culture of
improvement. In this model, the administrator stakeholder group will have an opportunity to plan
for new approaches to meet their professional practice goal and share successes and failures with
colleagues.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

47
47
In anticipating changes in the K-12 education landscape with respect to an emphasis on
social-emotional learning in the classroom, it is imperative that leadership provides the structure
for organizational change through the evaluation system, creates a culture of support through
professional development programs, and lastly provides the time for the administrator
stakeholder group to discuss and work through best practices on improving the integration of
social-emotional learning in the classroom. This type of adaptive change to the K-12 education
environment must be met with pro-active and strategic goals for the improvement of social-
emotional learning in the classroom. Table 3 outlines the connections between the administrator
stakeholder group’s professional practice goal and the organization influences that can support
teachers on meeting their goal. As defined by Kezar (2001), the organization is thus engaging in
homeostasis in order to maintain equilibrium between organization practices and the greater K-
12 education landscape.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

48
48
Table 3
Assume Organization Influences and Organization Assessments

Organizational Mission

School districts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will engage in a strategic planning
and school improvement process that embeds social-emotional learning as a critical area of
focus for school improvement.

Organizational Global Goal

All district administrators will contribute to the strategic planning process to develop action
steps aligned with the integration of social-emotional learning initiatives in the district.

Stakeholder Goal

All administrators will plan for and provide opportunities for teachers to engage in
professional development on social-emotional learning initiatives aligned to the strategic
plan.

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Organizations need to commit to engaging in
a professional practice goal related to social
emotional learning.

Survey teacher understanding of Social
Emotional Learning and how it connects to
the classroom. Support teachers in their gap
analysis of SEL competencies they need to
improve on.

Cultural Model Influence 2:
Organizations must establish a culture of
support between faculty and administrators
to help forge connections between classroom
practices and social emotional learning.

Create a professional development schedule
that allows time for learning, discussion, and
support.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Organizations need to provide faculty with
time outside of regular teaching duties to
learn about social emotional learning and
collaborate with colleagues on its
connections to the classroom.

Structure professional development time to
support teacher needs and establish
professional learning communities that
support teacher discourse on Social
Emotional Learning and its integration in the
classroom.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

49
49
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
Maxwell (2013) speaks of the importance of developing a conceptual framework prior to
developing a research study. According to Maxwell, the conceptual framework allows the
researcher an opportunity to develop a theory of what is occurring within the organization in the
context of the problem of practice in order to properly frame and engage in answering the
research questions (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework is thus built by the researcher in
order to provide context for the research study.
The conceptual framework for this study describes the relationship between the
organization’s obligation to integrate social-emotional learning into school improvement plans
and the potential knowledge and motivational influences that interact with the administrator
stakeholder groups’ ability to meet their performance goal under these constraints. The
organizational change as it relates to the problem of practice can best be characterized by the
social evolutionary model of organizational change (Kezar, 2001). In this model, an organization
is responding to changes in the environment and adapting its practice. In the context of
integrating social-emotional learning into classroom practice, the organization is responding to
the policy demands of the K-12 education landscape as outlined by the US Department of
Education (US Department of Education, 2014) and the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation
System (DESE, 2018). Both state and federal policies highlight the need for K-12 education
organizations to incorporate social-emotional learning into classroom practice and district
improvement plans.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

50
50

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the implementation of Social Emotional Learning.

Figure 1 describes the relationship between the organizational influences and stakeholder
influences that would support or impede the administrator stakeholder group’s ability to meet the
stakeholder goal. In the figure, it is clear that the administrator stakeholder group is dependent on
the organization’s ability to respond and plan for state and federal policy on social-emotional
learning. The administrator stakeholder group’s knowledge and motivational influences are thus
inscribed in the organization’s ability to adapt in a social evolutionary model for organizational
change. It is the responsibility of the organization to develop a framework through which the
Organization
Social Evolutionary Model for
organizational change in response to
federal and state policy on social-
emotional learning

Stakeholder
Procedural
Knowledge, Self-
Efficacy and Utility
Value with regard to
the implementation of
social-emotional
learning

Stakeholder Goal
The organization will
continue to engage in and
implement best practices on
the integration of social-
emotional learning initiatives
in the K-12 school district.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

51
51
stakeholder group can meet success. In this sense, the stakeholder knowledge and motivation
influences are contingent on the availability of resources and the structures that the organization
is able to create to support this adaptation. The stakeholder group is then governed by the
procedural knowledge required to implement social-emotional learning as their professional
practice goal. More specifically, this highlights the need for the organization to clearly define
what social-emotional learning looks like in the classroom and support the administrator and
teacher stakeholder groups on measuring success. In tandem to this, the organization also has the
responsibility to support the administrator stakeholder group’s motivation to integrate social-
emotional learning in the classroom. In part this will entail promoting the utility value of social-
emotional learning as it pertains to improving the school culture and raising student achievement.
In addition, the organization must support the administrator stakeholder group’s self-efficacy
with respect to believing that they can meet the stakeholder performance goal. In summary, the
organization is responsible for providing the structures that support the knowledge and
motivation of the administrator stakeholder group. The figure clearly identifies this role in
disseminating information and also providing the professional development structures necessary
to support the administrator stakeholder group in meeting their goal.

Conclusion

This chapter discussed the related literature with respect to the problem of practice. The
problem of practice is improving student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom
through the implementation of social-emotional learning programs. The literature review
discussed the intersection of research on school culture, mental health, and social-emotional
learning, with the intention of looking at the commonalities between these three categories and
also to address the relationship between these three themes and an organization’s ability to
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

52
52
improve student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom. Finally, the chapter
discussed the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that overlap with an
organization’s ability to provide the setting and foster the achievement of the stakeholder’s
performance goal. The next chapter will discuss the conceptual framework for the study and
identify the research methods and action steps necessary to look deeply at improving student
sense of social-emotional security in the classroom through the implementation of social-
emotional learning programs.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

53
53
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that supported the organization’s goal to improve
student sense of social and emotional security in the classroom as outlined by state education
policy recommendations for K-12 school districts. The analysis began by examining the structure
of the recommendations made to K-12 district administrators by the Massachusetts Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education as it relates to the integration of social-emotional
learning into the strategic planning process for K-12 school districts in the Commonwealth. The
analysis examined the K-12 school district response to state recommendations and the factors
contributing to individual school district’s successful implementation of social-emotional
learning initiatives. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis was administrators.
The questions that guided the assessment of the promising practice model will address
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization causes and solutions for the stakeholder
group and will include:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets in relation to
implementing social emotional learning initiatives in a K-12 setting?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

54
54
Methodological Framework
The design of the methodology for this project incorporated a KMO gap analysis of the
administrator stakeholder group’s ability to improve student sense of social-emotional security in
the classroom through strategic planning and system-wide implementation of social-emotional
learning programs. The gap analysis required the collection of data as it pertains to administrator
knowledge of social-emotional learning in the classroom, administrator motivation to integrate
social-emotional learning in the classroom, and organization influences relative to the adoption
of social-emotional learning in the classroom. The qualitative study focused on the work of three
school superintendents who had been identified as early adopters in implementing social-
emotional learning in the Commonwealth and had been recognized for their success in
implementing social emotional learning (Creswell, 2014). In this design, qualitative data was
collected in order to gain a better understanding of existing performance gaps as it pertains to the
organization performance goal and successes in integrating social-emotional learning initiatives
in the classroom. In approaching data collection in this manner, it was possible for the researcher
to gain a deeper understanding of the research questions as it relates to the stakeholder group.
The qualitative portion of the study involved interviews of school superintendents or their
designee at the start of the 2019-2020 academic year. A total of three school districts were
interviewed in order to gain an understanding of the variety of ways that social-emotional
learning has been integrated into district strategic and school improvement plans. These
interviews provided depth and context regarding the response of K-12 school districts to
recommendations on social-emotional learning from the state department of education, allowing
the researcher to determine perceptions of KMO influences, how district administrators have
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

55
55
worked to integrate social emotional learning, and what successes district administrators have
seen in their efforts to improve student sense of social and emotional security in the classroom.

Sampling and Recruitment Narrative
Participating Stakeholders
The administrator stakeholder group consisted of K-12 district administrators that were
responsible for the planning and supporting of new initiatives in their school district. This
included school superintendents and assistant superintendents who are directly responsible for
the strategic planning process and the accountability structures created to ensure that districts are
successful in implementing organizations change. In this instance, district administrators
included the Superintendent of Schools, Assistant Superintendents responsible for curriculum
and professional development, or Curriculum Directors responsible for the planning and
implementation of professional development in the school district.
Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The qualitative study focused specifically on school districts within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts that have identified social-emotional learning as a key initiative in their strategic
plan. The intention of the study was to interview district administrators that have completed
multiple years of strategic planning and implementing social-emotional learning related action
steps and could talk on their understanding of state recommendations in addition to what aspects
of their strategic planning and rollout of the initiative have been successful.
Criterion 1. School district administrator responsible for the crafting of the district
strategic plan and supporting the rollout of supports necessary to meet the organization
performance goals associated with the strategic plan goals and action steps.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

56
56
Criterion 2. School district administrators employed in school districts with an active
strategic plan that incorporates social-emotional learning as a key initiative.
Criterion 3. School district administrators that have completed a minimum of year one in
their strategic plan execution.
Interview Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
Interview participants for the qualitative study were comprised of district level
administrators who met the criteria outlined for a promising practice sample. Districts that have
been identified as K-12 school districts who have strategic plans that embed social-emotional
learning were targeted for possible interview participants. The sampling of interview participants
was then reduced based on whether the district had engaged in at least a year of work on social-
emotional learning initiatives and could talk on the successes associated with the rollout of this
initiative. A preference was given for school district administrators that have engaged in multi-
year supports for social-emotional learning to include reflecting on the success of the rollout and
measuring improvements in student sense of social and emotional security in the classroom.

Data Collection and Instrumentation
The Qualitative data collection and instrumentation methods chosen included interviews
with the administrator stakeholder group and an exploration of strategic planning documents that
correspond with the district administrators being interviewed. In order to understand the process
employed for the rollout and adoption of social emotional learning initiatives, it was necessary to
understand the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that are articulated in the
district strategic plan to gain a window into the district’s road map on this initiative. In
combination with this review of strategic planning documents, the interview component of the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

57
57
qualitative study supported an understanding of the administrator stakeholder groups
messaging as it relates to knowledge, motivation, and organization influences. The intention of
the study was to develop an understanding of how the administrator stakeholder group has met
success with the rollout and support of social-emotional learning initiatives in their home district.
In reviewing the strategic plan in concert with the administrator interview, the action steps and
their articulation were made clear. The intention of the study was to identify effective approaches
to be used as a model for other school districts looking to employ social-emotional learning in
their district.

Documents and Artifacts
The documents collected for the study included the strategic plans and school
improvement plans for participating school districts. A K-12 district’s strategic plan serves as the
roadmap for district planning and actions in the upcoming three to five-year period. As is the
process in the Commonwealth, the plan was developed over the course of an academic year with
various stakeholder groups and crafted by the administrator stakeholder group prior to being
submitted to the school committee for approval. A strategic plan typically contains themes,
goals, and action steps that articulate the district’s priorities for school improvement and outline
a pathway for how the district intends to support organizational change. In concert with a
district’s strategic plan is the allocation of funds, making a closer look at the budgets of
participating school districts an imperative in understanding the prioritization of social-emotional
learning. Embedded within the budgets of K-12 school districts is an allocation of resources to
improve knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that might support organizational
change. Budget line items for social emotional learning curriculum, professional development,
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

58
58
and the allocation of personnel to support the rollout of social emotional learning supported
sense-making in understanding how the three participating school districts have met success.

Interviews
Interview Protocol. Interviews were conducted in a structured protocol that breaks down
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as it pertains to the implementation of
social-emotional learning initiatives across the district. Stakeholders interviewed included acting
Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents that were directly responsible for the realization of
the district’s goals outlined within the strategic plan. The stakeholder group was walked through
interview questions connected to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, referring
to the district’s strategic plan and an analysis of district progress with respect to the social-
emotional learning goals articulated in the plan. Knowledge influences were examined from the
perspective of the administrator stakeholder group intentionally to gain an understanding of how
the administrator stakeholder group’s interpretation of social-emotional learning may have
influenced the rollout of the initiative throughout the district. The interviews examined how
stakeholder knowledge impacted the strategic planning process.
The interview protocol also addressed motivational influences and how this has been
addressed through the continued implementation of the strategic plan. It was important to
understand how the administrator stakeholder group planned for and supported the teacher
stakeholder group’s adoption of classroom practices that support social-emotional learning. The
final phase of the interview focused on observed organizational change by the administrator
stakeholder group. Included in this last discussion was a reflection on program improvements
and also examining what the administrator stakeholder group believed to be next steps.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

59
59
Interview Procedures. Interviews began in July of 2019 and commenced in August of
2019 and included three school districts in Massachusetts. There are 289 school districts in
Massachusetts, however only a handful of these districts have been engaged with social-
emotional learning initiatives for more than three years. The districts selected for interviews were
those districts who had been identified as pioneers in the implementation of social-emotional
learning, meaning that structures and processes had been well established for rolling out the
initiative and these districts were in a position to reflect on their success.
The timeline for conducting interviews ran parallel to the perceived timeline districts
employ in assessing district progress on the strategic plan and the budget approval process that
most districts in the state of Massachusetts adhere to. For this reason, the collection of
documents and artifacts that are current was optimal during this time period. In addition, district
priorities for the upcoming academic year were outlined within budget proposals submitted to
the school committee. The budget documents and strategic planning documents overlap in vision
and district priorities, making the collection of timely documents imperative to understanding the
current successes and next steps for participating districts. This time frame was also optimal for
interviewing district leadership. Given the tasks associated with the second half of the school
year, school improvement reporting and budget proposals, district administrators were charged
with being both reflective and forward thinking on district priorities. As a result, the time period
between June and August was ideal in reaching out to district leadership.
The examination of artifacts required district permission and was done prior to the
interview portion of the study. Upon reaching out to the three participating school districts, it
was necessary to ask their permission to review the strategic plan and budget documents for
inclusion in the research study. Although these documents were public, their inclusion in the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

60
60
study required permission as the follow-up interview served to deepen the researcher’s
understanding of the role of these documents in the implementation of social-emotional learning
in the district. After the review of these documents, an interview was scheduled in the
administrator’s district for a total of 45 minutes. The interview focused on the strategic planning
process as it relates to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Should there be any
concerns or confusion with the outlined priorities in the strategic planning documents it was
possible to ask follow-up questions to the participating administrators during the interview.

