Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)
(USC Thesis Other)
How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 1
How Urban High School Principals Implement Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
by
Ryan M. Bird
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
August 2020
Copyright 2020 Ryan Bird
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures 6
Dedications 7
Acknowledgements 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 11
State of the Children 11
The History of SEL 13
Accountability Reform 17
Principals 19
Research Problem 21
Purpose of the Study 21
Research Questions 22
Significance of the Study 22
Limitations of the Study 23
Delimitations of the Study 23
Definitions of Related Concepts 24
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 25
Introduction 25
Social and Emotional Learning 26
Emotional Intelligence and Social-Emotional Competence 26
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 3
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) 29
Importance of SEL in High School 35
Mental Health 35
School Climate 38
Suspension/Expulsion 40
School Engagement 44
Academic Achievement 46
Program Implementation in High School 49
District-Level Support 50
Funding 52
Systems 55
Administrator Training 58
The Principal’s Role in Implementation of SEL 60
Principal’s Role in High School 60
Barriers to Implementation for Principals 66
SEL Framework (Conceptual Framework) 70
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) 70
Positive Deviance (Theoretical Framework) 76
Summary 79
Chapter Three: Methodology 79
Statement of the Problem 79
Purpose of the Study 80
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 4
Research Questions 80
Selection of the Population 81
Design Summary 82
Methodology 83
Qualitative Method 83
Instrumentation and Protocols 83
Qualitative Instrument 83
Data Collection 84
Interviews 84
Document Review 85
Data Analysis 86
Validity and Reliability 86
Summary 87
Chapter Four: Findings 87
Background 87
Demographics of Participants 90
Research Questions 91
Purpose of the Study 91
Coding of Data 92
Findings 92
Research Question #1 93
SEL-Embedded Practices 93
Investing in Adult SEL 99
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 5
District Support 102
Research Question #2 107
Making SEL a Priority 107
Principal Social and Emotional Skills 111
Research Question #3 114
Positive School Climate 114
Positive Deviance and Self-Efficacy 116
Research Question #4 118
Summary 123
Chapter Five: Discussion 124
Findings 126
Research Question One 126
Research Question Two 129
Research Question Three 130
Research Question Four 132
Limitations 133
Implications for Practice 133
Future Research 135
Conclusions 136
References 139
Appendix 146
Invitation to Participate 146
Interview Protocol 147
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 6
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1. SEL Systems of Support Framework 31
Figure 2. Coordinated SEL and Related Approaches: The jumbled and
synergized schoolhouses 56
Figure 3. CASEL’s Model for SEL 72
Figure 4. Cycle of SEL Implementation 73
Figure 5. CASEL Schoolwide SEL Implementation Process 74
Figure 6. Positive Deviance Framework for Implementation of SEL by
Urban High School Principals 78
Table 1. Participant CA Dashboard Data 91
Table 2. CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 1 120
Table 3. CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 2 120
Table 4. CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 3 121
Table 5. CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 4 121
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 7
Dedications
Robert Frost wrote, “the best way out is always through.” This research study is the
culmination of over 30 years of one woman’s perseverance and commitment to her children,
despite the countless obstacles life has presented her. Being a single mother is hard. Being a
good mother is even harder. This work is dedicated to my amazing mother who taught me
through her actions and undying love that life is what you make of it, that there is light at the end
of every tunnel, and that failure can be the best teacher of success. Thank you for never giving
up, mom. This one’s for you! I love you.
It was my mom that taught me how to view life and all its challenges, but it was my little
sister that taught me how to love and appreciate them. Savannah, you have been both the most
loving and challenging person in my life. Your love has taught me how to be a good brother, a
good teacher, and a good man. You’ve always challenged me to be kind, patient, and
understanding. I know we’ve had our cloudy days, but you will always be my sunshine. Amo!
Lastly, to my love. For over a decade you have been my rock and my guiding light. When
we met, I was just a kid with no real ambitions or goals. Your love taught me to dream of a
future that was radically different from my past. You inspired me to be brave, compassionate,
and mindful of my impact on the world. You’ve known me at my lowest and somehow still
managed to make me feel like the most special person in the universe. Whenever I doubted
myself, you were there to reassure me that I could overcome whatever challenges I faced. You
are thoughtful, you are beautiful, and you are endlessly loving, and I feel so lucky to have found
you so early in my life. My success is yours, and you deserve all the praise in the world for
enduring this extremely difficult and stressful process. Thank you for sticking through it with
me. I know it wasn’t easy, but we did it! I love you, Linda.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 8
Acknowledgements
I would be remiss if I didn’t send my love and gratitude to my partner-in-crime at USC,
Mariana. You and I took on much larger challenges than I think either of us realized when we
picked our dissertation topics, but we both agreed that it was more important to love what we do
rather than to do what is easy. Thanks to all of the countless study hours in the basement, our
secret spot in Annenberg, and the village, we finally did it! I’m so proud of you and inspired by
your hard work and passion for life and all you do. You have been a colleague, a counselor, and
most importantly, a friend when I needed it. Thank you for everything, Mar.
I would especially like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Cash, for his willingness to
accept me as an individual research study in the middle of last summer. With so little time and so
much to do, you were somehow still able to make me feel like I could tackle this seemingly
impossible challenge! Thank you for your guidance and patience. To my committee member, Dr.
Green, who has been a sounding board and confidant, thank you! Brazil was nuts! I’m so glad
we got to know each other through this journey. And to Dr. Escalante, your experience and
leadership in K-12 is something to be admired. Thank you for your support and knowledge, both
of which have been a major contribution to this study.
I also want to thank each of my best friends, Marc, Loren, Trevor and Andreu. You guys
have been through it all with me. The old adage “show me your friends and I’ll show you your
future” is a true testament to how much each of you has contributed to the man I am today. Marc,
you taught me discipline and respect. Loren, you taught me courage and humility. Trevor, you
taught me honor and integrity. And Andreu, you taught me compassion and true brotherhood. I
don’t know where I’d be without you guys, and I hope you all know how much you mean to me.
Like each of you were for me, whenever you need, I’ll be there.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 9
Abstract
Recent studies on principals’ perceptions and implementation of SEL programs found that only a
little over one-third of principals (35 percent) had developed a plan for SEL and were currently
implementing it schoolwide (DePaoli et al., 2017). This gap in SEL implementation in schools is
especially a problem at the high school level, where SEL program effects have been studied the
least (Durlak et al., 2011). This study highlighted the practices of 5 urban high school principals
who were able to implement SEL schoolwide, defining them as “positive deviants” due to their
unique ability to overcome obstacles and barriers that similar schools faced, without additional
resources. A qualitative phenomenological research design was used to collect data via one-on-
one interviews with each principal. Schools were selected based on ideal performance indicators
according to the 2018 and 2019 California School Dashboard results. Study findings revealed
that positively deviant principals were able to embed SEL directly into a number of schoolwide
practices, developed the SEL competencies of their staff through trainings and professional
development opportunities, and felt empowered by their districts to implement SEL, even when
they chose to tailor their approach to their school’s specific needs. All of the principals in this
study made SEL a priority in their school through deliberate actions that included conducting
schoolwide surveys, facilitating committees for SEL development and implementation, and
creating practices designed to promote schoolwide SEL. Implications for practice include district
support for SEL, principals’ ability to model SEL skills, and the importance of intentionally
working to build a positive school climate. Recommendations for future research include the
continued examination of high school principals implementing SEL in various settings and
populations and further investigation into the barriers that prevent the implementation of SEL in
high school.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Most people probably remember high school as some of the most formative years of their
life. The relationships we develop, the things we learn about ourselves, others, and the world
around us, and the experiences we endure in those four years can have lasting effects on the rest
of our lives. In 2018, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) reported national rates and trends
of health-risk behaviors for public high school students in grades 9-12. Study data revealed new
insights into the behaviors and perceptions of high school students and found increasing
evidence that confirms what we all suspected: as high school goes on, students feel less safe
(Austin, Hansen, Polik, & Zheng, 2018; Kann et al., 2018). With recent changes to school
accountability standards at the federal and state levels (California Department of Education,
2016), local districts have been tasked with developing and implementing a plan for improving
both academic and non-academic outcomes for their students. These outcomes include, but are
not limited to chronic absenteeism, suspension/expulsion, school culture-climate, high school
readiness, graduation, English Learner progress, and academic achievement and growth (Marsh
et al., 2018). Simultaneously, an extensive body of research continues to amass on the positive
effects of social and emotional learning (SEL) programs on both academic and non-academic
student outcomes (i.e. attitudes toward self, others, and school, behavioral adjustment, prosocial
behaviors, emotional regulation, conduct and internalizing problems, social communication
skills, and academic achievement) (Coelho & Sousa, 2018; Durlak et al., 2011; McClelland et
al., 2017; Oberle et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2017; Yeager, 2017; Zins & Elias, 2007).
Unsurprisingly, recent findings indicated 95% of school leaders agreed that their students can
and should learn SEL skills at school (DePaoli et al., 2017). However, while federal, state, and
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 11
local school leaders all appear to be in agreement about the importance of SEL in schools,
research suggests only one third of all school principals have actually developed a plan for
teaching SEL schoolwide (DePaoli et al., 2017). This gap in SEL implementation in schools is
especially a problem at the high school level, where SEL program effects have been studied the
least (Durlak et al., 2011). While a majority of research studies may seek to understand exactly
why so many principals have not been able to develop and implement SEL at their schools, this
study employed the positive deviance approach to identify and understand the factors that have
led those significant few who have been able to overcome the challenges many others face.
Simply put, rather than asking why, this study found who, and then asked what and how.
Background of the Problem
State of the Children
Our children are growing up in a time when our political leaders fight over issues of
racial, sexual, religious, and socio-economic inequality. They have been subject to the rapid rise
of social media as it has begun to permeate every context of a child’s life. Sadly, the very
prospect of a successful and happy future is now preceded by questions of financial affordability,
educational and occupational opportunity, and whether or not somewhere down the road you
might be walking home alone, enjoying a concert with friends, congregating in your place of
worship, stopped by the police, or simply sitting in your high school classroom when someone
with a gun decides to point and shoot. It has become increasingly more and more difficult for
teenagers to feel safe and supported in the places that used to offer them reprieve from the
already seemingly insurmountable challenges of adolescence. The ever-growing dangers of the
real world require more now than ever the skills to cope with and manage the feelings brought on
by such an existence.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 12
It is no surprise the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which collected nationwide
representative data on public high school students in grades 9-12, discovered increases in teenage
health-risk behaviors, including not going to school because of safety concerns, feeling sad or
hopeless, seriously contemplating suicide and making a plan for suicide (Kann et al., 2018).
Additionally, the California Healthy Kids Survey’s 16
th
Biennial Statewide Survey of School
Climate, Substance Abuse, and Student Well-Being in California for children in grades 7, 9 and
11 found that only 6 in 10 high school students reported feeling “safe or very safe” in their
schools (Austin, Hansen, Polik, & Zheng, 2018). The very same study revealed that as children
got older, there was both a decline in perceived levels of safety, as well as an increase in feelings
of chronic sadness and hopelessness.