Data Analysis and Reporting
Findings for the study were first reported as a comparison between the three schools
participating in the study, looking at the variations between each of the participating districts with
regard to staffing, demographics, size, and length of time districts have participated in social
emotional learning programming.
In addition to a discussion on the general data points that comprise each school district, a
comparison of themes within the interview and within available documents was be discussed. This
analysis began first with coding interview transcripts and school improvement documents to
identify themes in participating district’s strategic planning process as it pertains to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational change. The results and findings section embedded within Chapter
four discuss the similarities and differences between district documents and the discussions on
district strategic planning that occurred in the qualitative interview. The findings section will also
discuss takeaways from the interviews and documents for each of the participating school districts
with regard to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

61
61
Credibility and Trustworthiness

There were two portions to the study that required attention with respect to credibility and
trustworthiness: documents and artifacts and interviews. Lincoln and Guba (1985) discuss the
importance of planning for credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability in
qualitative research studies. With regard to this work, the study sought to norm for dependability
and confirmability in its methods to record data and analyze data consistently across multiple
sources (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). For this reason, the structure and design of the interviews and
subsequent data collection from the documents and artifacts were designed with consistent
structures. Within each of the phases of the study, there were thus opportunities to control for
bias and also opportunities to provide structure that would serve to prevent bias, increasing the
trustworthiness of the research findings.
For the document and artifacts portion of the study, it was necessary to control for bias in
the researcher’s own interpretation of the quality of these documents and the fiscal intentions of
the district. In order to control for this bias, I prepared in advance criteria that would objectively
examine the structure of the district strategic plan as it relates to social-emotional learning and
the allocation of funds connected to social-emotional learning. In preparing the criteria in
advance of looking at these documents, it enabled me to look at the district’s attention to social-
emotional learning without unintentionally evaluating the quality of the strategic plan. Lastly, my
analysis of the artifacts in contrast to the interviews occurred after the interviews had been
conducted in order to ensure that my assessment of district artifacts did not influence the
interview portion of the study.
For the interview portion of the study, it was important that I recorded the responses from
the participating administrator objectively. For this reason, I sought permission to record the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

62
62
audio of the participant in addition to taking notes, accounting for bias in my note-taking. It
was also important that my analysis of responses was not influenced by my analysis of the
documents and artifacts associated with that district. For this reason, it was necessary to code
responses and analyze the interview data prior to analyzing the documents and artifacts. In
planning for this potential bias, I scheduled my analysis of both the interviews and the
documents and artifacts such that my conclusions from one portion of the qualitative study did
not interfere with my conclusions from the other portion.

Ethics
Participating administrators in the study were representing the work of their employer
and thus placed in a position where confidentiality, voluntary participation, and informed consent
was necessary. The administrator stakeholder group was directly responsible for the roll out of
the district’s strategic plan and the management of the action steps associated with the goals and
priorities of the district. For this reason, the administrator stakeholder group needed to maintain
anonymity in order to protect their employment. Throughout the study informed consent and
voluntary participation was reviewed with the administrator stakeholder group prior to the
analysis of district documents and artifacts, and also leading up to and throughout the interview
protocol to combat this potential issue.
Participating administrators were also within the pool of district administrators to which I
belong. While there was no direct connection between myself and the participating
administrators in terms of employment, it was likely that these administrators would be a part of
my professional network. As a result, fostering a professional relationship with the
administrators being interviewed may in turn impact my professional advancement in the future
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

63
63
and it was in my best interest to handle the collection of data, care of human subjects, and
reporting of findings with a high level of confidentiality and accuracy.
In terms of assumptions and biases, it was the researcher’s assumption that districts with
a strategic plan that prioritized the funding of initiatives would be more successful in the rollout
of initiatives than those districts who were unable to allocate funds for new initiatives. It was
also my assumption that the administrator stakeholder groups knowledge and motivation as it
relates to a new initiative would correlate with that district’s ability to meet success in school
improvement efforts. As a result, I was biased toward the prioritized allocation of funds and the
administrator’s understanding of social emotional learning. In order to combat this bias, I needed
to analyze the impact of budget allocations on the implementation of social-emotional learning
initiatives. It was also necessary for me to pay close attention to my recording and analysis of the
interviews for participating administrators, ensuring that there was not implicit bias in my
recording of administrator responses.

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations to the study include the exclusion of additional stakeholder groups to analyze
the effectiveness of social-emotional learning initiatives. While the administrator stakeholder
group interviewed had an understanding of the long term plans of the district in terms of
allocations of fiscal and curricular resources, the teacher stakeholder group perspective would
add to the study’s understanding of the effectiveness of the district rollout. For this reason, the
study did not completely assess the effectiveness of new programming. In addition to the lack of
representative stakeholder groups, the study also interviewed administrators whose role in the
district directly pertained to the management and execution of the district strategic plan. This
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

64
64
placed the administrator stakeholder group in a position where they were evaluating their own
performance when engaging in the interview and the potential for deviation from the truth
existed. Examining the artifacts in concert with the interview was necessary to account for this
limitation.
Given the study’s intention to develop a model for the strategic planning of social-
emotional learning initiatives at the organizational level, there were also delimitations to the
study. While the study was not able to access the effectiveness of the rollout from the perspective
of the teacher stakeholder group, the participating districts had been identified as meeting
success with regard to social-emotional learning and were thus measured as being successful in
the eyes of the state department of education with respect to social-emotional learning. For this
reason, the teacher stakeholder group’s interpretation of the district’s success may in turn be
earmarked for future research but its absence will not interfere with the intention of the study.

Conclusions Section
This study sought to determine how the administrator stakeholder group has been able to
effectively identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that pertain to the
improvement of student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom and what district
practices have contributed to effectively improving student sense of social-emotional security in
the classroom. In the context of the organization and organizational performance goal in this
particular study, it was important that the researcher was able to determine whether the
stakeholder group has been able to identify and create action steps that support the improvement
of student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom and the nuances in this
identification that have either contributed to or hindered school improvement efforts. Through
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

65
65
this research, informed recommendations have been made by the researcher to improve an
organization’s ability to engage in a strategic planning process that is relevant to the needs of the
teacher stakeholder group and effective in its ability to articulate and support social-emotional
learning related practices.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

66
66
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The study was designed to look at the strategic planning process school districts have
engaged in to support the roll-out and adoption of social-emotional learning programs. The
purpose of the study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that contributed to the adoption of SEL at the district and building level in participating school
districts in the Commonwealth. Data was collected in two formats: interviews with district
leaders responsible for the strategic planning process and a review of district documents that
refer to and outline the district plans for SEL programming.
The questions that guided the assessment of the promising practice model will address
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization causes and solutions for the stakeholder
group and include:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets in relation to
implementing social emotional learning initiatives in a K-12 setting?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?

Participating Stakeholders
Participating stakeholders included four district administrators that have been responsible
for the strategic planning process and roll-out of social emotional learning programming in their
district. It should be noted that while four administrators were interviewed, two of these
administrators were from District B. The districts selected had engaged in social-emotional
learning work in their home district for more than three years and had participated in state and
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

67
67
federal education policy discussions that supported the early adoption of social-emotional
learning in the Commonwealth. Each of the participating districts were unique in size and scope
of work, however each of the participating school districts were entering at minimum their fourth
year of implementing SEL programming and integrating SEL as a key focus in their district’s
strategic plan.
District A was a small suburban school district with an operating budget of
approximately $50 million. District A had one high school, two middle schools, and three
elementary schools with a student population of approximately 4,000 students and 30% of its
population identified as being high needs. The district had 244 teachers with a small central
office structure that consisted of one superintendent, one assistant superintendent, and directors
of various student services. At the time of the interview, the district was entering its fourth year
in social-emotional learning programming and had participated in initial state education policy
discussions that made social-emotional learning a priority for school improvement plans in the
Commonwealth. This initial advocacy work led to District A’s involvement in the exSEL
Network, a job-alike network that supported school districts on conceptualizing social-emotional
learning programming through professional development and strategic planning. The exSEL
Network has grown and continues to support school districts starting this work.
District B was a small urban school district with an operating budget of approximately
$110 million. District B had two high schools, three middle schools, and six elementary schools
with a student population of approximately 7,500 students and 67% of its population identified
as being high needs. The district had 538 teachers with a central office structure that consisted of
one superintendent and two assistant superintendents in addition to directors of data, curriculum,
and various student services. At the time of the interview, the district was entering its fifth year
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

68
68
in its strategic plan that included an emphasis on social-emotional learning, however district
leadership identified as having participated in SEL programming for more than a decade given
the needs of the student population.
District C was a large suburban school district with an operating budget of approximately
$245 million. District C had two high schools and two alternative high schools, four middle
schools, and fifteen elementary schools with a student population of approximately 12,500
students and 33% of its population identified as being high needs. The district had 1085 teachers
and a central office structure that consisted of one superintendent, four assistant superintendents,
and directors or coordinators for various student services. At the time of the interview, the
district was entering its sixth year of federal grant funding that supported the implementation of
district-wide social-emotional learning programming to include the establishment of a social-
emotional learning department at the central office level.

Results
Knowledge Results
Qualitative interview questions focused specifically on conceptual and procedural
knowledge of the administrator stakeholder group. Questions focused on knowledge acquisition
as it pertains to an understanding of the five key competencies of social-emotional learning in
addition to looking at the procedural knowledge associated with planning for the adoption of
SEL programming in the district. Each of the participating districts had engaged in social-
emotional learning work for more than three years, making each of the district administrators
knowledgeable in this area. Although it was true that each district had prioritized SEL based on
their knowledge of its value, each of the three districts had arrived at prioritizing from different
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

69
69
vantage points that was dependent on the needs of the student population in that district. With
regard to procedural knowledge, the participating districts engaged in strategic planning and
school improvements processes that prioritized SEL. Table 4 describes each district’s focus on
SEL as it pertains to conceptual and procedural knowledge. For each of the participating school
districts, the CASEL framework was relied upon in some regard and programs were piloted to
support teacher and administrator conceptual knowledge.

Table 4
Evidence of district conceptual and procedural knowledge work
District A District B District C
Years of
engagement
4 years 10 years 6 years
Conceptual
Knowledge
Connections between
SEL and student
readiness to learn
Connections between
SEL and student
behavior
Connections between
SEL and student
stress

Procedural
Knowledge
Developed multi-
year plan to support
knowledge
acquisition

Adopted CASEL
framework

Developed multi-
year plan to support
knowledge
acquisition

Used CASEL
framework as a guide
Developed multi-
year plan to support
knowledge
acquisition

Used CASEL
framework as a guide

Each of the three participating districts cited research on mental health and the barriers it
posed to student engagement and achievement. District B specifically highlighted the needs of its
student population with respect to trauma and its impact on student behavior and engagement.
District B highlighted the unique experiences of its students, specifically homelessness, drug-
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

70
70
addiction, “interrupted formal education,” and immigration from countries at war as being
contributors to student disengagement and student behavior. District B recognized a need to
address these student issues first prior to setting expectations for student engagement,
specifically articulating that “if I want our students to be successful, then I have to address those
things in order for the kids to be able to access the curriculum and learn. And so for that reason,
social-emotional learning has been part of what we've been working on for, I'd say, a decade
now.” District A cited similar reasoning for social-emotional learning programming, highlighting
that external stress factors contributed to a student not being able to engage in their education. In
that regard, District A noted that a child is not ready to learn if they cannot say, “I feel safe, I feel
good, I can advocate for myself.” Lastly, District C cited specific student concerns related to
stress and mental health that sparked the district’s engagement and commitment to understanding
social-emotional learning. District C noted that their student population is under significant
pressure with regard to college attainment and highlighted social-emotional learning as evidence
of its district’s commitment to help students cope with this pressure. In addition, District C
highlighted the critical role of equity in SEL conversations, articulating SEL as the critical “set
of skills and competencies that students need to be successful, both as students and then after
their education as well.” District C noted that student experiences are becoming increasingly
stressful within the education system and also externally, highlighting an understanding of SEL
to be imperative in learning the impact of these stress factors and how they are illustrated
through behaviors, engagement, and emotional health. To that end, district C highlighted a need
to “be critical of the system that we're creating, as well as how we're supporting all students to be
successful within that system.”

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

71
71
The participating districts had each engaged in social-emotional learning programming
from more than three years and demonstrated procedural knowledge on how to implement these
programs within district. Approaches to implementing SEL were distinct amongst each of the
districts, however similarities existed when looking at understanding of state accountability
structures and framing SEL through the CASEL framework. District A had focused on
knowledge acquisition and utility value with staff in its first few years, gradually leading into a
district-wide expectation embedded in the evaluation tool. This work began with a conversation
on “why are we doing this?” and District A spent multiple years building conceptual knowledge
within administrator and teacher groups. At the time of the interview, District A discussed the
importance of “embedding it in your culture” so that rolling out SEL was “not another put upon
for teachers.” District A began SEL with a goal of developing shared resources prior to making
the integration of SEL an obligation for administrator and teacher groups.
District C took a similar approach to District A in that the district developed a knowledge
base for SEL through establishing a social-emotional learning department within its district
office. As part of the grant District C had obtained from the US Department of Education,
District C focused first on building capacity within the district to include training and the
establishment of district priorities through the SEL department. District B was different in the
sense that it had engaged in SEL work for a longer period of time than state education policy
recommendations existed. For this reason, District B had developed procedural knowledge on
how to integrate SEL systematically and used state education agency recommendations as a
tangible reference to ensure authentic adoption of its practices. When asked specifically about
the CASEL framework, District B stated that both policy recommendations and the framework
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

72
72
served as a litmus test for their working, explaining to staff that “these are the things that
we've been talking about, this is just providing clarity to us."

Motivation Results
To understand the administrator stakeholder group’s motivation for integrating social-
emotional learning programming, interview questions on motivation focused on the utility value
of SEL and the administrator group’s self-efficacy with regard to supporting the implementation
of SEL programming. These questions led to a broader discussion on the perceived self-efficacy
and utility value of SEL with both teacher and administrator stakeholder groups in the district.
Table 5 describes the perceived utility value and self-efficacy of these stakeholder groups with
respect to grade band and job function. For each of the three participating districts, work had
been done to support the utility value of SEL through building capacity and stakeholder
conceptual knowledge. In terms of self-efficacy, there were differences between elementary and
secondary grade bands within each participating district. These differences were mainly due to
the lack of a comprehensive curriculum at the secondary level and nuances amongst elementary
school structures and programs as compared to that of secondary school programs that were
perceived as being barriers to implementing SEL uniformly across the K-12 district.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

73
73
Table 5
Evidence of utility value and self-efficacy
District A District B District C
Utility Value Faculty
understanding of the
importance of school
culture and need for
SEL
Faculty
understanding of why
kids act out and
developing de-
escalating practices

Faculty
understanding of
student stress and
need for SEL
Self-Efficacy Growth mindset work

Focus on people and
relationships, not data
Growth mindset work

Peer Assistance and
Review (PAR)
program
Growth mindset work

Established SEL
department to support
district working
definition
Elementary
motivation
Responsive
Classroom K-5
Elementary pilot
program for SEL
work
Responsive
Classroom K-8

Secondary motivation Second Step at
Middle School

Stand-alone courses
Restorative teaching
practices

Engaging classrooms
and student choice
Acknowledgement of
student stress

Portrait of a graduate
Work

Participating districts each highlighted the differences between elementary and secondary
grade bands with regard to obtaining a packaged program for implementing SEL and also with
regard to shifting instructional priorities to include a focus on SEL at the secondary level.
Although overall it appeared as though administrator and teacher stakeholder groups in all
districts had embraced the utility value of SEL, it appeared as though the self-efficacy of
secondary administrators and teachers varied by district. Training staff was highlighted
throughout interviews as being the means used to support staff understanding of the utility value
of SEL and also staff self-efficacy in being equipped to support the rollout of SEL programming.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

74
74
Each of the districts interviewed had engaged in significant work at the
elementary level to support training staff on piloted or purchased social-emotional learning
programs. District A had spent time at the elementary level with Responsive Classroom and
elected to continue this work with the district’s emphasis on social-emotional learning. A district
level SEL steering committee made this choice after comparing Responsive Classroom to
Second Step and finding that the Responsive Classroom program appeared to support
community, culture, and relationships in greater depth. Embedded in the Responsive Classroom
program is an emphasis on classroom culture and a morning meeting that has allowed staff to
focus on SEL skill building. District A expressed that Responsive Classroom focused on “trying
to build trust” and “trying to build empathy within your classroom community,” aligning this
choice to the district’s focus on building culture. In addition, District A supported Growth
Mindset professional development with teachers and had integrated this practice into student
culture through “The Power of Yet.” This ideology supported student growth mindsets,
specifically the self-awareness competency, and an understanding that learning is an ongoing
process.
District B had approached its adoption of SEL in a similar fashion to District A. Given
that the district had previously piloted multiple programs at the elementary level, the district
chose not to change course with the introduction of SEL recommendations at the state level. In
contrast to District A, District B elected to not center on one specific program and allowed for
choice at the elementary level articulating at the interview that “where a staff has really
embraced a particular strategy, we allow them to make those decisions independently.” It should
be noted that five of District B’s elementary schools had adopted Open Circle as its program for
SEL despite uniformity not being a requirement. Similar to District A, District B had focused on
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

75
75
improving student culture with “The Leader in Me.” Much like “The Power of Yet” this
program served to amplify a social-emotional competency that District B had identified as being
critical to its student population. For District B, this supported student agency and responsible
decision making. Adding to the self-efficacy component for elementary staff, District B had
explicit professional development time allocated during the school day each day to ensure that
staff were equipped to support SEL programming. District C had also engaged in piloting
multiple elementary programs prior to settling on Responsive Classroom. In contrast to District
B, however, District C had obtained federal grant funds to support the implementation of
Responsive Classroom in grades K-8 and thus specified an elementary program for district
adoption. Rollout of Responsive Classroom in grades K-8 at District C involved a district-wide
approach to professional development given its access to grant funds and explicit language in the
grant application that prioritized district resources to support this training. Despite this, District C
articulated a need to make sure “we maintain a definition and understanding of social-emotional
learning beyond what's defined by Responsive Classroom.”
At the secondary level, each of the school districts noted the differences in approach
between middle school (grades six through eight) and high school (grades nine through
twelve). As such, there were differences in approaches districts took to account for the age
groups of each grade band. District A adopted Second Step in its middle schools to support a
specific health and wellness course for its students. The Second Step curriculum served to frame
SEL skill building within this course. In addition, District A had used training on Growth
Mindset and “The Power of Being Seen” as a means to frame school culture conversations and
address student social-emotional competencies. Without a stand-alone course, the high school
SEL programming has been accessed through the guidance department and the existing health
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

76
76
program at the high school. District A noted that within the classroom there has been a focus
on identifying what each competency looks like in each content area to parallel the work being
done in student health classes. Teachers have been charged with focusing on specific SEL
competencies each month to help students conceptualize how these SEL skills can be applied in
each content and in the classroom in general. This focus was supported by the district’s
developed SEL resources, explaining that “the resources go through things you can use in your
classroom on a daily basis to effect change.” District A noted throughout the interview that this
slow rollout of expectations surrounding SEL supported teachers in developing conceptual
knowledge while also providing time for the district to build culture around the utility value of
SEL and self-efficacy.
District B focused on building relationships and student choice at the middle and high
school, leveraging the advisory program at the high school to support student development of
these skillsets. At the time of the interview, District B articulated that “at the secondary level
we’ve done more work with incorporating student voice in the decision making process.” This
work was coupled with District B’s involvement in the MCIEA (Massachusetts’s Consortium for
Innovative Education Assessment), a consortium focused on building performance tasks and
looking at alternative measures for school quality. At both the middle and high schools, District
B had focused on restorative teaching practices and de-escalating student behavior to build
community and relationships. This work was highlighted as a complement to SEL and a driver to
supported both teacher self-efficacy and SEL’s utility value. District B had integrated a student
voice component into its SEL work, highlighting their integration of students into shared
decision making at the high school.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

77
77
Much like District A, Districts B and C had an advisory program in place that was
leveraged to support SEL work and promote a positive school culture at the secondary level.
District C had an established advisory program at one of its high schools and expanded the
program to include the middle schools, highlighting this expansion as the reasoning behind an
accelerated adoption of SEL at the middle schools. In addition to advisory and the integration of
the Responsive Classroom program, District C had “implemented explicit structures within the
classroom that are designed to support social-emotional learning” in its middle and high schools.
These programs included brain breaks, mindfulness, meditation, and wellness activities coupled
with a transition toward more student-centered classrooms. In addition, District C highlighted
that “less teacher-centered structures for instruction” in concert with the authentic adoption of
these programs was evidence of teacher motivation to “promote social-emotional development of
their students.” District C cited these practices as being supportive of building a SEL culture at
the secondary level and working through stakeholder mindset on its importance. Lastly, District
C highlighted how its work with the Portrait of a Graduate under its NEASC (New England
Association of Schools and Colleges) accreditation process helped with framing the problem for
staff and supported the utility value of SEL in addition to mindfulness and wellness activities.

Organizational Results
Qualitative interview questions related to organizational influences focused on cultural
settings and cultural models that support the implementation of social-emotional learning
programs within the district. Questions for this portion of the interview sparked discussions on
strategic planning, accountability structures, and systems for teacher leadership and professional
growth. Table 6 describes the perceived cultural models and cultural settings in addition to the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

78
78
organization’s articulated next steps at the time of the interview. Each of the participating
districts were able to utilize existing structures within the district to support social-emotional
learning, particularly with respect to professional learning and the educator evaluation tool. In
addition, each of the districts established structures at the building and district level to support
the acceleration of SEL programming.

Table 6
Evidence of cultural models and settings
District A District B District C
Cultural Models SEL competencies
handbook and shared
resources

District expectation
for SEL professional
practice goal

Peer Assistance and
Review (PAR)
program

District expectation
for SEL professional
practice goal
Multi-tiered System
of Support for SEL
needs

District expectation
for SEL professional
practice goal
Cultural Settings School and district
based SEL teams

Educator Leadership
Review Board
District-wide SEL
department
Next Steps Develop local rubric
to measure SEL
success

Focus on staff SEL
needs

Develop specialist
teams to support
student needs
Improve district
ability to support
SEL

Develop methods to
collect formative data

District A focused on building capacity, starting with the conceptual knowledge of staff
and transitioning into making social-emotional competencies integrated into school culture.
District A’s work began with the establishment of a district-wide SEL team that supported
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

79
79
establishing a district vision and focused on developing shared resources that would support
stakeholders in adopting social-emotional learning curriculum. The district team supported the
development of an SEL handbook for staff and a shared drive folder with packaged resources for
staff to utilize for each of the five key competencies in the CASEL framework. This work was
coupled with District A’s establishment of building based teams that would support the goal
setting and school improvement process as outlined in the strategic plan. District A was focused
on building capacity and developing shared resources prior to integrating SEL into its existing
accountability structures. Over this past year and leading into the upcoming academic year,
administrators at District A will be required to integrate SEL as a professional practice goal. This
will include building based administrators planning for SEL programming and also content
administrators embedding SEL practices into curriculum and instruction. District A articulated
its next steps as being working toward developing a local measure or rubrics to be able to assess
district progress.
District B blended social-emotional learning initiatives into existing structures. As part of
the organizational structure of District B, an Educator Leadership Review Board served as a
governing body in district decision making. Through this board, recommendations are made for
programming and professional learning for the faculty in the district. The board’s work led to the
development of a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program in the district that supports
professional learning with teacher leadership and peer-review. Through this program, SEL has
been supported as an initiative and teacher consultants have modeled and supported teachers
within the district on integrating these practices. Teacher leadership had also contributed to the
development of an SEL team that authored local SEL curriculum using universal design for
learning (UDL) curriculum mappings. District B’s practice in integrating SEL has been teacher
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

80
80
centered in that its focus has been on building teacher capacity and valuing professional
learning. These efforts were coupled with existing accountability structures where all teachers
and administrators were required to engage in professional practice goals on SEL. District B
identified its next steps as focusing on staff social-emotional needs and also further developing
wraparound services available to students. These wraparound services included the expansion of
a district-based health center and the establishment of teams of specialists that are cross-
departmental in order to be more effective at identifying student needs.
District C developed structures at the district level to support a uniform implementation
of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) specific to student social-emotional needs. Although
the implementation of the MTSS varied by grade band, District C had worked to define each of
the tiered supports to identify what all students receive and what interventions the district
identified as being appropriate at each tier. This work was made possible with grant funds that
allowed for the district to establish a social-emotional learning department at the central office
level in order to support building capacity and establishing consistent structures within the
district. At the time of the interview, the MTSS had been implemented in grades K-8 and the
district planned on expanding this system to include K-12. This expansion aligned with the
district’s creation of a local survey on school connectedness for grades 3-8, establishing a means
to measure District C’s progress in supporting students social-emotional competencies. District C
leveraged survey data from this local assessment in addition to multiple data points on national
surveys to support individual buildings in creating action plans for specific areas of
improvement. Next steps for District C also included developing ways to collect formative data
on teacher perceptions and skills, and student outcomes and also to support staff on determining
how to improve outcomes.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

81
81
Findings
The purpose of the study was to look at school districts who had engaged in multiple
years of social-emotional learning programming as a critical area of focus in school and district
improvement plans. The intended outcome of the study was to provide district administrators
with a guide on how SEL programming could be implemented to support future work within
districts. Research questions focused on identifying the apparent assets that contributed to
successful implementation of SEL programming in each of the participating districts and also to
identify potential solutions to addressing the problem of practice. The problem of practice was
specifically improving student sense of social emotional security in the classroom through the
adoption of social-emotional learning programs.
Although each of the three districts varied in size and structure, in examining knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assets three themes emerged that were consistent across each
school district. The first theme was a focus on building capacity. Each of the participating
districts articulated a clear starting point and either leveraged an existing structure or created a
structure that would support the organization on building capacity to support social-emotional
learning programming. A second theme was a focus on professional learning. Each of the
districts interviewed placed an emphasis on professional learning and a commitment to
supporting staff in their conceptual knowledge and self-efficacy. A final theme was an emphasis
on holding administrators accountable for school improvement. Each of the participating districts
required district administrators to engage in professional practice goals that supported the
improvement of social-emotional learning programming with a requirement that administrators
leverage data to support targeted areas of improvement. The three themes identified in the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

82
82
interviews include: Building Capacity, Professional Growth, and Accountability and
Measurement.
From these themes, solutions and recommendations emerged that might support school
districts as they initiate social-emotional learning programming in their home district. The first
recommendation would be for districts to being with a focus on conceptual knowledge and utility
value when implementing social-emotional learning. Each of the participating districts
articulated a focus on the utility value of social-emotional learning programs embedded within
district efforts to improve both administrator and teacher stakeholder group’s conceptual
knowledge. A second recommendation would be to engage in shared leadership practices,
providing both teacher and administrator stakeholder groups with the opportunity to shape the
roll-out of SEL programming in the district. District B’s work specifically highlighted the
impact teacher leadership has had on district adoption of social-emotional learning during the
interview, however each of the participating districts had leveraged teacher expertise to support
both the planning and implementation of social-emotional learning programs through training
and curriculum development.