Recent research has also unveiled exacerbated discrepancies in negative outcomes among
some of our more vulnerable student populations. For example, one study found that Hispanic
students, students with lower grades, and lower-income students reported feeling less safe,
stressed out more often, less engaged and motivated, and feeling bored, lonely, and bullied in
school more often than their peers of other racial, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds
(DePaoli, Atwell, Bridgeland, & Shriver, 2018).
These negative impacts are also starting to be recognized by educators. One study found
that roughly one-third of teachers and administrators believed that the current socio-political
climate had a negative impact on their students’ behavior (McGraw Hill Education, 2018). While
another study found almost three quarters (74 percent) of superintendents agreed that preparing
their students for engaged citizenship was going to be a challenge in the coming year due to an
increasingly contentious and polarized political environment, and especially after the recent acts
of school-based gun violence (e.g. Parkland, Florida)(Gallup, 2018). Concerns over mounting
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 13
school-related issues throughout the U.S. have led to a nationwide effort to improve student
outcomes; in both academic and non-academic domains.
The History of SEL
While there has been a gradual rise in the concern over student outcomes related to non-
academic factors, an equal resurgence in research related to students’ social and emotional
experiences, competency, and learning has been underway since the early 1990s (Domitrovich &
Greenberg, 2000; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010; Elias et al., 1997; Jones & Doolittle,
2017; Weissberg, Shriver, Bose, & DeFalco, 1997; Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg,
2007). According to experts in the matter, social and emotional competence is defined as:
The ability to understand, manage, and express the social emotional aspects of one’s life
in ways that enable the successful management of life’s tasks such as learning, forming
relationships, solving everyday problems, and adapting to the complex demands of
growth and development. (Elias et al., 1997)
Researchers posit that these skills are necessary for children to be successful both personally and
academically, as many aspects of learning are based on the relationships children develop with
those from whom they learn (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 1990), and that many of the
processes in the development of the brain that used to be thought of as purely “biological” are
actually the result of both cognition and emotion working together to organize thoughts, codify
memories, and create meaningful and purposeful responses to the child’s experiences (Perry,
2005). Due to the increased social and economic pressures many students, families, and
communities face today, schools are more and more often charged with the responsibility of
teaching their students how to manage and overcome a variety of challenges related to their own
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 14
personal experiences, which are often intensified by unrestricted access to social media and other
technologies (Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015).
The “process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set
and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive
relationships, and make responsible decisions” has been coined Social and Emotional Learning
(SEL) (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2019b). The term
represents a new systemic approach to how teaching and learning occur, as well as when and
where students learn. Since the term was coined over 24 years ago, hundreds of studies have
repeatedly found the effects of SEL to be exponentially beneficial for all students who receive
systematic and targeted instruction (Bierman et al., 2010; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor,
& Schellinger, 2011; Elias et al., 1997; Greenberg, Domitrovich, Weissberg, & Durlak, 2017;
Zins et al., 2007). One of the largest studies on the effects of SEL was a meta-analysis of 213
school-based SEL programs for children in kindergarten through high school (Durlak et al.,
2011). In this study, researchers found that compared to students who did not receive SEL
interventions, those who participated in SEL programs showed an increase in academic
performance, social and emotional skills, attitudes and positive behaviors, as well as a decrease
in conduct problems and levels of emotional distress post-intervention. Findings from the study
have acted as a catalyst for further research on the effects of SEL in schools.
In addition to overall student success and well-being, many studies have focused on the
effects of SEL interventions on specific issues and populations. For example, Bierman et al.
(2010) found in their study of a multi-year social-emotional learning intervention that boys who
entered first grade with higher than usual levels of aggression were more likely to benefit from
SEL interventions than their typical peers, as evidenced by greater decreases in aggression for
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 15
more aggressive boys. Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg (2005) revealed in their study of
a whole-school positive behavior support model that SEL yielded decreases in both office
referrals and suspensions at an urban elementary school. And Graves et al. (2017) found that a
culturally adapted social emotional curriculum for students in kindergarten through fifth grade
was able to increase self-regulation and self-competence for African American students in an
urban elementary school.
While there are multiple frameworks that have been designed for the strategic
development and implementation of SEL (Brown, Roderick, Lantieri, & Aber, 2004; Dusenbury,
Calin, Domitrovich, & Weissberg, 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones & Bouffard, 2012;
Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2012), this paper focuses on that of arguably the
most notable organization to do so, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL). CASEL, which is also largely responsible for much of the research on the
subject to date, has developed a framework of five core SEL competencies (Self-Awareness,
Self-Management, Social Awareness, Relationship Skills, Responsible Decision-Making) that it
asserts, when implemented across a variety of settings (e.g. districts, schools, classrooms,
homes), can lead to increased academic achievement, improved behavior, and positive socio-
economic outcomes over the course of a student’s life (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning, 2019a).
As awareness of SEL grows, more and more educators are acknowledging the benefits of
social and emotional learning for their students. In a nationally representative survey of 605
teachers in prekindergarten through high school, from a diverse array of schools throughout the
U.S., researchers found that nearly all teachers (93 percent) believe SEL should be an important
part of their students’ school experience, and almost every teacher (97 percent) agreed that all
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 16
students could benefit from SEL, regardless of their background (Bridgeland, Bruce, &
Hariharan, 2013). The majority of these teachers believed that social and emotional skills are
teachable and called for a greater emphasis on SEL in their district and school learning practices.
Outside of the classroom, principals echo the teachers’ sentiment toward SEL. One
survey found that over 97% of principals believe that increasing SEL in their schools would have
a positive impact on their students’ academic achievement, college preparation, workforce
readiness, successful K-12 progress, and high school graduation (DePaoli, Atwell, & Bridgeland,
2017). In another study that focused on three diverse districts from across the country which
appeared to be successfully implementing district-wide SEL, researchers found that the common
theme through all three districts was the “vigorous and visible support of their superintendents
for SEL” (Vaishnov, Cristol, & Hance, 2016). Similarly, around the world over 80% of
educators surveyed believe that positive emotions are critical for student success, and emotional
well-being is crucial for developing foundational literacies and communication skills (The
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019).
However, it’s not just educators who see the impact of SEL on students. Parents and
students are also beginning to stress the importance of SEL as part of the in-school experience.
For example, one study found over 81% of parents believed that SEL significantly impacted
academic performance and future success for their students, with 82% agreeing that SEL is just
as important as academic learning (McGraw Hill Education, 2018). Additionally, over 74% of
current and recent high school students surveyed reported that attending a school that has a
strong focus on SEL would appeal to them and would personally benefit them; while a majority
of current (78 percent) and recent (69 percent) high school students said that their teachers are
supportive and respectful, more than half of current (52 percent) and recent (62 percent) students
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 17
said that there still needed to be changes made in their school in order for it to be a good place
for students to learn and do their best (DePaoli et al., 2018). Clearly all stakeholders in
education, from the students to district leaders, see the need for SEL and want some form of it in
their schools.
Accountability Reform
As a result of the increasing pressure to address student outcomes related to non-academic
factors, major reforms in federal and state education policy have allowed more flexibility for
local education agencies (LEAs) to invest in new methods of improving these outcomes. Starting
with the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), which was signed into law
by President Obama, replacing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), states were granted
the ability to define student success in more ways than traditional standardized test scores. Soon
after the law was signed, leading education groups such as the National Association of State
Boards of Educators (NASBE) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) were
quick to offer guidelines to states on the interpretation and implementation of ESSA, and
emphasized the opportunity states and districts have to use the new accountability standards to
add their own measures of student success by means of a number of possible metrics (e.g.
chronic absenteeism, school climate and discipline, social and emotional learning)(Charis &
Losen, 2017; Lorenzo, 2017; National Association of State Boards of Education, 2017).
As such, many states have seized this opportunity to adopt new accountability measures that
would ensure LEAs are investing in new resources for students, targeted at increasing student
equity, improving school climate, and addressing SEL in their schools (Melnick, Cook-Harvey,
& Darling-Hammond, 2017). According to a recent report by CASEL (Dusenbury, Dermody, &
Weissberg, 2018), more than half of the 50 states now offer competencies/standards and/or
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 18
guidelines for SEL. Furthermore, 14 of those states articulate SEL competencies/standards for
pre-kindergarten through high school. This is a major uptick in the number of states embracing
SEL in their education policies compared to the previous report in 2011, when there was only
one state identified with such comprehensive SEL standards (Illinois).
In California, a state serving over six million students in over one thousand school districts,
the passing of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) law in 2013 significantly changed
how the state would provide public funding to schools by requiring the adoption of a new
statewide accountability model aimed at identifying areas of strength, challenges, and need for
LEAs, schools, and student groups(California Department of Education, 2017). As part of that
accountability model, a new online performance tracking system dubbed the “California School
Dashboard” was created to provide easier access to school and LEA performance results for
parents/guardians, educators, and other stakeholders. The dashboard is used to report the
performance of LEAs on local and statewide measures; which, in response to federal policies set
forth by ESSA, now include non-academic indicators of student success (e.g. chronic
absenteeism, suspension rate, clean and safe school buildings, school climate, parent
engagement) (California Department of Education, 2019a). Based on performance results,
schools and districts may be identified for additional support under federal and state law in order
to improve student outcomes.
While it has not fully adopted statewide SEL standards/competencies, California has posted
guidance for SEL on its department of education website, and even begun to leverage individual
district practices and expertise in order to support the spread of SEL awareness via professional
learning communities (Collaborating States Initiative, 2018b). Furthermore, the state department
of education has acknowledged the fundamental role of SEL to academic success and states that
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 19
it “must be woven into the work of every teacher in every classroom and every after school and
summer learning program, if we truly want to prepare all our students for college and careers”
(California Department of Education, 2019b). As part of its commitment to encouraging SEL in
schools, California also joined the Collaborating States Initiative (CSI) hosted by CASEL in
2016. The CSI, which began as a group of 5 states, and as of 2018 has grown to 25 partnering
states, is a nonpartisan effort to better equip state education agencies to work directly with
district-level educators on “promoting integrated, equity-focused, academic, social, and
emotional learning” (Collaborating States Initiative, 2018a). So far, the collaborative effort has
led to an increase in the number of states providing guidance for and even adopting statewide
standards/competencies for SEL in pre-kindergarten through high school. With rapidly growing
support at the federal and state levels, SEL appears to only be on the rise. The burden now falls
on school leaders to ensure that their schools and educators are adequately equipped and capable
of implementing the SEL practices that will yield the desired outcomes to which they are now
accountable.
Principals
When discussing school-level change, teachers and instruction are often the focus of the
conversation because of their direct correlation with and impact on student learning. What is
often overlooked is the influence of the school’s leadership, or principal, on student learning,
which leading research has claimed is second only to classroom instruction (Seashore Louis,
Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Like the diverse array of duties a school principal
may assume in their role as a leader, their effects can be equally various and seen across many
school outcomes. One study in Florida found the amount of time principals spent on
organizational management activities was positively correlated with specific school outcomes
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 20
including student achievement, teacher satisfaction, and parent perceptions of the school (Horng,
Klasik, & Loeb, 2010). Another study found one of the greatest impacts a school principal can
have is on the overall school climate (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012); coincidentally one of
California’s newest indicators of student success. Furthermore, White-Smith & White (2009)
found that principals’ perception of their school-change initiative was directly related to its
successful implementation. These findings suggest that school principals are at the very least,
directly related to the implementation of schoolwide learning practices, such as SEL.
As far back as the 1960s, principals have been responsible for the implementation of
federally and state-sponsored programs for special student populations (Hallinger, 1992). With
mounting support for the implementation of SEL in schools, principals are in the crosshairs
nationwide. While research on the relationship between the role of the principal and the
implementation of SEL is limited, early studies have indicated promising trends. One of the
largest studies, which included a nationally representative sample of over 850 Pre-K to High
School principals, found that nearly all principals (98 percent), regardless of whether they lead
high- or low-poverty schools, believed that students of all backgrounds would benefit from SEL
in schools (DePaoli et al., 2017). Additionally, most principals appeared to agree that increasing
SEL skills would increase student achievement in their classwork, and better prepare students for
college and the workforce. Furthermore, national professional organizations such as NAESP and
NASSP appear to advocate for school principals to provide safe and supportive environments to
meet their students’ needs, successful academic growth, and personal development (Fuller,
Young, Richardson, Pendola, & Winn, 2018; National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 2018). The impression felt is that, as school leaders, with one of the largest influences
on student outcomes, principals care as much about SEL as all other stakeholders.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 21
Research Problem
While it appears that almost all stakeholders in Pre-K-12 education agree on the
importance of SEL for their students, as is evident by a growing body of research and major
federal, state, and district-level policy reform over the last decade, the actual number of school
principals implementing social and emotional learning in their schools appears to be far less
auspicious. In fact, one of the most recent studies on principals’ perceptions and implementation
of SEL programs found only a little over one third of principals (35 percent) surveyed reported
having developed a plan for SEL and were currently implementing it schoolwide (DePaoli et al.,
2017). This gap in SEL implementation in schools is especially a problem at the high school
level, where SEL program effects have been studied the least (Durlak et al., 2011). In California
specifically, increased accountability measures related to the non-academic outcomes of high
school students places principals in historically challenged areas under increased scrutiny and
pressure to find new ways to improve their schools. Furthermore, in schools where SEL is not
being implemented at all, principals play a vital role in helping their teachers become more
engaged and participatory in the adoption of SEL in their classrooms and schoolwide (Meyers,
Tobin, Huber, Conway, & Shelvin, 2015). While many have failed to attempt or fully implement
SEL in their schools, some principals facing seemingly insurmountable odds have figured out
ways to overcome these obstacles. The challenge for researchers now is to uncover those
strategies and factors that have led to their success.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that lead to the planning and
implementation of social and emotional learning in Southern California’s urban high schools,
specifically those related to the role of the principal. This study sought to uncover strategies that
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 22
could produce coherence in the daily lives of principals who wish to implement SEL in their
schools (Fullan, 2014). Furthermore, it evaluated the degree to which high school principals were
developing and implementing SEL with best practice, as outlined by the CASEL (2020)
schoolwide implementation framework.
Research Questions
1. What school district and site-level organizational processes and supports make it possible for
high school principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
2. What knowledge and skills are needed by high school principals in order to implement social
and emotional learning at their school?
3. What school district and site-level motivational factors make it possible for high school
principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
4. When high school principals led the implementation of social and emotional learning, to
what extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) schoolwide implementation guide?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is threefold. First, as it relates to the students, research has
proven that SEL is beneficial for all students who receive systemic and targeted instruction, and
especially those in vulnerable populations (i.e. students with disabilities, behavioral students, at-
risk students). Implications from this study may lead to the increased development and
implementation of SEL at schools with similar barriers to those revealed here, as a result of
insights gained from this study’s findings. Second, implications from this study may benefit
others with regard to their non-academic accountability measures and related practices.
Specifically, schools appear to be under a microscope for their practice and performance in non-
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 23
academic activities that increase positive student outcomes. This study may highlight certain
practices related to the implementation of SEL that increase those outcomes. Lastly, implications
from this study may help high school principals identify strengths and weaknesses in their own
organizations’ development and implementation of SEL, leading them to improve upon their
current practices. As Fullan (2014) notes, the many fragmented policies and interventions that
principals are tasked with implementing can often lead to an endless cycle of juggling poorly
timed and poorly planned initiatives. This study may reveal a set of sound strategies for
principals to create coherence and synchronicity in their daily role as school leader.
Limitations of the Study
● This study’s sample was limited to 5 participants so the findings could not be generalized.
● The qualitative nature of this study suggests that findings may be interpreted differently than
they have been presented by the researcher here.
● The findings are limited to the time of the study; it is a snapshot in time.
● The limited number of principals interviewed may not reflect the beliefs and perspectives of
the majority.
● Principals were asked their own perspectives about instructional strategies, practices, and
programs. Their responses may have been limited due to their amount of experience,
knowledge, or even bias.
● The sample was based on convenience and willingness of participants to join the study. The
first 5 principals to confirm were selected. This may have limited the potential pool of
participants to those who received the invitations and were able to respond more quickly or
whose schedule permitted.
Delimitations of the Study
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 24
● All of the participants were active principals at urban high schools in Southern California
● The researcher set a specific set of criteria that the participants’ school had to demonstrate in
order to be considered.
● 5 high schools were identified using the California School Dashboard, and selected on the
basis of meeting all of the following criteria in either 2018 or 2019: (a) 50% +
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), (b) Grade of “Green” or higher on Graduation
Rate, (c) Yellow or higher on College/Career, and (d) Green or higher on Suspension Rate
● The data gathered is only from the site and school principal and not from outside people.
Definitions of Related Concepts
Schoolwide SEL: A systemic approach to infusing social and emotional learning into
every part of students’ educational experience -- across all classrooms, during all parts of
the school day and out-of-school time, and in partnership with families and communities.
This involves cultivating caring, participatory, and equitable learning environments and
using evidence-based practices that actively involve all students in their social, emotional,
and academic growth. (CASEL, 2020)
Social and Emotional Competence: The ability to understand, manage, and express the social
emotional aspects of one’s life in ways that enable the successful management of life’s tasks
such as learning, forming relationships, solving everyday problems, and adapting to the
complex demands of growth and development. (Elias et al., 1997)
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): The process through which children and adults
understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for
others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.
(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2019b)
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 25
Principal: The individual who is in charge of the school; the leader, and highest authority within
a single school’s hierarchy.
Program Implementation: Refers to how well a proposed program or intervention is put into
practice (Durlak, 1998)
LEA: Local education agency
NAESP: National Association of Elementary School Principals
NASSP: National Association of Secondary School Principals
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
For decades, researchers have identified and loosely defined a number of social and
emotional constructs/skills that have been coined “Emotional Intelligence” and “Social and
Emotional Competence” among other names. As the varying constructs become more inter-
related in their scope and characterization, a tremendous amount of research suggests that
individuals who are socially and emotionally competent are better at: setting and achieving
personal goals, building and maintaining meaningful relationships, making responsible decisions
for theirs’ and others’ well-being, identifying and managing their own emotions, adapting to
change and problem-solving, and generating positive feelings about one’s self. These skills are
becoming increasingly salient in the conversation regarding what children should be taught in
schools. Research suggests that children who receive systematic and targeted SEL yield more
positive outcomes than they would without SEL. The rise in social and intra-personal problems
that high school students are experiencing has led to a greater focus on the problems and
challenges many schools face in their attempts at school reform and improvement. This
heightened focus has called to attention the many factors that both impede and support the
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 26
implementation of school programs, and specifically those that relate to the school’s leadership.
As any high school principal will tell you, the role of the high school principal encompasses
anything and everything related to the school and its students. While there are many who have
failed in their attempts at SEL implementation, and still more who have yet to try, there are also
those who seem to have figured out how to make SEL work in their schools. This study will use
an adaptation of positive deviance theory and the implementation framework provided by
CASEL to try to identify, understand, and evaluate those factors that have led to the effective
implementation of SEL for urban high school principals.
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
For decades, researchers have identified and loosely defined a number of social and
emotional constructs/skills that have been coined “Emotional Intelligence” and “Social and
Emotional Competence” among other names. As the varying constructs become more inter-
related in their scope and characterization, a tremendous amount of research suggests that
individuals who are socially and emotionally competent are better at setting and achieving
personal goals, building and maintaining meaningful relationships, making responsible decisions
for theirs’ and others’ well-being, identifying and managing their own emotions, adapting to
change and problem-solving, and generating positive feelings about one’s self.
Emotional Intelligence and Social-Emotional Competence
Researchers in the area of social and emotional intelligence insist that people who are
socially and emotionally intelligent are better able to understand and express themselves,
understand and relate to others, and more effectively manage their everyday lives. According to
Bar-on et al. (2007), “Emotional Intelligence” (EI) refers to a vast array of constructs which are
similarly defined, including “emotional awareness”, “emotional literacy”, “social intelligence”,
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 27
“multiple intelligences”, and “intrapersonal/interpersonal intelligence." Bar-on et al. also argue
that most EI constructs refer to a common set of skills or competencies, such as: recognizing and
understanding emotions, understanding how others feel and being able to relate to them;
managing and controlling emotions; managing and adapting to change and problem-solving
personal and interpersonal issues; and the ability to generate positive feelings and self-
motivation. The
Mayer and Salovey (1997) further argued that the concept of EI must preserve the
meanings of both emotion and intelligence. Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) definition of EI is as
follows:
Emotional intelligence involves the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express
emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the
ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate
emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (p. 10)
In their characterization of EI, Mayer and Salovey considered intelligence to mean the ability to
associate and differentiate constructs, analyze, rationalize, and engage in abstract thinking.
Whereas emotion refers to the “emotions themselves, moods, evaluations, and other feeling
states, including fatigue or energy” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Mayer and Salovey noted the
ability to analyze problems while considering or experiencing emotions as part of one’s
emotional intelligence. McKown et al. (2013) more recently argued that those with better social-
emotional comprehension skills are more likely to develop meaningful relationships with others
because of their ability to identify, interpret, and evaluate social-emotional information.
In their earlier work on EI, Mayer and Geher (1996) found that a basic skill of EI was the
ability to infer a person’s feelings from their thoughts. This skill was derived from an
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 28
individual’s ability to connect their own thinking to their feelings, which researchers then argued
led to a person’s ability to understand others’ feelings based on what they say (Mayer & Geher,
1996). In the same study, Mayer and Geher also found that people who could better identify
emotions were more likely to have higher general intelligence and lower emotional
defensiveness, leading researchers to suggest that some forms of emotional problem solving
require higher emotional honesty and general intelligence.
Another component of EI consists of the processes by which individuals influence which
emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions
(Gross, 1998). These processes, more commonly referred to as “emotion regulation”, in addition
to mood regulation, coping, and defenses are all generally related constructs that fall under the
overarching concept of affect regulation (Gross, 1998). Bar-On (2007) asserted that people who
are socially and emotionally intelligent can better understand and express themselves, as well as
understand and relate to others, and more effectively manage their everyday lives. Bar-On also
claimed that those individuals are more self-aware in terms of their emotions, including
identifying strengths and weaknesses and can express themselves in a non-destructive manner.