What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets in relation to implementing
social emotional learning initiatives in a K-12 setting?
Assets in relation to implementing social-emotional learning initiatives in a K-12 setting
proved to be the participating school district’s ability to build capacity, an overall commitment to
professional growth, and a commitment to accountability. Each of the participating districts had
demonstrated having thought through organizational change and planned for multiple years of
rolling out expectations for social-emotional learning with personnel. Participating districts thus
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

83
83
presented as having broken down and planned for incremented organizational change. The
second asset was a clear commitment to professional growth. Each of the participating districts
highlighted teacher leadership and the educator evaluation tool as being critical gears in
organizational improvement. The presence of this particular asset was two-fold; districts
highlighted leveraging teachers as leaders to support professional learning within the district
while also referencing the goal-setting process within the state educator evaluation tool as being
critical to established measurable and attainable outcomes for personnel. Lastly, each of the
participating districts had embedded social-emotional learning into its evaluation system to hold
administrator stakeholder groups accountable to school improvement.
Building Capacity
Each of the participating school districts identified within school improvement and
strategic plans specific action steps for implementing social-emotional learning programming
within the district. For District A, this constituted building district and building based teams to
support developing a vision for the district and supporting faculty in program improvements.
District A had established a district SEL team initially and leveraged this team to make
decisions. In particular, the district team decided on the CASEL framework and decided to
continue with Responsive Classroom as its K-5 resource for SEL programming. The decision to
commit to a program and a framework was viewed as being critical to District A’s work, who
expressed that “if you don't have something that you're following or a matrix that you're putting
forward, you get lost in the weeds and it just becomes pockets of SEL and nothing district wide.”
The district team acknowledged the conceptual and procedural knowledge required to support
SEL across the district, developing shared resources for staff to utilize and also developing an
SEL handbook to be distributed to personnel in the upcoming year. Recognizing that work
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

84
84
needed to be specific to grade bands in addition to developing a district vision, the next phase
in the implementation of SEL programming was establishing building based teams and setting
expectations for the goal-setting and school improvement process for building administrators.
District A thus worked to set district-wide expectations and also to provide building teams with
the resources required to work on SEL programming at the building level.
District B worked on building capacity through an established teacher leader program
that positioned teachers to support colleagues in the classroom. This established structure
allowed for the district to set expectations for what the district envisioned for integrating SEL
while also allowing for human capital to support the implementation of district expectations.
District B employed a “train the trainer” model to build local expertise on SEL programming
prior to rolling out grade band specific teacher leaders for staff support. The district articulated
that this teacher leadership model did help teachers “engage their colleagues in a way that's
different than how an administrator would engage them,” affirming that this model has supported
an accelerated adoption of programming. In addition, District B also employed building based
teams to support choice and voice in the implementation of school improvement plans that
supported SEL. This included a goal-setting process and the expectation that building based
teams would leverage student data in the decision making process for which components of SEL
that building would focus on for the upcoming year.
Much like District B, District C initiated a process for supporting SEL in its K-8
programming by leveraging resident experts to support teachers and administrators in
implementing Responsive Classroom. Through its mentoring program, District C had ensured
that 100% of its teachers had been trained on Responsive Classroom and has planned continued
this process. Building based teams complimented this work in leveraging data to support school
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

85
85
improvement plans on social-emotional learning through a district defined multi-tiered system
of support (MTSS). District C had developed definitions for each tier within the MTSS and
identified social-emotional interventions that corresponded with each tier. District C had thus
developed a uniform expectation for SEL support through this multi-tiered system to model
expectations for individual buildings. In addition to its teacher leadership structure, District C
also formed a district-wide social-emotional learning department to support individual buildings
within the district on their implementation of programs that support SEL. This department has
focused on developing the MTSS and professional learning for both teachers and administrators.
Each of the participating school districts focused on building capacity in having a clear
implementation plan outlined in strategic planning and school improvement documents that
aligned district and building professional practice goals and provided a multiple year trajectory
for school improvement. For District A this was articulated through the handbook for SEL
developed by the district team and supporting resources. District B articulated this focus within
its teacher leadership program and District C established a social-emotional learning department
to support its district vision. Thus, each of the participating school districts built capacity through
an established district vision and followed through on its work with building based teams and
teacher leadership structures that supported the work.
Professional Growth
Each of the participating districts cited a commitment to professional learning and
professional growth throughout the interview as evidence of implementation of SEL
programming but also as drivers in supporting its utility value and the self-efficacy of district
personnel. District A highlighted its work with growth mindset with both teachers and students,
focusing on the “power of yet” at the elementary level and a slow rollout of SEL programming
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

86
86
with staff to ensure that teachers were equipped to implement SEL in the classroom. District A
approached implementing SEL programming by building shared resources for teachers and
working with faculty during professional learning time to support their conceptual knowledge.
During its first three years implementing SEL programming, District A worked to scaffold
expectations for personnel. During its first year, District A distributed posters of the CASEL
framework to support personnel becoming familiar with the five key competencies for SEL. In
its second and third years, District A began developing a district vision for SEL while also
working with personnel to build resources, establish a common language, and establish common
understandings of what SEL looks like in the classroom. At the time of the interview District A
was entering its fourth year of implementing SEL programming and presented as being ready to
support all personnel in setting specific and measurable goals on implementing SEL in the
classroom and in each building. District A’s slow rollout solution was in response to district
growth mindset work and a shared understanding of the need to build conceptual knowledge
prior to implementing the program.
District B had an established professional learning model that coupled a Peer Assistance
and Review (PAR) program with district expectations for professional growth. The PAR
program trained teachers as resident experts in SEL programming and allowed for teachers to
step out of the classroom for a year to support colleagues on implementation of social-emotional
learning programming. While this approach was not specific to SEL, the program was leveraged
to support the development of SEL competencies for faculty and demonstrated District B’s
overall commitment to professional learning. In addition, District B highlighted its philosophy on
teacher and administrator evaluation during the interview. The district viewed the State
Evaluation Tool as a growth model and highlighted its commitment to professional growth in its
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

87
87
approach to professional learning. At District B, teachers and administrators engaged in
professional learning together and any faculty presenting as having a fixed mindset was held
accountable to make this change. District B articulated that its message to teachers is, "We value
you. We know that this is a growth area, and we're going to invest in making sure you have the
time to learn what you need to learn in order to meet kids' needs in this way." This messaging
was coupled with an annual commitment to professional learning hours for all personnel that was
supported by the PAR program at each grade band.
District C embedded its commitment to professional learning within a federal grant used
to obtain social-emotional learning funds. As part of the grant, District C focused on training all
K-8 personnel on Responsive Classroom and coupled this focus with the establishment of a
social-emotional learning department. District C had developed a professional learning plan that
ensured that all staff were trained on Responsive Classroom by the end of the grant period and
discussed future plans to ensure that this training is a part of the new teacher program for newly
hired personnel moving forward. The social-emotional learning department was established
within the district’s teaching and learning department to ensure that SEL programming was “a
part of teaching and learning.” Given that District C’s efforts with respect to SEL were
connected to grant funding, District C had specifically measured the professional learning of
staff with a district performance goal connected to training 100% of K-8 staff on Responsive
Classroom. In achieving this piece, District C had begun shifting its focus of the SEL department
to include secondary education and district leadership. The focus of the department had initially
been supporting understanding and buy-in, but at the time of the interview the SEL department
had shifted to supporting leadership district-wide in their knowledge of SEL and ability to plan
for SEL interventions for its students as its next phase to SEL implementation. District C
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

88
88
discussed how its next phase of implementation would focus on measuring improvement and
specifically support district leadership in planning how to facilitate improvement in areas of
growth.
Accountability and Measurement
Each of the participating school districts held the administrator stakeholder group
accountable for school improvement with the state educator evaluation tool. District A had
embraced a slow rollout of SEL expectations, however in entering its fourth year of SEL
strategic planning it was a requirement that all administrators in the district embed a professional
practice goal related to implementing SEL that was specific and measureable. District A cited the
presence of building based teams as being a vehicle for administrators to meet this goal. In
similar fashion, District B articulated at the interview expectations for administrators to target
specific school quality measures from the MCIEA data collection as areas of improvement for
their respective buildings or programs. The school quality measures produced by the MCIEA
equipped school districts with a data dashboard that displayed areas of growth and areas that
need improvement. In entering its third year of participating in the consortium, District B had
become versed with this dashboard and had established the use of this data as an expectation for
administrators. District B discussed this expectation and how it had allowed room for choice
based on identified areas of improvement at each building, but that the use of the data was a
requirement. Given that this data was collected and reported by a third party it was not possible
to obtain specific results, however the process was explained at the time of the interview and the
data was demonstrated to include school quality measures that were related to social-emotional
competencies. Student social and emotional security in the classroom was a data point on this
dashboard in addition to bullying and student acceptance. Lastly, District C had developed a K-8
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

89
89
survey to assess district progress with respect to social-emotional learning programming and
had plans for expanding this survey to include grades nine through twelve. The survey was
locally created and aimed at collecting data on “students’ feelings of connectedness and
engagement” and also efficacy, consisting of approximately 50 items that the district intended to
measure and act on. As part of this process, it was a requirement for administrators to leverage
survey data in order to identify areas of growth and continue with the cycle of continuous
improvement. Despite having been further along in leveraging this data as a means to measure
progress, District C voiced that “we haven’t necessarily excelled yet in giving them a clear
roadmap for how to do that.” At the time of the interview, focusing on supporting school-based
teams on planning for change based on survey data was an intended next step for the district.

What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another
organization?
The study highlighted that developing district expectations for social-emotional learning
has multiple entry points that are dependent on the district’s student population and established
structures. Participating districts focused on building capacity and professional learning, each of
which presented as being an asset for district momentum and developing a shared understanding
of social-emotional learning. The districts each used the CASEL framework and state education
agency recommendations as tools to support school improvement, although the district’s varied
in their authentic adoption of the CASEL framework based on progression and timing for when
the district engaged in SEL as a key component in its district strategic plan. While nuances
existed between approach and existing structures for each of the participating districts, overall
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

90
90
each of the districts focused on conceptual knowledge and “buy-in,” or utility value of social-
emotional learning. In addition, each of the participating districts employed a shared leadership
approach to implementing SEL that afforded teachers and administrators the opportunity to
choose a program, craft a district vision for SEL, and support school improvement plans on
implementing SEL programming across the district.
Focus on Utility Value
Pintrich (2006) discussed the importance of engaging in discussions on the utility value
of work to support the development of positive values by your adult learners. In K-12 education
“buy-in” is often discussed with respect to districts taking on new initiatives and stakeholder
group’s engagement in the work. Pintrich (2006) discusses supporting a positive association with
the initiative by engaging in discussions on why this work is important. For the participating
districts, it was clear that the conceptual understanding of district administrators overlapped with
their understanding of the utility value of SEL programming. This mindset supported the
administrator stakeholder group’s engagement in adopting SEL programming and it is
recommended that school districts engaging in this work find a similar starting place.
District A talked through its first few years in SEL programming as being time to
promote buy-in and develop district conceptual knowledge of the CASEL framework. In its first
few years, stakeholder groups were charged with becoming familiar with the five key
competencies and developing an understanding of what these competencies mean for students.
This conversation was coupled with a general discussion of “Why are we doing this?” during
professional learning time across the district with teachers and administrators. District A
highlighted their work with generating interest in SEL and supporting conceptual understanding
of SEL as critical to ensuring that teachers and administrators were equipped to integrate social-
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

91
91
emotional learning. District A also embedded the utility value of SEL into its culture,
referencing its use of themes for each school year in the interview as supporting conversations on
social-emotional security of its students. For example, in a recent year District A worked around
the theme of “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all,” by
Aristotle. This theme in particular highlighted District A’s belief system on the importance of
SEL, thus supporting its utility value with teachers and administrators.
District B approached conceptual knowledge and utility value differently as a result of
the school’s timeline for engaging in SEL programming. In contrast to District A, the CASEL
framework was used as a reference point for District B and not necessarily a driver of the work.
District B had worked with restorative teaching practices and growth mindset in years previous,
developing a shared understanding that student behavior and mental health directly impacted
their ability to learn. District B had recognized how trauma interferes with a student’s ability to
learn and had spent years training its staff on positive interventions to support students socially
and emotionally in the school district. Messaging had been important to District B in their focus
on utility value, expressing that "if we don't know who our kids are and what their needs are,
how can we address their social-emotional needs?" Although the district’s work had begun prior
to state policy recommendations on SEL programming, District B highlighted that state
recommendations contributed to their knowledge base. In particular, the CASEL framework
provided District B with a tangible reference for the work they had already engaged in to support
students. District B cited the conceptual work completed on student trauma and the impact on
student engagement supported the district in developing buy-in from staff on SEL programming
as a natural solution.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

92
92
District C voiced similar history to District B when discussing its adoption of SEL
programming in the district. Incidences of student suicide and concerns over student stress and
anxiety initiated District C’s pursuit of federal grant funds to support the rollout of SEL
programming. District C defined its approach to SEL as a means to provide students with the
resources and skillset needed to develop healthy coping strategies. The district had developed a
working definition of SEL’s utility value based on the experiences and needs of the students in
the district. District C had also worked to attach SEL to its focus on equity. The district’s work in
looking at the achievement gap between specific student subgroups had, at the time of the
interview, merged with its understanding of the five key competencies of social-emotional
learning. District C demonstrated that it had developed a value system with regard to social-
emotional learning based on its historical experiences, increased incidences of student mental
health, and an understanding that SEL competencies support students in meeting the expectations
of a K-12 learning environment. District C discussed how it will continue to look at SEL
competencies as critical skills to supporting student mental health and also supporting equity
concerns within the district.
Focus on Shared Leadership
To be successful in organizational change, it is necessary to create a community of
learners where everyone supports everyone else’s attempts to learn (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Goal orientation theory supports that effective learning is social and collaborative. Each of the
participating districts articulated this commitment to working collaboratively toward a common
goal through prioritizing professional time and establishing structural supports that allowed for
shared understanding and shared leadership.
District A initiated work at the district level through a social-emotional learning taskforce
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

93
93
that worked to develop action steps for implementing social-emotional learning programs and
developed a shared definition of what SEL looks like in the classroom. This team, along with
subsequent building based teams, engaged both administrators and teachers in the work to
support collaborative learning opportunities. Much like District A, District B leveraged teacher
leadership in crafting its practices around SEL. District B had an established teacher leadership
structure to include a governing board comprised of administrator and teacher leadership and
also a PAR program that supported teachers as leaders in professional learning. During the
interview, District B highlighted that administrators and teachers engage in the same professional
learning experiences throughout the district and that professional learning focal points for each
academic year are decided on using their established shared leadership structure. District C
highlighted its emphasis on shared leadership through its work with Responsive Classroom
training in grades K-8, but also through its used of building based leadership teams that were
comprised of both teachers and administrators. Overall, each of the participating school districts
were able to highlight organizational structures that supported shared decision making and
fostered a working professional relationship between teachers and administrators that facilitated
organizational change. Despite varied approaches to this, common threads throughout each of the
interviews included this focus on teacher agency and a common understanding that
administrators and teachers needed to work together to improve student outcomes.