What makes these individuals more able to establish and effectively maintain meaningful
relationships is that they are attuned to the emotions and needs of others (Bar-On, 2007). Bar-On
concludes that EI has both a positive impact on overall well-being and a greater effect than IQ on
our ability to work towards and achieve personal success.
Saarni (1999) posits that emotional competence is governed by who we identify as, our
character or morality, and by our developmental experiences. Saarni (1999) goes on to define the
nature and/or functions of emotions, self-efficacy, moral disposition, personal integrity,
developmental history as follows: Emotions serve as a function of our ability, or lack thereof, to
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 29
adapt to and interpret the importance of the environment to one’s self; self-efficacy is the result
of achieving adaptive goals; moral disposition or character guides our sense of sympathy, self-
control, fairness, and obligation; and it is developmental (based on age and experience); personal
integrity is the result of living in alignment with one’s moral disposition; developmental history
refers to the specific contexts to which one is exposed, one’s unique social history, and one’s
current level of intellectual ability, which allows us to manipulate and interact with our context.
What Saarni (1999) makes clear is that emotional experience is naturally highly nuanced,
context-dependent, and inherently individualized. The researcher argues that the difference
between EI and “Social-Emotional Competence” relates to the latter construct’s inclusion of and
emphasis on the importance of context in the social and emotional experience (Saarni, 1999).
While researchers continue to struggle with a singular definition for emotional
intelligence and social-emotional competence, the unifying sentiment among the varying
constructs and definitions appears to be that social and emotional skills are viewed as an asset for
individuals in their social, emotional, and everyday life experiences. Though social and
emotional competence appears to be somewhat developmentally based, not everyone appears to
receive the instruction or experiences that teach individuals positive and healthy social and
emotional skills.
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)
The systematic implementation of a system of support that fosters the necessary
academic, social, and emotional competencies for students to achieve their desired educational,
career, and life goals is commonly referred to as “social and emotional learning.” Weissberg et
al. (2015) acknowledge how schools have been overwhelmed with an overabundance of various
prevention and youth development programs and interventions, including but not limited to:
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 30
character development, anti-bullying, gun safety and violence, drug prevention, truancy and
delinquency, teen pregnancy and sex education, health education, and more. “Social and
emotional learning” (SEL) was originally introduced in 1994 by a group of student advocates
and researchers who met at the Fetzer Institute to discuss effective strategies to improve social-
emotional health, academic performance, and citizenship among other factors to reduce negative
student outcomes in a coordinated and strategic manner (Weissberg et al., 2015). Attendees of
the inaugural meeting would later establish the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (CASEL), an organization whose mission would be to focus on the
development and implementation of SEL in preschool through high school. SEL became a
framework for developing the social, emotional, and academic competence of students, through
the coordinated efforts between schools, parents, and communities to attain desired educational
and life goals (Weissberg et al, 2015).
Zins and Elias (2007) agreed that the term SEL refers to “the capacity to recognize and
manage emotions, solve problems effectively, and establish positive relationships with others,
competencies that clearly are essential for all students” (p.234). Zins and Elias also found that
SEL instruction addresses behavior, cognition, and emotion; and argued that SEL can be traced
back to emotional intelligence and multiple intelligence theories, as well as prevention and
resilience research. Zins and Elias argued that all children may benefit from SEL, including
students at-risk and those displaying significant problem behaviors. While specific populations
of students may benefit from more intensive instruction focused on building specific social and
emotional competencies, SEL is intended to develop healthy behaviors and enhance the growth
of all students. SEL should be viewed within a “systems of support framework”, as illustrated in:
Figure 1 with all students benefiting from prevention and promotion efforts; students at-risk
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 31
receiving early intervention; and students with significant problems receiving targeted treatment
to address specific competencies; while all levels of support are rooted in the foundational
support and relationships with school, family, and community partners.
Figure 1: SEL Systems of Support Framework
SEL serves as a means to organize and support new and existing prevention and promotion
efforts in a way that maximizes program focus and importance amongst the many other school
programs and interventions. Effective SEL requires an environment that is caring, supportive and
well-managed. Zins and Elias (2007) wrote, “such contexts are structured in ways that encourage
students to explore and try new learning activities, provide them with easily accessible
opportunities to address their personal needs and problems, and support them in establishing
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 32
positive relationships with peers and adults.” Schools now have an opportunity to adopt SEL into
their curricula and implement programs with fidelity and sustainability; something that appears
to be an emergent issue. Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, and Weissberg (2017) further argued SEL
was how students gained social and emotional competencies that are critical to healthy social,
behavioral and academic development, as well as life outcomes in adulthood. Due to the
significant amount of time students spend in school, it is imperative that SEL efforts occur in this
setting.
Domitrovich, Syversten, and Cailin (2017) argued that because SEL development is
based on an interconnection of academics, relationships, culture and climate, approaches to
effective SEL must be embedded in as many aspects of the school experience as possible.
Similar to academic skills, social and emotional skills appear to continuously develop over time.
Experts assert effective SEL cannot be relegated to 30-minute blocks because the skills being
taught are required in the everyday challenges and occurrences of students’ lives (Domitrovich,
Syverstein et al., 2017). Promising approaches to integrating SEL into the daily practices of
schools include developing routines, providing training and support for all school personnel, and
developing the SEL skills of adults in the school.
Elias et al. (1997) asserted that it is incumbent upon teachers, school leaders, and even
district personnel to ensure the development and improvement of students’ cognitive, social and
emotional skills. They argued that It is imperative that educators develop and follow a structured
and intentional plan when teaching students to become knowledgeable, responsible, and caring.
Teachers who set firm boundaries, create a safe and nurturing environment in their classrooms
and empower their students to have a positive impact on their environment help their students
feel more connected to their school, prevent problem behaviors, promote positive behavior, and
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 33
increase their desire to learn. As students grow, their ability to plan, set, and achieve both short-
and long-term goals becomes more important for personal success and fulfillment (Elias et al,
1997).
On behalf of CASEL, Payton et al. (2000) conducted an initial review of existing SEL
programs that were sequenced, well-designed and intended for regular classroom use, in order to
assess content, program design, coordination and teacher preparation and support, and to develop
an evidence-based framework for social and emotional learning. Researchers were able to
identify four key areas of SEL competency (Awareness of Self and Others, Positive Attitudes
and Values, Responsible Decision Making, Social Interaction Skills), which were comprised of
17 specific skill sets. All areas of competency were based on existing theories related to social
and emotional development, including those defining emotional intelligence, social and
emotional competence, social development, social information processing, and self-management.
Additionally, models of behavior change were also linked to competency identification,
including “The Health Belief Model”, “The Theory of Reasoned Action”, “Problem Behavior
Theory”, and “Social Cognitive Theory.” Payton et al. (2000) claimed:
For SEL programs to successfully promote positive student outcomes in these domains
(health promotion, healthy sexual development, prevention of drug use and violence,
promotion of school achievement and citizenship), these competencies must be
specifically and intentionally applied to achieving these outcomes. (p. 182)
The researchers’ claim essentially argued that SEL skills were a necessary component of non-
academic student success, with regard to specific student outcomes targeted by SEL programs.
Researchers also identified key features (Program Design, Program Coordination, Educator
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 34
Preparation and Support, Program Evaluation) of quality programs that enhanced students’ SEL
competency (Payton et al., 2000).
In another study by Coelho and Sousa (2018), researchers compared the results of one
middle school SEL program applied in two different settings: during and after-school. Findings
indicated stronger intervention effects on self-esteem, self-control, and social awareness for
students who received SEL intervention during school, and greater effects in social awareness for
girls in both settings. This study highlights the importance of setting when considering and
implementing SEL.
Lawson et al. (2018) found with the number of SEL programs increasing, it is harder for
schools to choose programs that suit their specific student needs. In this study of 14 elementary
school SEL programs, researchers systematically identified 12 common core components of
SEL, using CASEL’s five SEL competencies as a framework for organization. Social Skills
(100%), Identifying Others’ Feelings (100%), Behavior Coping Skills/Relaxation (92.9%), and
Identifying One’s Own Feelings (87.7%) occurred most frequently across programs. Findings
suggested that there was much similarity between individual program definitions of specific
competencies and the CASEL definitions, but also a number of distinctions that often slightly
altered or omitted certain aspects of the definition (i.e. identifying one’s own feelings, but not
assessing personal strengths or weaknesses).
The existing body of research appears to indicate that in order for SEL to be effective, it
must be implemented strategically and systematically, so that it is both embedded and
coordinated with the existing policies, practices, and programs at the classroom, school, and
district levels. While there exists unanimous support for SEL at the early childhood and
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 35
elementary levels, much less has been done to ensure the implementation of effective SEL where
students arguably encounter the most social and emotional challenges, in high school.
Importance of SEL in High School
Mental Health
There is a growing concern over the issue of mental health in schools, especially as it
relates to the increasing tension of the socio-political environment, the prevalence of social
media, the rise in number of school shootings and gun violence, and the school’s role in dealing
with the consequences of it all. As Costello et al. (2005) highlighted in their work, significant
evidence suggests that the median prevalence of functionally impairing child and adolescent
psychiatric disorders is around 12%. Researchers point out that some of the world’s most
burdening disorders are those that appear during childhood and adolescence, and that most
lifetime psychiatric disorders, if not all, appear during childhood or adolescence. Even more
alarming, Merikangas et al. (2010) found approximately 1 in 5 youth meet criteria for a mental
disorder across the U.S. Researchers also found that the most common mental health disorders
for adolescents are: Anxiety (31.9%), Behavior Disorders (19.1%), Mood Disorders (14.3%),
and Substance Use Disorders (11.4%). About 40% of adolescents with a mental disorder met
criteria for at least one other lifetime disorder. The median ages of onset for types of disorders
were listed as: behavior (11 y.o.), mood (13 y.o.), and substance use (15 y.o.) (Merikangas et al.,
2010).
Avenoli et al. (2015) reported representative data on the prevalence of lifetime and 12-
month Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adolescents 13-18 years old across the U.S.
According to their results, MDD occurred at rates of 11% (lifetime) and 7.5% (12-month) for
U.S. adolescents. The increasing prevalence of MDD across adolescence was significantly
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 36
greater in females. Shockingly, Avenoli et al. found that Adolescent cases of MDD represent
about two-thirds of lifetime adult cases of MDD. Furthermore, 25% of adolescents with MDD
met DSM-IV criteria for severe MDD, which often co-occurred with other psychiatric disorders,
as well as severe role impairment and suicidal ideation, planning and/or attempts. The majority
of adolescents with MDD in their study did not receive any emotional or behavioral services or
treatment specific to their disorder (Avenoli et al., 2015). Findings support previous research,
suggesting the notion that many psychological disorders have their first onset during
adolescence; highlighting the importance of universal early-identification screening and
intervention for mental health disorders in adolescence.
In a separate study by Bond et al. (2007), researchers examined the longitudinal effects of
a school connectedness intervention in early high school; particularly how it affected student
mental health, drug and alcohol use, and academic outcomes 2-4 years later. Results indicated
significant correlations between good school and social connectedness with positive outcomes in
all areas later in life. What Bond et al. found is that having low school connectedness, but high
social connectedness was related with elevated anxiety and depression at the end of high school.
Results from this study suggest that highly social students with low school connectedness may be
at risk for elevated mental health issues as they progress through high school.
In 1995, Mary Wagner analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Special
Education Students to determine contributors to the poor secondary school outcomes of students
with serious emotional disturbances (SEDs), who seem to fare much worse than students with
other disabilities, as well as students in the general population. Wagner’s study found less than
half (33% - 39%) of students with SEDs received personal counseling services either from or
through their schools in 9
th
-12
th
grades. Results indicated that students who appeared to need
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 37
mental health supports most (students with SEDs), often received additional academic supports,
but nothing to address their specific disability’s needs. One significant finding was that while
post-secondary transition plans were often made between the school and prospective employers
for SEDs, no plans were made for post-secondary mental health services or agencies by the
schools for SEDs. The impending lapse in services and supports all but guarantees poorer
outcomes for these particular students. As is often the case in social justice issues, the odds
appeared worse for students of color. Wagner found that students of color who classified as
SEDs were reported to need counseling or therapy at a higher rate than white students, but were
less likely to receive it (1995).
When students struggle with mental health disorders and don’t receive the necessary
supports and services, it often leads to more serious behaviors such as suicidal ideation and self-
harm. In 2018, Benbenishti et al. conducted research on between-school variation in suicide
ideation. Their study looked at two large representative samples of California high school
students in grades 9 through 11. The mean rate of student suicide ideation was 20%, though rates
ranged from 4% - 67%. Researchers found that student suicide rates were related to student-level
characteristics, and largely based on school-level attributes (i.e. school climate and culture).
Student level characteristics indicative of higher suicide rates included sex, ethnic and racial
affiliation, victimization, and perceptions of school climate. Girls reported higher rates of suicide
ideation, as well as students who attended schools with higher levels of victimization. Contrary
to popular belief, school size and average level of academic achievement were not factors related
to suicide ideation. Findings emphasize the need for preventive and educational programs and
campaigns at the secondary level on the issues related to suicide, mental health, bullying, and
victimization.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 38
It can be difficult for educators and parents to address mental health issues directly with
children because of the negative stigmas surrounding mental health and limited knowledge about
specific issues and interventions. Milin et al. (2016) evaluated the effectiveness of a school-
based mental health literacy intervention for adolescents on knowledge and stigma. The
randomized controlled trial included 24 Canadian high schools, with a total of 534 students.
Results suggested a positive relationship between knowledge and attitudes toward mental health,
as well as a decreased stigma of mental health disorders for high schoolers who received the
mental health curriculum (Milin, 2016). Results imply the viability of a school-based mental
health curriculum to reduce the stigma of mental health disorders among adolescents, while
simultaneously increasing their knowledge of and attitudes towards mental health.
As student mental health concerns continue to rise at the high school level, much of the
research appears to suggest that schools need to approach mental health from a multi-systems
framework; connecting the students, educators, families, and service providers to one another
and embedding the supports directly into the various settings the student encounters. When
supports are embedded throughout the school setting, they may also have an effect on the overall
school climate.
School Climate
School climate has a direct relationship to the students’ individual school experience and
outcomes. According to Zins and Elias (2007) there exists a reciprocal relationship between
school climate and SEL. Positive school climates lend themselves to effective SEL, and vice
versa. Thapa et al. (p. 369, 2013) argued, “Sustained positive school climate is associated with
positive child and youth development, effective risk prevention and health promotion efforts,
student learning and academic achievement, increased student graduation rates, and teacher
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 39
retention.” The lack of a national or international definition of school climate has limited the
ability to research and define specific aspects of school climate. Experts suggest an initial
evaluation of school climate should include four key areas: safety, relationships, teaching and
learning, and the institutional environment, which includes its norms and mission (Thapa et al.,
2013). Research by Thapa et al. also suggests context matters: groups, norms, and expectations
all have an influence on the individual’s experience, learning, and relationships at all levels.
School climate reform supports and is inclusive of violence prevention and bullying prevention
interventions. School climate reform supports students, parents and educators in consideration of
the effectiveness of prosocial education efforts (such as SEL). The importance of context to
school climate is echoed in Domitrovich et al.’s (p. 413, 2017) report, “Perceptions of school
climate evolve out of repeated social interactions and experiences that take place within
relationships, physical spaces, and organizational structures. When these perceptions are
positive, they can serve as a protective factor moderating how students’ deficits in social-
emotional competence are associated with poor outcomes.”
Christle et al. (2007) studied the relationship between school characteristics and high
school dropout rates. In this study, two groups of high schools from across Kentucky were
selected based on the 20 lowest and 20 highest rates of dropout, and compared to one another.
Results indicated that higher dropout school (HDOS) staff reported lower levels of school
climate and parent engagement than lower dropout schools (LDOS). LDOS staff also appeared to
dress more professionally and had a higher level of supervision and interaction with students
than HDOS. LDOS teachers appeared to use more instructional strategies and showed higher
levels of student engagement than HDOS. There appeared to be a tendency for LDOS teachers to
be more authoritative than HDOS teachers, which may have been counteracted by the previously
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 40
listed factors. Overall results of the study suggest that school climate can have an effect on high
school dropout rates; with more negative school experiences and perceptions leading to a higher
rate of dropout than schools with greater levels of engagement, and more positive climates.
Kuperminc et al.’s (2001) research looked at the effects of school climate on individual
behaviors and vulnerability to psychopathology. According to their study results, a positive
perception of school climate may have moderating effects on the internalizing and externalizing
behaviors of self-critical adolescents. The relationship between teachers and students, as well as
the fairness in enforcement of school policies appears to be an important variable in relation to
school change and overall improved student behavior. The California Department of Education
(2017) reported that as students in Los Angeles progress from middle school to high school, they
report feeling less happy at school, less connected to their schools, and less respected by their
teachers.
An abundance of research appears to suggest schools that maintain a positive climate
tend to have better outcomes for their students, including high achievement, graduation rates, and
decreased behavior problems. In an effort to increase school climate, some schools choose to
directly combat the factors that can have a negative effect on climate (e.g. victimization and
bullying) through the use of more serious consequences and discipline policies, which often
include exclusionary practices.
Suspension/Expulsion
Suspension and expulsion have a negative relationship with desirable student outcomes,
such as academic performance and achievement and positive social and emotional behaviors. For
example, in Noltemeyer et al.’s (2015) study on the relationship between school suspension and
student outcomes, results from a meta-analysis of study data from 1986 – 2012 on school
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 41
suspensions (in-school and out-of-school) indicated an inverse relationship between suspensions
and achievement, as well as a significant positive relationship between suspensions and dropout.
Out-of-school suspensions appeared to have a stronger effect on achievement than in-school
suspensions. The researchers found that students who were suspended out-of-school were more
likely to miss instruction, not be given additional opportunities for make-up work or tests,
experience negative attitudes from peers or staff, develop a negative attitude toward the school,
or be negatively influenced by other delinquent peers or community members while outside of
the supervision of the school. The use of school suspensions on students who may already be at
risk for greater academic challenges (i.e. students in poverty or urban students) may only
exacerbate those problems, and may contribute to the student’s disengagement and poor
achievement or eventual dropout.
In another study by Chu and Ready (2018), researchers analyzed the pre-existing
characteristics of students who were suspended in New York City in comparison to those who
were not suspended. They found that students who were suspended were more likely to have
weaker attendance, course completion rates, and standardized test scores; dropped out at higher
rates; and were less likely to graduate within 4 to 6 years. A similar study by Theriot et al.
(2010), found that poverty, previous suspensions and severity of the last infraction were all
predictors of the likelihood a student may be excluded (suspended or expelled) from school. The
odds of being excluded from school were 14 times higher for those committing violent offenses,
compared to non-violent offenses; and 9 times higher for those who committed a “zero-
tolerance” offense, compared to those who did not (Theriot et al., 2010). Results suggest the
need for comprehensive interventions and programs for changing student behavior and the
overall school environment.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 42
Ritter and Anderson (2018) delved deeper into student discipline by examining the
disparities that exist in the way students are disciplined across an entire state. Their study
examined seven years’ worth of suspension, expulsion, and infraction-level data from every
public school in Arkansas to identify the disparities in student discipline. Based on study results,
Black students were twice as likely to be referred for nonviolent offenses, and 2.6 times as likely
to receive exclusionary discipline once referred for minor offenses. Disparities appeared to be
based on differences in student discipline policies between schools, rather than differential
treatment of students within the same school (Ritter & Anderson, 2018).
Because schools are in charge of adopting their own discipline practices, many have
chosen to adopt “Zero-Tolerance” discipline policies in an attempt to crack down on problem
behavior. This no-excuses system has led many researchers to question its effect on student
outcomes. In “A Study of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: A Multi-Integrated Systems
Approach to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents” Teske (2011) found as a result of the
enactment of a zero-tolerance policy, placing police on the high school campus yielded a 1,200%
increase in referrals to the juvenile court over the next 10 years. A majority of the offenses were
misdemeanors such as school fights, disorderly conduct, and disrupting school, which would
have previously been handled according to the in-school discipline procedures. After
implementing an integrated multi-systems approach to school discipline that focused on the
reduction of referrals by distinguishing felonies and misdemeanors, the school saw an 86%
decrease in the number of students detained on school offenses, a 43% decrease in the number of
students of color referred to the juvenile court, and a 20% increase in the graduation rate.
Researchers reported that resources were wasted on detaining and managing the cases of students
who committed minor, nonviolent or threatening offenses, which detracted from the amount of
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 43
time devoted to more serious offenders, which contributed to the high recidivism rate among
them (Teske, 2011). Teske argued that due to most schools’ lack of knowledge and resources to
prevent and treat the disruptive behavior of adolescents via mental health approaches, there is a
greater demand for more punitive and zero-tolerance policies to address student misbehavior,
which in turn leads to more negative outcomes.
Chen (2008) investigated how community characteristics, student background, school
climate, and zero-tolerance policies interact to affect school crime. Chen found that schools that
have a higher level of student transience and discipline problems tend to have higher rates of
school crime. In contrast, he found schools that focus on developing a positive school culture via
character development and social skills training tend to have less crime than schools that directly
attempt to combat school crime via discipline and punitive policies. Schools with high rates of
serious penalties (removal, out-of-school suspensions, expulsion) also tended to have higher
rates of crimes. Smaller schools tended to have lower rates of school crime. Increased security
measures did not significantly reduce the number of school crimes. Chen’s (2008) research
highlights the negative student outcomes associated with zero-tolerance policies and more
punitive measures.
Reynolds et al. (2008) further studied the effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies in
schools. They found contrary to the idea that zero tolerance creates a more positive environment
by immediately removing problem behaviors from the school, data shows that schools with
higher rates of suspensions and expulsions appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school
climate and a negative relationship with academic achievement. Research supports the fact that
many adolescents are psychosocially immature, and many zero tolerance policies may only
exacerbate the challenges students at that age will face by creating more severe consequences for
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 44
impulsive decisions made by individuals who are more prone to lapses in judgement than adults.