Synthesis
Results and findings from the research study support that each of the participating school
districts had in depth knowledge of the impact of social-emotional learning on student
achievement and mental health. Each of the participating districts had approached SEL from a
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

94
94
unique entry point, however each had developed organizational structures that would support
the utility value of SEL and stakeholder self-efficacy. The varied approach included an initial
emphasis on developing conceptual knowledge of faculty and embracing SEL as a vehicle to
address school culture, student stress, and student behavior. Although each of the participating
districts had approached SEL from different vantage points, in each instance the importance and
value of SEL programming was rationalized through discussions on the current climate and
culture within each district. Organizational structures included building based and district-wide
teams that targeted specific areas of improvement through an understanding that students cannot
engage in their education without first addressing their social-emotional competencies. These
teams supported an internal working definition of SEL that complemented what district
stakeholders were currently concerned about and motivated to improve. Participating districts
adopted programs in K-5 to support SEL in the classroom with two districts expanding on this
program to include the middle grades (6-8). Each of the participating districts highlighted
differences in approaches to elementary and secondary adoption of SEL and articulated a
concern over the lack of resources at the secondary level to support SEL in the classroom. These
differences included program and scheduling choices, but also differences in the mindset of
elementary educators in comparison to secondary educators. The lack of resources at the
secondary level attached itself to conversations on motivation of secondary school personnel to
implement SEL in the classroom.
Strengths of the participating districts included a clear commitment to building district
capacity through organizational structures and an action plan that was initiated with an emphasis
on professional learning. The districts employed shared leadership and shared decision making in
multiple layers of the organization, supporting the districts development of a working definition
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

95
95
of social-emotional learning and ensuring that areas of needed growth were targeted. It was
also a strength that participating districts leveraged the state educator evaluation tool to hold
administrators accountable in improving student outcomes. Areas of concern for each of the
participating districts included the need to expand on what schools were doing to support student
mental health and well-being, particularly at the secondary level where the lack of a prescribed
program had impacted the acceleration of SEL adoption in most of the participating districts.
Lastly, a major area of concern was the lack of a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of SEL
program implementation and also the impact on student outcomes. District A discussed
developing a rubric for this purpose and articulated it as a next step, while Districts B and C had
begun measuring district success using survey instruments that measured school climate and
culture.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

96
96
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

The study aimed at understanding the strategic planning process for implementing social
emotional learning programming in K-12 school districts. As part of the study, three approaches
to school improvement around social-emotional learning were examined for common themes and
also for differences. In the previous chapter, recommendations have been made to support the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary to support the implementation of
social-emotional learning programming in K-12 school districts based on the results and findings
from the study. These recommendations have been further developed in this chapter using the
Kirkpatrick New World (2016) model that includes four levels of implementation, allowing for
the KMO recommendations outlined by the results and findings of the study to be presented as a
program to be used for district implementation. These recommended action steps have been
coupled with recommendations for accountability and measurement structures that will support
K-12 school districts in the goal-setting process required to meet its organization performance
goals. It is recommended that the effectiveness of a district’s SEL programming is evaluated
through the engagement of all stakeholders participating in the professional learning and also in
measuring the impact of the SEL program on improving student sense of social emotional
security in the classroom. In using the Kirkpatrick New World (2016) model, it is possible for K-
12 school districts to address the conceptual and procedural knowledge required to support SEL
programming. In addition, the program recommended includes a focus on critical behaviors of
the administrator stakeholder group to ensure adoption of SEL programming and focuses on the
evaluating the effectiveness of professional learning to employ an improvement cycle that
appropriately supports the development of the utility value of SEL and faculty self-efficacy with
regard to implementing SEL programming in the district.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

97
97

Organizational Context and Mission
The organizations studied were school districts that had been identified as early adopters
in social emotional learning curriculum in Massachusetts. I evaluated the impact of improving
school climate and the impact social emotional learning initiatives at the district level have had
on reducing mental health incidences and improving student achievement. Over the course of the
past few years many school districts in the Commonwealth have engaged in the Comprehensive
School Climate Inventory (CSCI), a mechanism that measures the climate for learning as
perceived by teachers, students, and parents. This inventory is developed by the National School
Climate Center to support district improvements in school climate in order to provide all students
with a safe and positive learning environment that supports preventative measures for mental
health incidences and optimizes academic achievement (NSCC, 2017). Participating school
districts nationwide have demonstrated consistently through this inventory a problem with
student sense of emotional security across each of the subgroups surveyed. Preference for this
study will be given to school districts that have utilized this inventory or Youth Risk Behavior
Survey data in order to support the development of K-12 strategic plans on improving student
sense of social emotional learning in the classroom. This area of performance affects K-12
school districts ability to provide a safe learning environment for all students as recommended by
the U.S. Department of Education (US Department of Education, 2014). Participating K-12
school districts acknowledge that this is a problem and have followed up with the National
School Climate Center to target strategies to improve student sense of emotional security in the
classroom.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

98
98
Organizational Performance Status
School districts in the Commonwealth have established organizational performance goals
to improve student sense of social and emotional security in the classroom through the
integration of social emotional learning throughout K-12 education systems. National research
centers, including the National School Climate Center and Gallup Education, have highlighted
student sense of social emotional security in the classroom as being a critical area of focus for
school improvement based on data collected from student, teacher, and parent stakeholder groups
over time. In particular, the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory has specifically found
student sense of social emotional security in the classroom to be a top three concern across all
stakeholder groups for participating districts across the nation. This survey data supports school
improvement recommendations at the state level for integrating social emotional learning
curriculum into K-12 school districts, supporting organization performance goals on exploring
social and emotional learning curriculum, collecting data on staff knowledge of social and
emotional learning, and determining the action steps necessary to improve student sense of social
and emotional security. The intent of exploring social and emotional learning as an
organizational goal is directly connected to national school improvement recommendations as
well, which are intended to improve school climate and decrease mental health incidences in K-
12 student populations.

Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder groups include administrators, students, teachers, and parents in the school
community. The administrator stakeholder group is comprised of K-12 district administrators
that contribute to the strategic planning and school improvement process. This group includes K-
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

99
99
12 district administrators in additional to building level administrators as both levels of
administration contribute to the organizational change process. The student stakeholder group is
defined as secondary school students to include grades six through twelve. The teacher
stakeholder group is specific to secondary educators and comprised of all classroom teachers at
the middle and high School. The parent stakeholder group includes parents of students enrolled
in secondary schools within K-12 school districts in Massachusetts.

Stakeholder Group of Focus
Although a complete analysis would include the input from all stakeholder groups, for
practical purposes the administrator stakeholder group will be the area of focus for this study.
This decision was made in part due to the direct connection of this stakeholder group to the
school district’s outlined goals for organization improvement. Embedded within school
improvement planning and district strategic planning processes is a commitment to determine the
action steps required to move a district forward on identified initiatives. State education policy
around social emotional learning has driven many districts to embed goals on the implementation
of social emotional learning into district level strategic planning and school improvement plans.
While the strategic planning process and product may look different across districts, all districts
intend to focus on gaining an understanding of the social and emotional learning curriculum
available to K-12 school districts and the ways in which the district and building administrators
can support staff in obtaining the knowledge and skills necessary to implement it. Given that
administrators are the primary manager of professional development and implementation, it can
be inferred that the administrator stakeholder group’s work on planning the implementation of
social emotional learning is a critical area of focus for this study. Data collected on
administrators strategic planning and rollout of social emotional learning can thus be compared
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

100
100
to improved teacher knowledge and motivation as it relates to integrating social emotional
learning in the classroom. Should the administrator stakeholder group not focus on strategic plan
with regard to integrating social emotional learning programs, it is likely that student sense of
social and emotional security will remain a concerning data point on school climate inventories.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that may contribute to or interfere with the organization’s goal to implement social
emotional learning initiatives in line with state education policy recommendations. The analysis
will begin by examining the strategic planning process for participating school districts and
understanding the variances in action steps associated with social emotional learning initiatives.
The intention of the study is to better understand these variances and determine which districts
have been successful in improving teacher knowledge and motivation, and thus maximizing the
impact of integrating social emotional learning in the classroom. A key focus of the study will be
to look at the implementation of social emotional learning initiatives at the secondary level,
specifically in grades 6-12. While a complete analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is administrators.
The questions that will guide the promising practice study will address knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization causes and solutions for the stakeholder group include:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets in relation to
implementing social emotional learning initiatives in a K-12 setting?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

101
101
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Knowledge will be discussed below in the context of the administrator
stakeholder group as it pertains to meeting the organization performance goal of improving
student sense of social emotional security in the classroom. The completion of the study
highlighted each individual district’s focus on conceptual knowledge for all personnel in addition
to a commitment to making strong connections between the strategic planning and school
improvement documents in an effort to support procedural knowledge of staff. The table below
outlines the assumed knowledge influences and recommendations on how to mitigate potential
gaps in knowledge. These recommendations are specific to the administrator stakeholder group
as the study focused specifically on interviewing district administrators with multiple years of
experience with SEL programming as a promising practice. Administrator knowledge will thus
be addressed as it pertains to conceptual understanding of social emotional learning and
procedural knowledge of the goal setting process embedded in the strategic planning and school
improvement process. The knowledge recommendations are intended to support an administrator
stakeholder group in a district that is just beginning the process for implementing and articulating
the importance of SEL programming within their K-12 district. Table 7 describes these assumed
knowledge influences and the principle associated. These specific influences are highly likely in
accordance with the K-12 education landscape.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

102
102
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Administrators need to
connect classroom
practices with the five
key competencies to
identify professional
development gaps for
the organization. (DC)
HP Y To develop
mastery,
individuals
must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know
when to apply what
they have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide training to
support classroom
practice that includes
job-aids to support
practitioner
development of
classroom strategies
that support the
integration of social
emotional learning.

Administrators need to
engage in the
implementation,
reflection, and
collection of evidence
to measure the
successful
implementation of
social emotional
learning programs. (P)
HP Y Modeling to-be-
learned strategies
or
behaviors improve
self-efficacy,
learning,
and performance
(Denler, Wolters,
&
Benzon, 2009).

Provide training where
peer models can talk
through strategic
planning and
monitoring process for
rolling out social
emotional learning
programs in their
district.

Administrators need to
understand the five key
competencies of social
emotional learning
(M).

HP Y Develop an
understanding of
the “theories,
models, and
structures” related
to a given topic
(Rueda, 2011).
Provide training to
support administrator
understanding of the
key competencies
outlined by the CASEL
framework.

Connecting classroom practices with the five key competencies. Administrators need
to connect classroom practices with the five key competencies to identify professional
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

103
103
development gaps for the organization. In accordance with information processing system
theory, it is important to interact with new information and engage in active sense-making.
Mayer (2011), talks about providing learners with opportunities to identify prior knowledge to
support integrating new knowledge into practice. For the administrator stakeholder group, it is
important to connect the CASEL framework and classroom practices that support social
emotional health (CASEL, 2017). It will thus be necessary to provide training that supports
classroom practice, including job-aids that model and promote practitioner development of
classroom structures and instructional strategies that integrate social emotional learning.
Recent research conducted by the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy and
TransformED highlight gains K-12 districts have made in the area of social emotional learning.
In an exploration of CORE districts in California, it was noted that district leaders had greater
success when social emotional learning practices were “integrated with professional
development on instructional strategies in academic content” (West et. al., 2018). The Rennie
Center for Education Research and Policy also makes specific recommendations for integrating
social emotional learning indicators into Professional Standards for Teachers (Rennie Center,
2016). This argument for embedding social emotional learning competencies into teacher
practice has informed accountability structures in the Commonwealth in its recent revision of the
Teacher Evaluation Rubric, thus making it imperative that district leadership is able to articulate
the key competencies of social emotional learning. It is the role of district leadership to make
direct connections to classroom practice to support the integration of social emotional learning.
Engaging in progress monitoring. Administrators need to engage in the
implementation, reflection, and collection of evidence to measure the successful implementation
of social emotional learning programs. Social cognitive theory highlights the importance of goal
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

104
104
setting and modeling expected behaviors in order to support organizational change. Denler
(2009) talkeds about the importance of providing learners with opportunities to assess progress
and adjust learning to improve outcomes. In accordance with the administrator stakeholder
group’s goal of implementing social emotional learning programs across K-12, it will be
important that administrators accompany this goal with a clearly defined improvement plan that
allows for moments of reflection, measurement, and redirection of efforts to ensure successful
implementation. It will thus be important that administrator stakeholder group is provided with
training where peer models can talk through strategic planning and monitoring process for
rolling out social emotional learning programs in their district.
TransformED’s work with CORE districts in California is hallmarked by the use of a
peer-learning infrastructure that supports cross-district collaboration (West et. al., 2018).
Embedded in this practice is an opportunity for school districts to engage in site visits and
interviews that support districts with objectively evaluating implementation progress of social
emotional learning. In Massachusetts, the Summer Learning Project has supported the
development of common measurements across districts partnering to improve social emotional
outcomes for students (Rennier Center, 2016). This work has highlighted the effectiveness of
using analytic tools to measure the impact of programs, and supports the argument for cross-
district collaboration to troubleshoot district improvement plans. In creating a common system of
measurement and common performance goal, partners are able to effectively measure progress
and collaborate on effective practice.
Understanding the five key competencies. Administrators need to understand the five
key competencies of social emotional learning. In accordance with information processing
system theory, it is important to promote knowledge transfer. Baker (2006) speaks to the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

105
105
importance of providing learners the opportunity to debrief their thinking process, assess
their own strengths, and identify areas of growth. In this instance, it is critical that the
administrator stakeholder group is able to engage in professional development that supports their
own understanding of social emotional learning prior to rolling out social emotional learning in
their home district. This process will support the rollout of district improvement plans through
appropriately providing time for self-assessment and reflection of the administrator stakeholder
group’s understanding of the task at hand. It is thus necessary to provide training to support
administrator understanding of the key competencies outlined by the CASEL framework.
TransformED utilized the Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle in its work with CORE districts in
California to support organizational change (West et. al., 2018). As part of this process, it was
necessary to identify knowledge gaps in the problem of practice to articulate an implementation
strategy that supports performance improvement. In continuing this work, TransformED
developed a Social Emotional Learning Fellowship in partnership with participating CORE
districts to support knowledge development across districts (West et. al., 2018). Parallel to this
work, the Rennie Center (2016) made specific recommendations on developing multi-tiered
systems of support to assist districts in organizing their understanding of social emotional
learning and developing the foundational knowledge necessary to establish a clear path to school
improvement. The combined work highlights the need to establish systems and structures that
facilitate metacognition in order to effectively support the implementation of social emotional
learning programs.

Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivational influences required to support the administrator
stakeholder group in meeting the performance goal include self-efficacy and utility value. The
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

106
106
research study demonstrated that a commitment to explaining the utility value of social-
emotional learning and a commitment to professional growth supported staff self-efficacy and
district buy-in to the SEL programming being recommended by the administrator stakeholder
group and district teams. Clark and Estes (2008) identify three indicators critical to motivation:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. For administrators to engage and persist in their
engagement with the stakeholder goal, they will need to remain committed to the improvement
of the integration of social emotional learning into classroom practice by supporting their
teachers and also by committing to learning alongside staff. This commitment will be contingent
on the administrator group’s internal belief, or commitment to having an impact and accepting
responsibility for their individual efforts toward achieving a performance goal (Clark & Estes,
2008). As articulated in the research findings, the participating districts each described a
commitment to inclusive professional growth and shared leadership in planning for change with
respect to social-emotional learning. Rueda (2011) defines motivational theories that may be
pertinent to supporting administrator continued commitment to social emotional learning. Table
8 describes the principle behind each motivational belief and the proposed solution.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

107
107
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Utility Value –
Administrators need to
see the benefits of
Social Emotional
Learning in terms of
improvement of
classroom culture and
improved student
performance.