As schools become more reliant on more severe consequences for disciplinary action, there has
been an increase in the amount of referrals to the juvenile justice system for infractions that
would not have previously been considered appropriate for referral. Zero tolerance policies
appear to be related to increased negative mental health outcomes for students, including
alienation, anxiety, rejection, and breaking healthy bonds with adults. Prevention and
Intervention programs appear to be more cost-effective than the long-term costs of school failure,
paying welfare, and the juvenile and adult incarceration costs (Reynolds et al., 2008).
In the past, the use of school suspensions and expulsions to address disruptive behavior
and increase school safety has only exacerbated many of the challenges students face during high
school. While educators attempt to undo the damage caused by more punitive consequences and
zero-tolerance policies, a growing number of students are becoming disengaged from their
schools as other factors vie for their attention.
School Engagement
It is broadly accepted that school engagement is a necessary component of learning. In a
longitudinal study of 2,000 students from 18 high schools, Martin and Collie (2018) found a
linear relationship between teacher-student relationships and school engagement. Specifically,
when teacher relationships were predominantly negative for the student, engagement was lower,
but did not continue to decline with more negative relationships. In contrast, as the number of
positive relationships increased, school engagement increased. The enhancing properties of
positive teacher-student relationships outweigh the narrowing properties of negative teacher-
student relationships (Martin & Collie, 2018).
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 45
In a similar study, Archambault et al. (2009) found student engagement, specifically
behavioral engagement (e.g. absenteeism, truancy, disruptive behavior, and negative teacher
interactions) was directly predictive of student dropout rates. Affective (e.g. liking and being
interested in school) and cognitive (willingness to learn specific subjects) engagement were not
directly predictive of school dropout. Wonglorsaichon et al. (2014) looked at student
relationships and their effect on both achievement and engagement in schools. They surveyed
2,300 students in Thailand to measure the relationships between school engagement, student
needs, and achievement. Results indicated a strong and direct, positive relationship between
student engagement and achievement. Researchers found there was a positive, indirect effect of
student relationships on school engagement (Wonglorsaichon et al., 2014).
Dolzan et al. (2015) examined the relationship between school engagement and health
risk behaviors, as well as the mediating effects of self-efficacy on that relationship with 250
students at the secondary level. Findings suggested a negative relationship between school
engagement and emerging health risk behaviors. Not surprisingly, as students became more
engaged in school, they were less likely to engage in the risky behaviors that posed a threat to
their health. Self-efficacy appeared to mediate the relationship between school engagement and
health risk behaviors. Researchers concluded students who believed they were more efficacious
set higher goals and were more committed to achieving those goals, which deterred them from
engaging in risky behaviors.
Several studies have used longitudinal data to examine the relationship between academic
performance and various forms of school engagement. Green et al. (2012) compared three
theoretically/conceptually hypothesized longitudinal models of academic processes leading to
academic performance, using a longitudinal sample of 1866 high-school students across two
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 46
consecutive years of high school. The most reliable model yielded the following results: (a)
academic motivation and self-concept positively predicted attitudes toward school; (b) attitudes
toward school positively predicted class participation and homework completion and negatively
predicted absenteeism; and (c) class participation and homework completion positively predicted
test performance while absenteeism negatively predicted test performance. Gillen-O’Neel and
Fuligni (2013) conducted a longitudinal study to examine how school belonging changes over
the years of high school, and how it is associated with academic achievement and motivation.
Results indicated when they started high school, girls’ school belonging was higher than boys’.
However, as they progressed through high school, girls’ school belonging declined, while boys’
remained stable. Further analysis of within-student variables also indicated that students reported
greater levels of enjoyment in school and beliefs about the usefulness of school, beyond their
actual levels of achievement, during years that they had higher levels of school belonging.
School engagement appears to be directly related to the positive student outcomes
educators and parents hope for their children to achieve. Though educators and researchers are
increasingly more aware of the importance of school engagement in relation to desired
educational goals, it is not the only factor that contributes to the most coveted of all outcomes,
academic achievement.
Academic Achievement
Social and emotional learning has a direct, positive relationship to academic
achievement. Hayes et al. (1988) examined one of the earliest implementations of a school
improvement program dubbed “The School Development Program: A Model for School
Improvement.” Hayes et al. reported on the observed changes in school achievement levels and
school climate variables in the Benton Harbor, Michigan, School System during the period of
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 47
implementation (1982-83 to 1985-86 school terms). Program schools experienced gains in
Reading, Mathematics, and the Total Battery on the California Achievement Test (CAT). In
Reading, the average gain for program schools equaled that of the district as a whole at the
second-grade level and exceeded the district gains at the fifth- and sixth-grade levels. In
Mathematics, the average gain for program schools exceeded that of the district at the second-
and fourth-grade levels. Findings support the hypothesis that an ecological systems approach to
education can improve academic achievement, among other developmental outcomes.
In 2017, CASEL published a report titled “Key Insights from the Collaborative Districts
Initiative”. This report represents the most recent findings from an ongoing effort by CASEL to
support 10 of the largest school districts in the country, collectively serving over 900,000
students, in their effort to implement high-quality, evidence-based SEL. The goal of the
Collaborating Districts Initiative (CDI) was to create a comprehensive shift in how
superintendents and entire school districts approach education. The three districts that use the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Austin, Chicago, and Cleveland) all
improved their math and reading scores during the CDI implementation years. Furthermore, all
districts with relevant data showed gains in ELA and math in at least one grade band
(elementary, middle, high). Chicago’s graduation rate increased 15% during the CDI years. This
work highlights the effects SEL can have on academics even in the largest, most inundated
school districts in the country.
Rimm-Kaufman and Chiu (2007) also measured the effects of an SEL-based teaching
approach in the classroom over the course of a year. Results indicated a significant relationship
between the SEL approach and student reading performance. Researchers’ hypotheses for
plausible explanations for the increase in academics included more time for instruction as a result
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 48
of more proactive behavior management, and increased self-management skills as a result of the
SEL approach, which benefited students during independent and small-group reading. Hamedani
et al. (2015) conducted a cross-analysis of three high schools practicing effective school-wide
social and emotional learning over a four-year period. All three schools yielded higher
attendance, standardized English and Math test scores, 4- and 5-year graduation rates, and more
college-ready graduates over a 4-year period than their local comparison schools, despite racial
and socio-economic differences. Results suggest that effective SEL environments and schools
can provide students with the necessary psychological skills to “feel like school is important, that
they belong there, and that they can be successful” (Hamedani et al., 2015, p. 112).
Durlak et al. (2011) completed a meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal SEL
interventions that included over 270,000 students in kindergarten through high school. Results
indicated that students who participated in the SEL programs showed an average of an 11
percentile-point gain in academic achievement. Interestingly, comparisons between SEL
programs delivered by school personnel and those delivered by non-school personnel showed
evidence that academic performance only increased when school personnel delivered the
programs. In a similar study, Sklad et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 75 recent studies
that reported the effects of universal, school-based social, emotional, and/or behavioral
interventions. Results were reported for both immediately after the intervention and at follow-up
for academic achievement. Average effect size immediately after intervention was half of a
standard deviation. Average effect size for follow-up was .12 standard deviations. Both effect
sizes are significant, and suggest a positive relationship between academic achievement and SEL
intervention. Study results suggest that students who received SEL intervention would
outperform an additional 5% of the population after the intervention.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 49
Yan et al. (2018) used latent class analysis to identify patterns of SEL needs among ninth
grade students (n=323), their associations with prior and current academic and school behavioral
performance, and their perception of the importance of social skills. Researchers were able to
identify five patterns of SEL needs: (1) low-all, (2) high-all, (3) social skills problems only, (4)
assertion, externalizing, and internalizing problems, and (5) high behavioral needs. Findings
supported the hypothesis that students with higher SEL needs would exhibit poorer academic and
a greater amount of behavioral problems than students with lower SEL needs. Students in the
high-all and social skills needs groups had the lowest academic and behavior scores compared to
the other groups. Since ninth grade GPA was correlated with membership in all of the five
patterns, educators should use ninth grade GPA as an indicator for identifying students with SEL
needs. Findings from this study support the notion that academics are not just a consequence of
SEL, but also an antecedent.
Mahoney et al. (2018) conducted an updated meta-analysis of the four largest meta-
analyses of SEL programs, which included data from 356 research reports and hundreds of
thousands of children. Results indicated that SEL interventions had a significant impact on long-
term academic achievement, with an average of 11 percentile-points gained at follow-up. These
results are as significant as those seen in programs specifically designed for academic
intervention, highlighting the importance of SEL in relation to academics. There is
overwhelming evidence to support the positive effects of SEL on academic achievement.
However, while educators appear to be in favor of SEL at all levels, implementation of
systematic and developmentally-appropriate intervention seems to be in far less abundance at the
high school level compared to the earlier grades.
Program Implementation in High School
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 50
District-Level Support
Schools that receive district-level support for SEL are more likely to be successful in
their implementation efforts. O’Connor and Freeman (2012) reported the district-level supports
that are necessary for the implementation of an effective responsive to intervention (RtI)
program. Researchers identified important supports, and organized them into six categories:
Leadership, Assessment and Data Management, Culture and Beliefs, Professional Development,
Staff Recruitment, and Resource Allocation. Among other factors, researchers stressed the
importance of school leadership’s knowledge of program principles and practices, leadership
structures, and organizational frameworks when considering the effectiveness of program
implementation. O’Connor and Freeman posited that the quality of coordination and support
provided by district-level staff and the procedural structures in place would have a large
influence on the eventual or ongoing success achieved by the individual schools.
In their 2017 report Key Insights from the Collaborating Districts Initiative, CASEL
presented the most recent findings from an ongoing effort by CASEL to support 10 of the largest
school districts in the country, collectively serving over 900,000 students, in their effort to
implement high-quality, evidence-based SEL. The goal of the Collaborating Districts Initiative
(CDI) was to create a comprehensive shift in how superintendents and entire school districts
approach education. The CDI identified seven key insights: 1) Systemic SEL is possible even
with leadership changes and relatively small budgets. 2) SEL ideally is integrated into every
aspect of the district’s work, from the strategic plan and budgets to human resources and
operations. 3) SEL ideally is integrated into every aspect of the school, from classroom
instruction to school climate and culture to community-family partnerships. 4) Successful
implementation can follow multiple pathways, based on each district’s unique needs and
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 51
strengths; the engagement and commitment of both school and district leadership is essential. 5)
Adult SEL matters too. 6) Data for continuous improvement are essential. 7) Districts benefit
from collaborating with each other. The CDI’s work is an integral piece that highlights the
practices that make SEL implementation at the district level successful. Barriers to
implementation can be inferred from the key insights, as many districts may not follow the same
or similar practices as those deemed successful here.
In another study by Seashore Louis et al. (2010), researchers conducted a large,
comprehensive study of the effects of school leadership on educational practices and student
learning. Key findings suggested that districts are not creating the climate or expectation for
schools to be open to community and parental involvement. Districts also tended to stop short of
making sure that principals modeled their inclusive behaviors (with regard to including
community members in the decision-making process) and did not believe it was their role to
mandate engagement between schools, parent, and other community members. Implications for
policy and practice suggested that Districts should be more involved in the process of educating
and involving local parents and community members in the education process and decision-
making (Seashore Louis et al., 2010).
In their article published in the New Superintendents Journal 2016-2017 issue, an annual
publication by the largest superintendents organization in the U.S., the American Association of
School Administrators (AASA), Brackett and Patti (2016), who are experts from Yale’s Center
for Emotional Intelligence and Hunter College’s school of administration and supervision
explained that without institutionalizing SEL practices through training and garnering support
from all stakeholders, even the best programs will eventually disappear or fail. Their article
summarizes the sentiment from a growing field of researchers on the topic. This sentiment is that
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 52
when programs are not supported and implemented at the district level, it is harder to ensure
district-wide success and fidelity. However, even with district support, schools are often limited
by the amount of resources available to them; sometimes by design.
Funding
Schools’ resources, especially funding, are often limited and prescribed based on
perceived levels of school need and resource utility. In their 2003 study, Weist et al. assessed the
availability of public and private funding resources to support comprehensive mental health
programs. Researchers claimed funding for these programs was “patchy and tenuous" (p. 71).
They found that funding sources generally included federal and state sources, local (school and
district funds), and private foundations (grants). Implications from findings are that many
sources of funding are limited and require specific criteria that many students may not meet. The
issue for schools looking to fund a schoolwide effort is that they may not have enough students
who meet the qualifications for any one funding source, or that the funding may simply not be
enough to benefit all students.
Payne and Biddle (1999) analyzed the effects of low funding, among other factors, on
student achievement in American schools. Their findings suggested that total school funding is
significantly related to overall student achievement. This effect was independent of other factors
such as child poverty, curriculum, and race, which also contribute to student achievement. In a
similar study, Lee and Polachek (2018) analyzed how school budgeting affected high school
dropout rates in New York from 2003/2004 to 2007/2008. Results indicated that increases in
school expenditures resulted in decreased New York State’s dropout rates. Results from both
studies have major implications for school spending decisions, most important of which that
funding is a crucial factor in student success.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 53
Building on the hypothesis that funding plays a crucial role in student success, Hyman
(2017) measured the effect of increased spending in elementary school on students’ college
enrollment and completion in Michigan. Findings from the study indicated that for every
additional $1,000 (a 10% increase on average) spent on students in grades four through seven led
to a 3% increase in the likelihood that they were going to enroll in college. Furthermore, this
spending led to a 2.8% increase in college degree completion (an 11.4% increase). Results
suggested that even a minor increase in spending on students has significant effects on their
long-term academic outcomes.
Other studies have focused on the importance of the “design” of funding formulas and
sources in K-12 systems. One such study by Wong (2013) analyzed the Rhode Island school
funding reform in 2010, and highlighted the political and fiscal barriers that had to be broken in
order to develop the new funding formula. Several major implications for effective school
funding were drawn from the study. The first being that leadership widens the policy window.
Wong found that the state education commissioner prioritized funding reform when the state was
ready to compete for federal Race to the Top funding, and utilized independent analysis and
partnerships to develop a new funding formula. Second, school funding should first serve the
educational purpose and not assume more funding is needed. The new funding formula did not
focus on increasing funding for all students, but rather targeted the areas of highest need, and
reallocated funding for more than 70% of students. Last, accountability and transparency should
be institutionalized in spending. The state formula mandated districts and schools to have a
Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) that the public and stakeholders could access anytime on
the state education website. Wong’s (2017) research highlights the importance of asking exactly
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 54
how funding is designed to help schools, rather than simply assuming its presence will yield
positive results.
One such by Carolyn Brown (2007) examined the school-level distribution of Title I
funds in the three largest districts in the U.S. – New York City Public Schools, Los Angeles
Unified School District, and Chicago Public Schools – to determine the equitability of funding.
Her findings suggested that these large districts, with over 70% of their students in poverty, were
using broad regulatory flexibility to distribute inadequate funds to large populations of poor
children. For example, LAUSD distributed 60% of its $351 million Title I funds (mean of $278
per pupil) to 100% of its poorest schools at $280-300 per poor pupil. From these findings, one
may conclude that even specialized funding sources can be used in ways that don’t necessarily
serve the students or programs they are intended for; especially when school-level fiscal policies
are inequitable.
Lastly, Flaherty (2013) analyzed the effects of changes in spending across five or six 3-
year periods between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009 for cohorts of 5
th
-8
th
and 8
th
-11
th
grade students
in Pennsylvania schools. Findings suggest that district-wide increases in instructional spending
are associated with improved student outcomes, specifically on state standardized test scores.
Implications from this study support calls for more spending on instructional resources.
School funding is a controversial and often convoluted subject in terms of effectiveness
and allocation, but research supports the positive impact it has on student outcomes when
carefully considered and appropriated with relative student needs in mind. Even when student-
needs are considered in the decision-making process, even well-intentioned and otherwise
effective resources can become ineffective and overwhelming for educators to implement
because of the existing systems, structures, and practices within a district.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 55
Systems
Systems act as frameworks or foundations upon which districts operate, and their
effectiveness is based on the level of organization, systematization, and integration they provide
for their stakeholders. Effective SEL, like any other school- or district-wide initiative, requires a
systemic approach that is embedded at every level of a school or district’s operational
framework. Elias et al. (2015) argued that for educators to successfully implement SEL in their
schools, there needs to be a foundation of synergetic systems in place that coordinates the efforts
of varying supports and services, as well as integrates and promotes the participation of all
stakeholders in and out of the school. Effective implementation requires continuous assessment
of school climate and culture, as well as evaluation of the program design, implementation, and
adaptation of current interventions in respect to how synergized they are with one another. As
illustrated in Figure 2, SEL should not be added to an already impacted schoolhouse that is
overwhelmed with misaligned and fragmented youth development programs, but rather act as the
foundational piece through which all other systems, processes, programs, and activities are
interwoven with one another; aligning all efforts to the social, emotional, and academic goals of
the school, through one unifying lens.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 56
Figure 2: Coordinated SEL and Related Approaches: The jumbled and synergized schoolhouses.
In a separate study, Meyers et al. (2014) assessed the roles of different district and
school-level employees in the adoption, implementation, and evaluation of social and emotional
learning in several rural Midwestern school districts. They suggested that “effective
implementation requires systemic changes, supported by consultation, at the more proximal
building and classroom levels” (p. 111). According to Meyers et al., systems changes included
significant adjustments in professional roles, resource allocation, and beliefs about the objectives
of public education, especially within school systems that had not previously prioritized
children’s social and emotional development as part of their central mission. Researchers found
that a collaborative decision-making process, which required the inclusion of multiple
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 57
perspectives (admin, teachers, service providers, psychologists and social workers) and
adaptation to changing needs, was a key factor in the countywide implementation of an SEL
program. Using an ecological model for consultation provided a framework for designing,
initiating, implementing and improving the delivery of systems-level intervention. Implications
from this study support the notion that systems are necessary considerations in the planning of
SEL implementation.
Jones and Bouffard’s (2012) research suggests SEL requires continuity and consistency,
SEL skills develop in social contexts, and classrooms and schools operate as systems. Because
SEL skills are necessary across contexts, SEL efforts should be aligned horizontally,
intentionally connecting the environments students inhabit (e.g. classroom, playgrounds,
cafeteria, etc.). The principles of effective SEL, including an interconnectedness with academics,
highlight the need for SEL approaches to be integrated and embedded into the existing systems
of the school or district.
Mayer (2010) identified factors that promoted the successful implementation of an
International Baccalaureate Diploma Program in an urban high school. Drivers for successful
implementation included: staff selection, preservice training, coaching, staff evaluation, program
evaluation, and administrative supports. Implications suggest that even in schools facing
common challenges (inconsistent district support, the poor academic preparation of their students
in grades K–8, the economic disadvantage of their students, overcrowded campuses, high
principal turnover, and limited teacher capacity) it is still possible to affect positive change in
student outcomes when implementation is structured around the previously identified drivers.
In Hager at al.’s (2016) study of written local wellness policies (LWP) (which are
mandated in schools, but left for schools to implement), researchers examined factors associated
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 58
with school-level LWP implementation. Findings suggested that schools with “perceived system
support” and health teams/school health councils had a greater likelihood of LWP
implementation. Implications suggest that implementation obstacles may be overcome when
designated groups/councils and perceived systems of support are present. In a similar study by
Stoltz et al. (2009), researchers examined the effects of a regional 2-year training program to
increase local school districts’ Coordinated School Health Programs (CSHP) infrastructure as
measured by the establishment of four structures essential to the CSHP model. Researchers
identified four factors that led to the successful implementation of the program: (1) Advisory
council, (2) Coordinator, (3) School-based program teams, and (4) School board policy.
Implications from the study suggest that building an infrastructure that intentionally supports a
program may lead to the successful implementation of programs in schools. Furthermore,
successful program implementation research appears to broadly support the adoption of a
systematic and structured framework for planning, implementing, and monitoring school- and
district-wide efforts. As schools and districts prepare to implement new initiatives, an important
step in that preparation includes the training and professional development of its staff, and more
specifically, district or school leaders.
Administrator Training
Administrator training is a key factor to the successful implementation and sustainability
of school-wide SEL. Jones et al. (2017) provided an in-depth guide to 25 evidence-based
programs, which offers critical information about programmatic features that practitioners can
use to make informed choices about their Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) efforts. One
important note that researchers highlight in the guide is that effective SEL programs all had a
component of adult SEL competency learning, which taught adults (administrators included)
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 59
how to build and integrate their own SEL skills into their daily interactions with students. One
common implementation challenge amongst many programs was ensuring sufficient staff
support and training in effective SEL strategies and skills. Additionally, it was deemed important
to ensure administrator ownership and buy-in before implementing SEL to prevent
compromising modifications or inadequate fidelity. Common program components included
opportunities for staff professional development, including trainings that help adults learn to
understand and manage their emotions, build positive relationships with students and colleagues,
and more. Implications suggest that the most effective SEL programs require some component of
administrator competency and skill-building, as well as sufficient ownership and buy-in from
administrators for maximum fidelity in implementation.
In a 2012 issue of the Social Policy Report, Jones and Bouffard discussed the
perspectives and strategies of effective SEL programs, and proposed new evidence-based
approaches to SEL in schools. Perhaps most pertinent to this topic, the researchers noted that,
among other things, school administrators needed opportunities to learn how to infuse attention
to SEL skills into the mission and daily work of schools. The topics they argued should be
addressed included: (1) How to connect the teaching of SEL skills with the academic mission of
the school, (2) How to create time and space in the curriculum, (3) How to select programs and
other approaches like routines, (4) How to support teachers and staff, and (5) How to lead by
example (p. 14). Implications from this report suggest that administrators can effect substantial
change in the way schools approach SEL, so long as they are adequately prepared via training
and support.
Valentino and Stipek (2016) identified effective practices and barriers in California
districts’ Pre-K-3 alignment. Researchers found that district and county-level employees
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 60
highlighted the importance of training principals since they were the ones in charge of evaluating
the teachers’ performance and classroom quality. Also, principals could not provide informed,
useful feedback to teachers if they were not knowledgeable themselves. Not surprisingly, having
open-school visits by Principals within the same district created transparency among schools and
incentivized program improvement because Principals knew that someone could stop by to visit
their school at any time. Walkthroughs with coaches helped Principals to see how programs were
coordinated and scaffolded across grades, as well as how misaligned programs could not build
on each other. Lastly, researchers found that it was important to make sure Principals were as
well trained as the teachers so they could effectively coach the teachers. Implications from this
report suggest that Principal training is vital to the successful implementation and management
of a schoolwide program, such as SEL.