HP

Y

Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance
and utility value of
the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
Provide opportunities
for administrators to
observe successful
models, increasing the
utility value of the
organizational
improvement.

Self-Efficacy –
Administrators must
believe that they can
have an impact on the
mental health and
wellness of their
students through
supporting classroom
culture with SEL
integration.

HP

Y
Feedback and
modeling
increases self-
efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).

Administrators will join
professional learning
communities that
support reflection and
troubleshooting of
concerns, increasing
self-efficacy of
administrators charged
with the task.

Understanding the Utility Value of Social Emotional Learning. Administrators must
see the benefits of social-emotional learning in terms of improvement of classroom culture and
improved student performance. In Expectancy Value Theory, learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner values the task (Eccles, 2006). For this reason, providing the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

108
108
administrator stakeholder group with rationales that include a discussion of the importance
and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop positive values (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003). In context, the administrator stakeholder group would thus need to devote time
to discussing the benefits of social emotional learning and talking through its importance would
allow for the administrator stakeholder group to value the initiative. Providing opportunities for
administrators to observe successful models will thus increase the utility value of the
organizational improvement.
Expectancy Value Theory supports that learners must see and understand the benefits of a
task in order to engage in it and learn new skills. According to Eccles (2006), learning and
motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task. For this reason, the Department of
Education in the Commonwealth has strongly recommended “collaborative learning” when
school districts begin to tackle the concept of social emotional learning, including adult learning
theory as part of a district’s practice (DESE, 2019). The department further articulates that the
administrator stakeholder group is critical in supporting a positive school climate and culture to
successfully implement social emotional learning programming. It is recommended that
administrators engage in professional development on social emotional learning to understand
the competencies and also to understand the value of the administrator’s role in supporting a
climate and culture that promotes social emotional learning (DESE, 2018). These
recommendations are echoed by TransformED and their work with CORE districts. Within this
work, specific recommendations are made for the administrator stakeholder group of
participating school districts to engage in professional development that focuses on the impact of
social emotional learning (West et. al., 2018). It is thus clear that for school districts to be
successful at the implementation of social emotional learning, the administrator stakeholder
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

109
109
group must see the utility value of professional development on social emotional learning
and the critical role this stakeholder group plays in supporting school culture that is mindful of
social emotional competencies.
Self-Efficacy of Administrator Stakeholder group. Administrators must believe that
they can have an impact on the mental health and wellness of their students through supporting
classroom culture with SEL integration. Pajares (2006) described Self-Efficacy Theory and
argues that high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation. This can be achieved through
feedback and modeling to increase self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). In context, the administrator
stakeholder group would thus require a means to be able to share action steps, gain feedback, and
learn from other models that are also implementing social emotional learning. To achieve this,
administrators should be joining professional learning communities that support reflection and
troubleshooting of concerns, thus increasing self-efficacy of administrators charged with the
task.
Self-Efficacy Theory looks at the confidence level of learners to implement new learning
into practice. Pajares (2006) articulates that learning and motivation are enhanced when learners
have positive expectancies for success. To achieve this, it is recommended that feedback and
modeling of successful implementation are part of adult learning (Pajares, 2006). Professional
networks that support districts in implementing social emotional learning successfully are a
response to this need. In the Commonwealth, organizations including the Rennie Center for
Education Policy and Research and TransformED have supported professional learning networks
with SEL4MA to increase effectiveness of school districts implementing social emotional
learning. These networks are intended to bring district administrators together for the purpose of
sharing best practices and troubleshooting the rollout of programs in their home district. The
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

110
110
exSEL Network in Massachusetts brings together more than a dozen school districts to
support district leaders in building capacity for social emotional learning (Rennie Center, 2019).
In accordance with the recommendations for the administrator stakeholder group’s self-efficacy,
the exSEL Network also provides opportunities for participating districts to observe credible
models (Pajares, 2006). In forging meaningful opportunities for districts to engage in
collaborative learning in this way, it will be possible to support the self-efficacy of the
administrator stakeholder group.

Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Clarke and Estes (2008) discuss the purpose of establishing performance
goals that are aligned with the organization’s mission and vision, also highlighting the need for
there to be some level of choice with respect to the establishment of the language of that goal
with an understanding that complete autonomy is not critical for success. In response to state
level recommendations, the stakeholder group of focus has reacted by engaging in school
improvement efforts to implement social emotional learning. The research findings support that
this approach has been varied amongst districts who are veterans at implementing social-
emotional learning. These nuances in district implementation have been dictated by the climate
and culture in each of the participating districts, allowing each district to leverage cultural
models and settings to support the roll-out of social-emotional learning. The research findings
have also highlighted that these nuances continue at the district level where different schools and
different grade bands within each of the participating districts implemented alternative
approaches based on the individual needs of their respective buildings. Table 9 outlines the
organization influences that may hinder or support the administrator stakeholder group’s ability
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

111
111
to be successful at meeting an organization performance goal of integrating social emotional
learning programming.

Table 9
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Organizations need to
commit to engaging in
a professional practice
goal related to social
emotional learning.
HP Y Encourage people
to set specific goals
(Dembo & Eaton,
2000) and
measurable
performance goals
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Utilize the Administrator
Evaluation system to
support the development
of specific and
measurable goals on
integrating social
emotional learning
programming.
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Organizations must
establish a culture of
support between
faculty and
administrators to help
forge connections
between classroom
practices and social
emotional learning.
HP Y Create a
community of
learners where
everyone supports
everyone else’s
attempts to learn
(Yough &
Anderman, 2006).

Establish working groups
or professional learning
communities to learn and
discuss social emotional
learning programming.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Organizations need to
provide faculty with
time outside of regular
teaching duties to learn
about social emotional
learning and
collaborate with
colleagues on its
connections to the
classroom.
HP N Social interaction,
cooperative
learning, and
cognitive
apprenticeships
(such as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate
construction of
new
knowledge (Scott
& Palincsar, 2006).

Use lesson studies to
support reflective
practice on integrating
social emotional learning
in the classroom.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

112
112

Organizations need to engage in professional practice goals on social emotional
learning. In order for the administrator stakeholder group to support organizational change, the
group must commit to a professional practice goal that focuses on the implementation of social
emotional learning programming in the district. Goal orientation theory supports that
organizations must engage in setting performance goals, articulating an intended outcome and
course of action for organizational change to occur. Clarke and Estes (2008) discuss the
importance of measurable performance goals that are specific and include an exact timeline for
the length of the goal. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
requires that administrators and educators alike engage in self-reflection and goal-setting for the
duration of their evaluation cycle. In this instance, the administrator stakeholder group would
need to establish a school improvement goal that is specific to rolling out social emotional
learning programs in the district. Embedded within this process is the creation of action steps that
support the administrator in meeting this goal and attention to measuring progress on its
implementation.
The Massachusetts Administrator and Educator Evaluation Tools are structured to
support improvements through the professional practice goal setting process (Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2018). As part of this process, it is
necessary that administrators write goals that are specific and measurable. This process aligns
with recommendations made by Clarke and Estes (2008) on the structure of performance goals.
According to Clarke and Estes (2008), performance goals must align to the organization’s
mission and vision to support organizational change. This process of setting goals aligned to
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

113
113
school improvement plans will thus act as the vehicle to improve the school district’s
implementation of social emotional learning programming.
Organizations need to establish a culture of support to facilitate social emotional
learning. To support continuous improvement amongst faculty and administrators, it is
necessary for the organization to establish a culture that supports improving practice. Goal
orientation theory articulates that organizations must also support the organization community in
working toward intended outcomes. For this reason, it will be important that the organization
creates a community of learners where everyone supports everyone else’s attempts to learn
(Yough & Anderman, 2006). Given that social emotional learning is new to administrators and
faculty alike, establishing a culture where goal setting and professional growth is a team effort
will support each stakeholder group in meeting their goal. It will be important that the
administrator stakeholder group utilize existing professional learning communities to support
discourse on the progress the district is making with regard to social emotional learning on the
macro and micro level. In school districts, this can be within critical friends groups, meeting
structures, and professional learning communities dependent on the collective bargaining
agreement and the structures in existence within each organization.
Pintrich (2003) supports that to meet organizational goals it is necessary to create
cooperative and collaborative groups. As such, it becomes necessary that school districts
leverage existing structures for professional learning to support discourse on implementing social
emotional learning into practice. School districts have adopted this mindset since research from
the School Reform Initiative supported that professional discourse is directly correlated to
successful organization improvement (School Reform Initiative, 2019). For example, case
studies done by Kruse and Louis (1993) support that how adults interact is a driver of school
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

114
114
improvement. In this study, Kruse and Louis (1993) looked at six urban school districts and
the manner in which adults engaged in professional learning as a group. Newman (1994)
articulated that a “willingness to deprivatize practice” made a significant impact on momentum
for school improvement. It is thus important that the administrator stakeholder group prioritize
professional discourse, providing the structure and permission for faculty to fine tune their
practice with regard to social emotional learning.

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model describes a framework that organizations can use to
support the implementation and evaluation of organizational change (Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Within this framework there are four levels of organizational learning:
results, behavior, learning, and reaction. To plan for effective organizational change, it is
necessary to plan for each of these four components. The upcoming sections will discuss these
four components beginning with the intended outcomes of the organizational change and moving
toward discussing the critical behaviors necessary to achieve those outcomes. For the
organization to achieve intended outcomes through these critical behaviors it will be necessary to
also plan for professional learning and the reaction of internal and external stakeholders to the
new practice of social emotional learning in the classroom.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
School districts across the Commonwealth have been charged with implementing
programs that support the social emotional health of their students as part of the Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education’s strategic plan. The intention is to focus on improving
school climate and student mental health in K-12 student populations as research has shown
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

115
115
direct connections to these improvements and student achievement. In response, districts
have integrated language on social emotional learning into school improvement and strategic
plans thus making it the responsibility of district administrators to plan for and support program
implementation and professional development on the topic. In having district administration
focus on the implementation of social emotional learning, it requires that district administration
focus on the district’s responsibility to adhere to state education agency requirements. The
intended outcome of the administrator stakeholder group’s professional goal is to provide staff
with the skill-set needed to support an emphasis on the social emotional supports needed to
foster student success.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
To get started with the implementation of social emotional learning programs it will be
necessary for the administrator stakeholder group to engage in a professional practice goal that
supports the rollout of social emotional learning with staff. The goal setting process is embedded
in the administrator and educator evaluation systems in place within each district in the
Commonwealth and requires that individual educators set measurable and specific goals with
clear timelines. For school districts to move forward with the implementation of social emotional
learning programs, the administrator stakeholder group will need to attach their individual
professional practice goals to the district’s intended school improvements. Table 10 describes the
internal and external outcomes required to meet the district goal of implementing social
emotional learning in their district.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

116
116

Table 10

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Educate greater school
community on social emotional
learning.

Parent stakeholders scores on SEL
knowledge survey increase in
comparison to previous years.
Through surveys and presentations
with the greater school community,
district administration should be able
to measure knowledge acquisition of
community and communicate
priorities.
Leverage external partnerships to
support the administrator
stakeholder group in
understanding how to support
social emotional learning
programs in district.
Increased communication by
administrator stakeholder group to
support discussions on best
practices, sharing out qualitative
data on district best practices.
Through participation in job-alike
networks across districts,
administrators can engage in
discussions on how to meet school
improvement goals on social
emotional learning.
Internal Outcomes
Improved student sense of social
emotional security in the
classroom.
Student scores on School Climate
and social-emotional security in
the classroom increase as
compared to previous years.
Leverage external survey data to
support measuring student sense of
social emotional security in the
classroom over the course of district
improvements.
Improved teacher understanding
of social emotional learning.
Teacher scores on SEL knowledge
survey increase in comparison
with previous years.
Develop cycle of continuous
improvement to support staff
professional learning.
Improved administrator
understanding of social emotional
learning.
Administrator scores on SEL
knowledge survey increase in
comparison with previous years.
Support a sustained network of
administrators across districts and
within districts to improve knowledge
and motivate administrator stakeholder
group to support organizational
change.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Table 6 below details the critical behaviors necessary for
administrators to meet school improvement plans set in place by the district strategic plan. In
order to act on the Commonwealth’s goal to support social emotional learning programs in K-12
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

117
117
school districts, districts have embedded this language into school improvement and district
strategic plans. The administrator stakeholder group is thus charged with carrying out the action
steps articulated and must align their professional practice goals to support the rollout of social
emotional programming. Table 11 describes the critical behaviors necessary to support meeting
district goals.

Table 11

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Administrators engage in
network or job-alike groups
to understand best practices
on district implementation of
SEL.
The number of times
administrators attend
job-alike meetings.
Administrators will report out on
conversations had in job-alike
meetings at district leadership
meetings.
Ongoing -
monthly job-alike
meetings
Administrators engage in
professional development on
SEL competencies.
Administrator survey
data to measure
knowledge of SEL
competencies.
Administrators will participate in
conversations and surveys to
ensure attainment of critical
knowledge.
Ongoing - District
administrators
PLC group.
Administrators will plan for
teacher engagement in
professional development on
SEL competencies.
Teacher survey data to
measure knowledge of
SEL competencies.
Teachers will participate in
conversations and surveys to
ensure attainment of critical
knowledge.
Monthly - staff
professional
development
time.
Administrators will support
an emphasis on SEL best
practices in the classroom.
Observations of
Teacher PLC
meetings.
Administrators will visit PLC
meetings and support teacher
groups on developing best
practices.
Ongoing -
Teacher PLC
group.
Administrators will support
continued practice of SEL
competencies.
Educator Evaluation
Tool and goal setting
process.
Administrators will require that
teachers engage in professional
practice goals on improving SEL
competencies and their
implementation in the classroom.
Ongoing - annual
educator
evaluation
process.
Administrators will measure
improvement of student
sense of social emotional
security in the classroom.
Student and Parent
survey data to measure
student sense of social
emotional security in
the classroom.
Pre and post survey data collected
each year to measure improvement
of SEL in the classroom.
Twice per year for
three years.

Required drivers. For school districts to be successful in implementing social emotional
learning programs, they must first address the knowledge gap on SEL competencies in the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

118
118
administrator stakeholder group and plan for time to address the needs of the teacher and
student stakeholder groups to interact with SEL programming. For this to occur, administrators
must leverage existing time and structures to support the education of the administrator and
teacher stakeholder group to improve the conceptual and procedural knowledge of staff. This
component must also be coupled with conversations on the utility value of integrating social
emotional learning into classroom practice. To ensure that implementation of programming is
successful, administrators must also provide the structures to support self-efficacy of staff. It will
thus be important that the administrator stakeholder group emphasize and model continuous
professional learning on the topic to ensure adoption of social emotional learning best practices.
Table 12 describes the required drivers to support the administrator stakeholder group’s critical
behaviors described in Table 11.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

119
119
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
District provided job-aid to support
administrator stakeholder group on rolling out
SEL programming in their grade band.
Ongoing - developed in first year
and revisited to support
administrator group.
3, 4, 5
District provided job-aid to support teacher
stakeholder group on rolling out SEL
programming in their grade band.
Ongoing - developed in first year
and revisited to support teachers.
3, 4, 5
Encouraging
District administrators engage in job-alike
groups to fine-tune rollout of SEL.
Ongoing - monthly job-alike
meetings.
1, 2
District supports PLC meetings on SEL in the
classroom.
Ongoing - weekly PLC meetings 3, 4
Rewarding
Protocol for requesting additional resources
for SEL implementation.
Ongoing - prioritize funding of SEL
supports and resources.
2, 3, 4
Protocol for supporting external professional
development of administrator group.
Ongoing - permission for
administrators to engage and attend
external professional development.
1, 2, 3
Monitoring
District required professional practice goal for
administrator stakeholder group on
implementing SEL programming.
Ongoing - annual evaluation
process.
2, 5
Administrator required professional practice
goal for teacher stakeholder group on
implementing SEL in the classroom.
Ongoing - annual evaluation
process.
3, 5
Survey of stakeholder groups to measure
improvement of student sense of social
emotional security in the classroom.
Ongoing - semi-annual survey of
teacher, administrator, student, and
parent groups.
6

Organizational support. In leveraging the evaluation tool, it will be possible to monitor
and embed the required drivers and critical behaviors necessary to support continued
implementation of social emotional learning in the classroom and across schools within the
district. In its most recent revision of the educator evaluation tool, the Commonwealth had
integrated language on social emotional learning into both teacher and administrator evaluation
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

120
120
rubrics (DESE, 2017). This evolution of the evaluation system to include SEL competencies
as a requirement for effective practices will serve to support the continued emphasis on social
emotional learning programming in the district. For this reason, the work of the administrator
stakeholder group is aligned with the evaluation tool. In addition, it will be necessary that the
district supports continuous monitoring of progress to support the strategic plan and school
improvement plans. In coupling the accountability structures embedded in the educator
evaluation tool with a commitment to collect data on the improvement of student sense of social
emotional security in the classroom, it will be possible for districts to track both staff and student
improvement on the concept.

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The administrator stakeholder group will require a thorough knowledge
of social emotional learning competencies and their implementation in addition to an
understanding of the strategic planning process and how to monitor system improvements to be
successful with the professional practice goal and critical behaviors outlined. As part of this
knowledge acquisition, it will first be necessary for the administrator stakeholder group to
engage in professional development on the competencies of social emotional learning and their
utility value within K-12 school districts. Administrators will next require an understanding of
how the competencies are implemented in the classroom and how school districts have
previously engaged in supporting the implementation of SEL in the classroom to best prepare
their staff for the implementation of SEL. This process should be coupled with an understanding
of the professional learning communities in place in the district and how elements of the district
strategic plan can leverage these structures to support continuous professional learning. To
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

121
121
achieve these learning goals, it will be necessary that the administrator stakeholder group
engages in professional development and continuous professional discourse on the successful
implementation of social emotional learning programs with participating school districts.
Program. In order for school districts and the administrator stakeholder group to
successfully engage in the implementation of social emotional learning programs in their district
it will be necessary that stakeholders discuss the available programming on social emotional
learning and vet the program that will work best in their district. While there are packaged and
prescribed programs available, many of these programs satisfy specific grade bands or satisfy the
data analysis component without encompassing the need to implement a comprehensive K-12
program. For this reason, district administrators will need to make grade band specific decisions
and K-12 data decisions on the program employed.
The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), a national
organization that supports education agencies in developing their vision for SEL, has a clear
framework that consists of five key SEL competencies that are necessary for student
success. CASEL offers resources for teachers to support their conceptualization of SEL in their
content and resources for administrators in engaging in the strategic planning process for
implementing SEL programming in K-12 districts. As part of these resources, CASEL offers
guidance for school districts to support the decision making process for resources for specific
grade bands and also for K-12 data decisions. It is recommended that the administrator
stakeholder group access these resources and employ the CASEL framework as a resource for
implementing SEL in their home district. It is important to note that the process for
implementing SEL programming from its conceptualization to the necessary training should be a
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

122
122
multi-year process to allow for all stakeholders to understand their role and integrate SEL
into practice.
Evaluation of the components of learning. For the administrator stakeholder group to
support the implementation of social emotional learning programs in the classroom, they must
first participate in training to support the knowledge acquisition process and develop an
understanding of how to support the rollout of social emotional learning in their grade bands.
Table 13 describes the methods and activities that will be used to ensure that the administrator
stakeholder group has met the learning targets necessary to be successful at implementing social
emotional learning programming and meeting the group’s professional practice goal.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

123
123
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Administrators are able to identify the social emotional
competencies during training exercises.
During training
Administrators are able to connect social emotional learning
competencies to classroom practice.
Ongoing
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Administrators are able to identify appropropriate social emotional
learning program adjustments given scenarios.
During training
Administrators are able to identify action steps needed to support
school improvement efforts.
During training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor observations of administrator participation in classroom
lectures and scenarios.
During training
Administrators engage in the data collection and implementation of
social emotional learning programming.
Ongoing
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Professional learning communities support the ongoing discussion
and promote the successful implementation of social emotional
learning in the classroom.
Ongoing
Instructor observation of strategic planning document developed
during training.
During training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Summative survey item Immediately upon
completion of training

Level 1: Reaction
In order to measure the effectiveness of each training and the administrator stakeholder
group’s ability to support the implementation of social emotional learning programming, it will
be necessary to consistently measure the reactions of administrators throughout the knowledge
acquisition process. Table 14 below describes how administrator reactions will be measured
throughout the learning process.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

124
124
Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance at each training session. Each training
Attendance at professional learning communities. Ongoing
Participation at each training session. Each training
Participation at professional learning communities. Ongoing
Relevance
Reflections at each training session connecting the competencies
to school culture.
Each training
Reflections at each training session connecting the competencies
to classroom practice.
Each training
Customer Satisfaction
Survey on impact of training. Immediately following
training
Survey on confidence of administrator stakeholder group’s self-
efficacy.
Each training

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Immediately following the
training of administrators, it will be necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the training and the
ability of the administrator stakeholder group to support the training and rollout of social
emotional learning programs throughout the district. Appendix A represents a brief survey to be
administered after each training session in order to ensure that the administrator stakeholder
group is benefiting from the training and ready to implement social emotional learning
programming across the district. This survey will evaluate levels 1 and 2 in the Kirkpatrick
model described previously. The survey length and content allow for the effectiveness of the
training program to be evaluated over time, tracking improvement and affording the trainer the
opportunity to make adjustments based on the needs of the administrator stakeholder group.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

125
125
While Appendix A allows for a measurable assessment of administrator knowledge
acquisition, there will also be moments throughout the training that will allow for informal
feedback and qualitative data as identified in Tables 8 and 9. Appendix A will serve as one of
many data points to effectively evaluate training.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. It is recommended that the long
term evaluation of the effectiveness of the program is done through established measurements
developed by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to ensure consistency and
also to ensure that district training is meeting state level expectations on standards for effective
professional development. The department has pieced together a protocol for district
administrators to reflect on the effectiveness of professional development at the end of each PD
cycle. This protocol consists of a graphic organizer that allows for the admin team to synthesize
data and look thoughtfully at whether the data supports that the district has met intended
outcomes. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education recommends that the
protocol is used at the end of the training cycle as a summative assessment with the intention of
using this protocol as a means to frame next steps for the district. For an example of the protocol,
which focuses on Level 3 and Level 4 outcomes, see Appendix B.

Summary
Recommendations for the implementation of social emotional learning programming
have been made using the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The reasoning behind selecting this
framework was to ensure continuous assessment of progress throughout the intended
implementation plan and also to provide a structure that clearly breaks down the process for
organizational improvement. Embedded within the recommendations are critical behaviors and
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

126
126
specific intended outcomes for the organization to achieve their performance goal of
improving student sense of social emotional security in the classroom. In using the Kirkpatrick
model, it is possible for an organization to engage in the cycle of school improvement with clear,
measurable action steps that include the acquisition of knowledge, assessment of progress, and
structured professional learning to ensure that social emotional learning is able to become a part
of the district culture.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach

Clarke and Estes (2008) developed a conceptual framework to describe the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that support or hinder organizational change. The
conceptual framework for this study was built off of this model in order to understand how
school districts have addressed improving student sense of social emotional security in the
classroom. While the problem of practice was specific to this data point, in leveraging the Clark
and Estes framework it was possible to look at the strategic planning process associated with this
organizational improvement as opposed to looking at just this specific data point. The strengths
to this approach include having a holistic view of how organizations plan for and support change.
The study looked at the organization’s ability to plan for organizational change through
strategic planning for social-emotional learning programming. In utilizing the KMO framework,
it was possible to look at how organizations had accounted for gaps in knowledge and concerns
over staff motivation. In addition, it was also possible to look at long term plans for the
organization and how each participating district worked to make social-emotional learning a part
of the organization’s culture. Despite this, using the KMO framework within a qualitative study
did not specifically measure the impact of these changes on the problem of practice. Instead, the
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

127
127
KMO framework allowed for a big picture view on how to plan for intended outcomes
without specifically measuring whether these outcomes were met. It is thus the case that this
study outlined the framework for how districts might engage in the strategic planning process
without studying the measurement tools that might identify district success.

Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations of the study included a lack of representative sampling for school districts in
the Commonwealth engaged in social-emotional learning programming. Given that the study was
a promising practice model as opposed to improvement or evaluation, the number of study
participants was limited to include those school districts who had engaged in multiple years of
strategic planning for social-emotional learning programs. In limiting the study to three
participating school districts, the study provided an understanding of district progress for these
three districts without providing a comprehensive picture of all school districts that had begun
this work. In addition, the study focused on assistant superintendents and superintendents that
had planned for the rollout of programming without looking at building based leadership,
curriculum leadership, or members of the teacher stakeholder group to measure effectiveness of
programming and supports.
Delimitations of the study included an understanding of three school districts varying in
size and student demographic and their approach to planning for social-emotional learning
programming in the district. Each of the participating districts had approached SEL
programming with a different lens based on the unique needs and drivers identified in their
school district. The study served to provide three examples of approaches, outlining how districts
had initiated the work and continued to support the work after multiple years of implementation.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

128
128
As such, the results and findings of the study will serve to support districts in identifying best
practices in planning for social-emotional learning programming in K-12 school districts.
The results and findings of the study contribute to a larger body of research on planning
for organizational change in K-12 school districts in addition to identifying critical areas of focus
for state education agencies and research organizations looking to support school districts on the
implementation of SEL programs. Identified within the results and findings section are specific
functional concerns within participating school districts to include equipping teachers with the
skillset required to support SEL in the classroom, addressing the nuances between elementary
and secondary approaches to SEL, and also to measuring the success of SEL programming as it
relates to improving student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom.

Recommendations Future Research

Recommendations for future research include the inclusion of teacher and student
stakeholder groups to evaluate the effectiveness of social-emotional learning programming.
Measuring effectiveness of SEL programs should include an assessment of teacher knowledge
and motivation with regard to the implementation of the program in order to assess the district’s
effectiveness in planning for organizational change. In addition, measuring effectiveness should
include looking at student achievement data, mental health incidences, and improvement of
student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom. These measures together would
clearly identify whether the strategic planning process participating districts had engaged in was
effective in improving student outcomes but also in preparing its personnel to integrate SEL into
practice. It should be noted that at the time of the interviews each of the participating districts
were beginning to look at systems for measuring effectiveness in order to assess district progress.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

129
129
It is also recommended that further research is conducted to assess the impact of
teacher social-emotional health on school culture and student mental health as identified as next
steps for School B. Given the connections outlined between school culture and teacher
professional culture in previous chapters coupled with School B’s outlined intentions to look into
this data point, it is recommended that further research is conducted to examine the relationship
between teachers and students with regard to social-emotional health and well-being.

Conclusion

A growing number of school districts in the Commonwealth and nation-wide have begun
leveraging social-emotional learning as a vehicle to improve student achievement, mental health,
and school culture. The reasoning behind this focus is an increase in mental health incidences in
K-12 student populations to included increased trauma, increase student stress and anxiety, and
increased rates of suicide across all age groups nation-wide. For this reason, state education
policy recommendations in the Commonwealth and national recommendations for school
improvement under the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) include an emphasis on improving
student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom to address this problem of practice.
Research has demonstrated connections between student achievement and engagement and a
student’s social-emotional competencies. In addition, research has supported that mental health
efforts in K-12 school districts that are in concert with classroom instruction are more effective,
thus making the case for embedding SEL programming into classroom practice.
The qualitative study sought to identify best practices from three participating districts
who had engaged in multiple years of social-emotional learning programming in their district in
order to establish recommendations for school districts beginning this process. As part of this
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

130
130
study, three school districts were identified as being early adopters in this work and four
district administrators were interviewed to understand the strategic planning process for
implementing SEL programming in a K-12 district. Each of the participating districts had
focused on building capacity for SEL at the onset of its adoption of SEL as a key initiative in its
strategic plan. Through an emphasis on building capacity and professional learning, these
districts were able to achieve a common conceptual understanding of SEL programming within
their district and positioned these districts to hold teacher and administrator stakeholder groups
accountable for its implementation. Furthermore, the study found that participating districts were
able to motivate staff to implement SEL programming through a balance of shared leadership
and shared understanding with accountability structures that set specific and measureable goals
for school improvement.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

131
131
References
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2017). School values: A comparison of
academic motivation, mental health promotion, and school belonging with student
achievement. Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 34(1), 31-47. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1969019979?accountid=14749
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (2017). Risk Factors and Warning Signs. New York, NY.
Retrieved from https://afsp.org/about-suicide/risk-factors-and-warning-signs/
American Institutes for Research (2017). Mental Health Awareness. American Institutes for Research,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/resource/mental-health-awareness
Anderson, A., Thomas, D. R., Moore, D. W., & Kool, B. (2008). Improvements in school climate
associated with enhanced health and welfare services for students. Learning Environments
Research, 11(3), 245-256. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s10984-008-9044-5
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (1st ed.). New
York: Longman.
Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. M. (2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and
achievement in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 509-21. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1996510
29?accountid=14749
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