Overall, key research in the implementation of effective SEL indicates the need for
sufficient administrator (among other school staff) training in SEL in order to ensure appropriate
selection of programs, intentional program development, implementation guidance and support,
effective coaching for teachers, and useful skills in addressing and meeting the emotional and
behavioral needs of the students. While all of these factors may be the result of ample
administrator training, many high school Principals are still not quite sure what their role is with
regard to SEL.
The Principal’s Role in Implementation of SEL
Principal’s Role in High School
The role of the high school Principal is imprecise and comprehensive, but paramount to
the successful implementation of SEL. As Hallinger (1992) discussed, the principal’s role over
the last 30 years has evolved from program manager, to instructional leader, and now
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 61
transformational leader. During the 1960s and 1970s the role of the American principal became
that of a manager for the federally-fund programs designed to assist special student populations
(compensatory education, bilingual education, education for students with disabilities).
Curriculum reform also took off during the 1960 and 1970s, and by the mid-1970s, most
principals were responsible for overseeing program and curriculum management. This new role
as manager of program and curriculum implementation was rooted in the implicit goal of school
improvement (school reform/change implementation), as opposed to the previous role’s
homeostatic nature. As this new role took hold, researchers began to find that principals were
being relegated to mere implementers of programs that were designed by outside parties (federal
and state education departments) which limited their ownership, and that many principals
became more concerned with program compliance rather than student or program outcomes.
In the 1980s, calls for principals to engage more actively in leading the school’s
instructional programs and focusing staff attention on student outcomes, gave way to the rise of
Instructional Leadership. The instructional leader was seen as the primary source of knowledge
for the development of the school’s educational program. The principal was expected to be
knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction. They had to be able to intervene directly with
teachers to make instructional improvements. They were expected to hold high expectations for
teacher and students. They would closely supervise classroom instruction, coordinate the
school’s curriculum, and closely monitor student progress.
In the 1990s, the needs of America’s schools changed, and the call for school reform
emphasized the need to decentralize authority over instructional and curricular decisions, and
expand the decision-making power to the parents and teachers. Transformational Leadership was
born out of a demand that new roles for school leaders be defined, in an effort to restructure
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 62
schools so that they become the initiator of change rather than just the implementer of change.
Principals were now being asked to “lead from the back”, and work collaboratively with local
stakeholders (teachers and parents) to define the school’s problems, create goals, select
programs, develop staff competency, implement programs, and reflect on school performance;
all of which were previously at the sole discretion of the principal or district leaders.
Transformational leadership required the principal to be more comfortable with uncertainty, but
also more focused on collaborative efforts to develop and support teachers and parents in their
efforts to set clear and appropriate goals for their students, while also exploring new curricula
and programs to improve student learning and achievement. The role of the principal continues
to evolve to this day, as school accountability measures continue to change and now include new
measures of student outcomes (graduation rate, chronic absenteeism, suspension/expulsion),
school culture and climate, and parent and community involvement.
In 2016, Francom identified the roles that high school principals played in the
development, implementation, and sustainment of a high functioning character education
program. Findings suggested that high school principals were key to a successful character
education initiative in their schools. Researchers identified six main roles that principals played
in the development, implementation, and sustainment of the initiative. The first role was that of a
“Cultural Engineer” - one who oversaw the planning, designing, and development of the culture
of the school through various means to effectively establish a strong program. Second, a “Plate
Peddler” - one who sold the initiative as a plate from which education is served, not just an
additional dish in the offerings at school. Next, a “Collaborative Leader” - one who utilized
collaborative leadership practices, shared leadership, and empowering individuals (students,
teachers, and staff). Fourth, a “Reflective Leader” - engaged in data-gathering, researching best
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 63
practices, talking to other model schools, and constantly reviewing and reevaluating the vision,
mission, and belief statements and how they relate to the decision-making process. Fifth, a
“Moral Leader” - a model leader that is practicing the values and virtues that are desired by the
students and teachers. And lastly, a “Champion” - acting as a support to staff and a fighter for the
initiative. Because character education is essentially a narrow form of SEL, implications from
this study could suggest that principals apply these strategies in their approaches to any SEL
efforts at their schools.
Crum and Sherman (2008) interviewed 12 high school principals to identify common
characteristics of effective school leaders. Several common leadership principles were identified
among effective leaders: developing personnel and facilitating leadership, responsible delegation
and empowering the team, recognizing ultimate accountability, communicating and rapport,
facilitating instruction, and managing change. Similarly, Williams (2008) identified key
characteristics of outstanding principals in urban school districts, specifically pertaining to their
social and emotional intelligence, as well as how they conceptualize and adapt differently to their
external organizational environments. Findings suggest that outstanding principals make
different choices about how to exercise the role of the principal. Williams described outstanding
principals as having a broader conceptualization of their external environment, characterized by
regular and evenly distributed interactions with the district/school bureaucracy, parents, and
community partners. Conversely, typical principals operated in a narrower external arena made
up of predominantly parents and the district/school bureaucracy.
Williams (2008) also found that there appeared to be a positive link between social and
emotional competency and principal effectiveness. For example, principals with a broader
repertoire of emotional and social intelligence competencies were able to operate in a more
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 64
complex environment using a variety of strategies. Williams also argued principals’ emotional
intelligence competencies were associated with an individual’s ability to manage himself or
herself. In one example, outstanding principals stood up for what they believed in more than
other principals, particularly with their staff, and they presented themselves in an assured and
unhesitating manner particularly in uncertain and tense situations. In another example,
outstanding principals tended to take initiative; they would go beyond studying options, and take
action, find and act upon opportunities that contribute to their school improvement agenda.
Implications from this study suggest that outstanding principals possess the social and emotional
skills necessary to effect more positive change in their schools, as a result of their ability to build
and use a wide-spread network of relationships and influence that are goal-oriented, make
confident and clear decisions about the direction of the organization, maintain personal and
organizational focus in times of uncertainty and instability, and are able to lead others by
consistently modeling, setting clear goals, and leveraging relationships between stakeholders to
improve organizational performance and achieve desired goals.
White-Smith and White (2009) examined the perspectives of four high school principals
during their implementation of the High School College Collaborative (HSCC), a program
intended to help underserved high school students receive college credit in various subjects while
simultaneously receiving a high school diploma. Results indicated that principals’ perceptions of
the reform work directly related to its successful implementation. One common finding was that
all four principals viewed the program as something added to their plate, rather than an
integrated part of the work the school was already doing. This finding suggests that principals
need help reframing school reform and restructuring as an opportunity to use existing skills
within a new context, rather than feeling like something else is being added to their plate.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 65
Findings also indicate that in order to implement comprehensive school reform, principals need
to take the existing structures and culture of the school as a starting point, and then use the
external accountability pressures in their favor to push the school in the direction of their
ultimate vision.
Brown et al. (2004) evaluated the effects of the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program in
New York City public schools. Findings suggest important factors contributing to the successful
implementation of the program included: support from the principal, the quality of the principal’s
leadership, staff morale, the quality and experience of the faculty, teacher enthusiasm and
aptitude for the RCCP, other demands on staff time, the overall priorities of the school system,
and the quality of the service provided by the RCCP trainers and staff developers (p. 164).
Implications from these findings suggest that the principal has a significant effect in the success
of the program implementation due to the ability to control or have an impact on all of the
previously mentioned factors in one way or another.
In his book Leading in a Culture of Change (2001), Michael Fullan discussed how school
leaders successfully create and lead a culture of change. He argued that the culture of change was
full of emotion (stress, anxiety, exhilaration, etc.), and they often represent fear or differences of
opinion. “Effective leaders are not those with the highest IQs but those who combine mental
intelligence with emotional intelligence” (p. 93). Effective leaders in a culture of change
appreciate resistance by reframing as having possible merit, and almost always deal with it more
effectively than anyone else. Dissent is seen as a potential source of new ideas and
breakthroughs, and the absence of conflict is often seen as decay. What Fullan was suggesting is
that principals need to have the SEL skills they want their students and teachers to possess, if
they are to effectively lead their school.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 66
Moore (2009) continued this point by arguing that effective middle school and high
school principals would need to understand and manage emotions to implement and lead school
reform. He found that moving teachers from isolation to collaboration, changing the focus from
teaching to student learning, implementing structures and processes that systematically monitor
student learning and increase accountability, and distributing leadership would be a huge
paradigm shift for most American schools. He stated that many principals do not have the skills
required to support, coach, listen and to balance patience and persistence with teachers in their
efforts to reform a school. The most successful leaders were usually highly skilled in dealing
with their emotions and the emotions of others (empathetically assertive), which allowed them to
lead in situations when persuasion, collaboration, and inspiration are simply not enough to drive
school reform. Moore strongly encouraged Emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence
coaching for school administrators, especially those working toward restructuring or reforming a
school or district.
In order to successfully implement SEL at the high school level, principals will have to
possess the transformational leadership qualities and emotional intelligence that allows them to
be comfortable with the chaos and uncertainty that is implicit in the process of developing a
comprehensive social and emotional learning approach in their school, as well as be able to
demonstrate the required knowledge and support for the program, provide the necessary
resources and support for the teachers and staff, and model the desired behaviors to their
students, families, and community members. In addition to the aforementioned qualities and
behaviors, principals will have to overcome the many obstacles that will arise in their pursuit of
achieving true school reform.
Barriers to Implementation for Principals
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 67
There are a number of reasons why social and emotional learning is implemented most
frequently and effectively in the primary grades and not with as much fidelity and success at the
high school level. Flannery et al. (2013) analyzed the patterns of change in the components of
implementation for a schoolwide positive behavior intervention support system in eight high
schools. Findings suggested that while it is possible, implementation takes longer in high schools
(no significant change results until the second year), and there are key considerations high
schools should focus on when beginning implementation. For example, Flannery et al. noted that
the first year of implementation is often referred to as the “zero year” by high schools because of
the time spent developing strategies to collaborate, gaining schoolwide buy-in, planning and
establishing foundational components. Additionally, due to the sheer size of the school and
number of faculty members, high schools often implement initiatives beginning at the
department or grade level rather than schoolwide. As Flannery et al. suggest, building
schoolwide agreement takes significantly more time and energy as stakeholders need to
communicate about concerns and possible solutions and achieve consensus before beginning
implementation. The increased size and lack of experience with schoolwide decision-making
requires high schools to provide specific supports to develop systematic strategies to achieve
consensus from a broad range of stakeholders, including teachers, staff, and students. The longer
day and extra duties (clubs, athletics) also make it difficult for staff to find available meeting
times. Lastly, existing systems of discipline must be restructured to align with program goals, but
it takes time for teachers to come to consensus on behavioral expectations for all students,
especially when there are usually different expectations for each grade level, department, and
teacher.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 68
Chitiyo and Wheeler (2009) examined the difficulties teachers faced