132
132
Barnes, J. (2005). "You could see it on their faces...": The importance of provoking smiles in
schools. Health Education, 105(5), 392-400. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61918931?accountid=14749
Barr, J. J. (2011). The relationship between teachers' empathy and perceptions of school
culture. Educational Studies, 37(3), 365-369. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/864938732?accountid=14749
Banerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2017). Teacher job satisfaction and student
achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and teacher collaboration in
schools. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 203-241. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1895984461?accountid=14749
Bernstein, M. & Linsky, M. (Winter 2016). Leading change through adaptive design. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 49-54.
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). Assessing teachers'
beliefs about social and emotional learning. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(3),
219-236. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1312425175?accountid=14749
Carlson, C. (1996). Changing the school culture toward integrated services. (). Retrieved from ERIC
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62580661?accountid=14749
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

133
133
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Health conditions among children under age 18,
by selected characteristics: United States, average annual, selected years 1997-1999 through
2012-2014. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/child.htm#healthstatus
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Connectedness: Strategies for Increasing Protective
Factors Among Youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.
Cimera, R. E., & Cowan, R. J. (2009). The costs of services and employment outcomes achieved by
adults with autism in the US. Autism, 13(3), 285-302.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning,
participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201-237,285.
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2122597
81?accountid=14749
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/6191126
6?accountid=14749
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (2017). Core SEL Competencies, retrieved
from https://casel.org/core-competencies/
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (2018). SEL Impact, retrieved from
https://casel.org/impact/
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

134
134
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (2018). Policy, retrieved from
https://casel.org/policy/
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Curtin SC, Warner M, Hedegaard H. Increase in suicide in the United States, 1999–2014. NCHS data
brief, no 241. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2016. Department of
Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book. Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490. doi: 10.1086/499651
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Drugli, M. B. (2013). How are closeness and conflict in student-teacher relationships associated with
demographic factors, school functioning and mental health in norwegian schoolchildren aged 6-
13? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(2), 217-225. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1509091164?accountid=14749
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132
Fauske, J. R., & Raybould, R. (2005). Organizational learning theory in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 43(1), 22-40. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/220462306?accountid=14749
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

135
135
Gallup, Inc., 2014. The State of America’s Schools: The Path to Winning Again in Education.
Gallup, Inc., Washington, D.C., retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/services/178769/state-
america-schools-report.aspx
Gallup, Inc., 2017. Gallup Student Poll 2015 Results. Engaged Today – Ready for Tomorrow, Gallup,
Inc., Washington, D.C., retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/services/189863/gallup-student-
poll-2015-results.aspx
Great Schools Partnership, 2014. Student Engagement, The Glossary of Education Reform, Great
Schools Partnership, Portland, ME, retrieved from http://edglossary.org/student-engagement/
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional
learning as a public health approach to education. Future of Children, 27(1), 13-32. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1913347764?accountid=14749
Hofman, R. H., Hofman, H. W., & Guldemond, H. (2002). School governance, culture, and student
achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(3), 249-272. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62205590?accountid=14749
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The
effects of teachers' working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students'
achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 39. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1361845861?accountid=14749

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

136
136
Karadag, E., Kilicoglu, G., & Yilmaz, D. (2014). Organizational cynicism, school culture, and
academic achievement: The study of structural equation modeling.Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, 14(1), 102-113. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1651863214?accountid=14749
Kezar, A. (2001a). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report Volume 28(4), 25-58.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1993). An Emerging Framework for Analyzing School-Based Professional
Community.
Langley, G., Moen, R., Nolan, K., Nolan, T., Norman, C., & Provost, L. (2009). The improvement guide
(2nd ed.). pp. 15 – 47. Chapters 1 and 2.
Lester, L., & Cross, D. (2015). The relationship between school climate and mental and emotional
wellbeing over the transition from primary to secondary school. Psychology of Well-being, 5(1),
1-15. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1186/s13612-015-0037-8
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student
achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61881831?accountid=14749

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

137
137
Marcoulides, G. A., Heck, R. H., & Papanastasiou, C. (2005). Student perceptions of school culture
and achievement: Testing the invariance of a model.International Journal of Educational
Management, 19(2), 140-152. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61922829?accountid=14749
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2018). The Massachusetts
Educator Evaluation Framework. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCollum, E. C., & Yoder, N. P. (2011). School culture, teacher regard, and academic aspirations
among middle school students. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(2), 65-74. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/964177820?accountid=14749
McLeod, J. D., Uemura, R., & Rohrman, S. (2012). Adolescent mental health, behavior problems, and
academic achievement. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(4), 482-97. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1282294498?accountid=14749
Merrell, K. W. (2010). Linking prevention science and social and emotional learning: The oregon
resiliency project. Psychology in the Schools, 47(1), 55-70. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61815219?accountid=14749

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

138
138
Minkkinen, J., Lindfors, P., Kinnunen, J., Finell, E., Vainikainen, M., Karvonen, S., & Rimpelä, A.
(2017). Health as a predictor of students' academic achievement: A 3-level longitudinal study of
finnish adolescents. Journal of School Health, 87(12), 902-910. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2009559347?accountid=14749
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change, Journal of Workplace EDUC 725
(OCL) – Summer 2018 4 Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74.
Mubeen, Hifza & Ashraf, Hira & Nisar, Qasim. (2016). Impact of Emotional Intelligence and
Knowledge Management on Organizational Performance: Mediating Role of Organizational
Learning. Journal of Management Info. 11. 35-52.
National School Climate Center (2017). Measuring School Climate (CSCI), retrieved from
https://www.schoolclimate.org/services/measuring-school-climate-csci
Newmann, F. (1994). School-wide Professional Community. Issues in Restructuring Schools(6).
Ohlson, M., Swanson, A., Adams-Manning, A., & Byrd, A. (2016). A culture of success--examining
school culture and student outcomes via a performance framework. Journal of Education and
Learning, 5(1), 114-127. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1826537001?accountid=14749
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Motivation in Writing Development. In C.
A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 158-170).
New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

139
139
Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg,
R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and
reducing risk behavior in children and youthRetrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62431236?accountid=14749
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning
and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.95.4.667
Pritchard, R. J., Morrow, D., & Marshall, J. C. (2005). School and district culture as reflected in student
voices and student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(2), 153-177.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62130869?accountid=14749
Reicher, H., & Matischek-Jauk, M. (2017). Preventing depression in adolescence through social and
emotional learning. International Journal of Emotional Education, 9(2), 110-115. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2011262737?accountid=14749
Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy. (2016). Toward a More Comprehensive Vision of
Student Learning. Boston, MA.
Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., & Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: Schools and the "research to
practice gap" in children's mental health. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 153. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2196555
76?accountid=14749
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

140
140
Ripski, M. B., & Gregory, A. (2009). Unfair, unsafe, and unwelcome: Do high school students'
perceptions of unfairness, hostility, and victimization in school predict engagement and
achievement? Journal of School Violence, 8(4), 355-375. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61828054?accountid=14749
Rowling, L. (2009). Strengthening "school" in school mental health promotion.Health
Education, 109(4), 357-368. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61855149?accountid=14749
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2009). Sociocultural theory. In M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.),
Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (pp. 851-856). Farmington Hills, MI: Gale
Group.
Sinclair, K. E., & Ryan, G. (1987). Teacher anxiety, teacher effectiveness, and student anxiety. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 3(3), 249. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1300738517?accountid=14749
Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leadership to improve student achievement: Focus the culture on learning. AASA
Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 7(1), 10-23. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/742876089?accountid=14749
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

141
141
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Harrison, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2016). Cultures of learning in effective high
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 602-642. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1871585422?accountid=14749
Tillery, A. D., Varjas, K., Roach, A. T., Kuperminc, G. P., & Meyers, J. (2013). The importance of adult
connections in adolescents' sense of school belonging: Implications for schools and
practitioners. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 134-155. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1509082740?accountid=14749
Trussell, R. P. (2008). Promoting school-wide mental health. International Journal of Special
Education, 23(3), 149-155. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61897753?accountid=14749
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of
Mental Health. (2015). NIMH Strategic Plan for Research (NIH Publication No. 02-2650).
Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports/index.shtml
U.S. Department of Education, Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate
and Discipline, Washington, D.C., 2014.
Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher-student trust relationships
and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 85-100. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/851229601?accountid=14749

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

142
142
Weiner, J. M., & Higgins, M. C. (2017). Where the two shall meet: Exploring the relationship
between teacher professional culture and student learning culture.Journal of Educational
Change, 18(1), 21-48. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1895988918?accountid=14749
West, R., Evans, A., & Michie, S. (2011). Behaviour change techniques used in group-based
behavioural support by the English Stop-Smoking Services and preliminary assessment of
association with short-term quit outcomes. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 13, 13161320.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

143
143
APPENDIX A

Interview Protocol

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. As we have previously discussed, I
am interested in learning about your district’s work with social emotional learning. Our
conversation today will be divided into three components: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, with the intention of understanding the process your district has
undergone to support this organizational change.
For the first portion of the interview, I will ask you questions related to your conceptual
knowledge of social emotional learning and the process through which you developed social
emotional learning goals in your district.

1. What is your understanding of social emotional learning? As a district leader, why
do you believe social emotional learning is an important focus?

2. How have state level recommendations on integrating social emotional learning
programming impacted your district’s strategic planning and goal setting process?

3. Can you describe the action steps embedded in the social emotional learning
component of your district’s improvement plans?

4. What is your assessment of your district’s progress in implementing social
emotional learning? How are you assessing progress?
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

144
144
Thank you. For my research, I have focused on utility value and self-efficacy when looking
at adult learning theory. For this next portion of the interview, I would like to ask you questions
related to perceived stakeholder motivation. Stakeholder motivation refers to the teacher and
administrator stakeholder groups understanding of the utility value of social emotional learning,
or their belief that SEL programming is a valuable investment of time and resources, and the
group’s self-efficacy, meaning their belief in their ability to implement SEL programming
successfully.

1. As a district leader, what have been your greatest challenges in motivating staff with
regard to social emotional learning?

2. Can you describe what elements of your strategic plan have focused on providing
support to staff in their understanding of social emotional learning? How have these
supports been effective?

3. What has supporting social emotional learning at the secondary level looked like in
your district? What has happened at the secondary level that has been different than
the elementary level?

4. How motivated do you believe your faculty is to integrate SEL at the secondary
level? Can you describe your reasoning for this assessment?

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

145
145
Thank you. For our final portion of the interview I would like to focus on organizational
change. The purpose of these questions is to talk through how the rollout of social emotional
learning programming has changed over time, its impact, and how the district has measured
progress.

1. What changes to the dynamics of classrooms have you observed during the process
of integrating social emotional learning into the district culture? How have these
dynamics differed by grade band?

2. Can you describe any barriers you have faced in garnering momentum for
integrating social emotional learning in the secondary classroom?

3. As a district leader, how have you planned for and supported navigating around
these barriers? How has this planning differed by grade band?

4. What do you believe are the next steps for your district with regard to social
emotional learning?

5. What advice would you offer to a school district beginning a strategic planning
process that integrates social emotional learning?

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

146
146
APPENDIX B
Administrator Training Evaluation Instrument
The following survey will be used to evaluate your understanding of social emotional learning
and your perceived ability to support the effective implementation of social emotional learning
training and programming in your district.

For questions 1-4, think about the training you have just experienced.

1. I found the training to be engaging.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
2. I found the training to be relevant to my role as an
administrator.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
3. I found the training to be relevant to my district’s needs.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
4. The training supported my acquisition of new knowledge
on social emotional learning.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
5. Overall, the trainer was supportive and informative.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree

For questions 6-10, think about your readiness to support social emotional learning with staff.

6. I understand the five key competencies of SEL in the
CASEL framework.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
7. I am able to connect the competencies to the classroom.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
8. I understand the value of supporting SEL programming
in the district.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
9. I am ready to develop action steps to support the rollout
of social emotional learning in the district.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
10. I need more support on SEL to move forward.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING IN K-12 POPULATIONS

147
147
Appendix C

Guiding Protocol for Stakeholder Reflection in Interpreting Outcomes
and Making Final Recommendations

The following prompts can be used during face-to-face meetings with the PD team,
participants, and other audiences to focus their initial reflection and prompt for further
reflection prior to submitting final feedback.

1. (Before presenting results ask:) What outcomes and results do you anticipate and why?
2. (After sharing results ask:) What surprised you and why?
3. What was in alignment with your expectations?
4. Do you consider the professional development program to have had a positive
impact on educators? Why or why not?
5. Do you consider the professional development program to have had a positive
impact on students? Why or why not?
6. (After specifically focusing on the data ask:) What conclusions might we make about
the quality of implementation?
7. What conclusions might we make about the assessment design?
8. What conclusions might we make about the level of support provided to participants
in their application of learning in practice?
9. What conclusions might we make about conditions within the work environment
that influence the application of learning?
10. (Before concluding ask:) Is ___ weeks adequate for further reflection and final
feedback?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the strategic planning process for school districts in the Commonwealth that have engaged in implementing social-emotional learning programs to improve student sense of social-emotional security in the classroom. The intentions were to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that may have contributed to or hindered district progress in successfully implementing social-emotional learning across a K-12 education environment. The study looked at three school districts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that had engaged in multiple years of implementing social-emotional learning programming and were in a position where they could reflect on their progress. The study found that while motivators for engaging in this work varied, the participating districts had all focused on building capacity by supporting the utility value of social-emotional learning programming, placing an emphasis on professional learning and professional learning communities, and leveraging systems for accountability and measurement to set clear targets for school improvement outcomes. While each of the districts had found success in purchasing a program at the elementary grade bands, each of the participating districts voiced concerns with the lack of cohesive resources for social-emotional learning at the secondary level. Recommendations for future research would be to explore the teacher stakeholder group response to social-emotional learning programs and also to research the implementation of social-emotional learning programming at the secondary level.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Social emotional learning curriculum implementation: an evaluation study of fidelity

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

Assessing administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care in K−12 schools

PDF

What are teacher beliefs about social emotional learning in a synchronous webcam-enabled online higher education learning environment?

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The importance of rigor and engagement on student achievement and mastery: an evaluation study

PDF

How service-learning educators help students learn: master teachers’ perspectives

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

Asset Metadata

Creator Burroughs, Stephanie (author)

Core Title Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/13/2019

Defense Date 09/16/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag K-12 education,OAI-PMH Harvest,social-emotional learning,strategic planning,Teacher Leadership

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email iacadoro@usc.edu,stephanieburroughs1982@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-234054

Unique identifier UC11673215

Identifier etd-BurroughsS-7921.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-234054 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BurroughsS-7921.pdf

Dmrecord 234054

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Burroughs, Stephanie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA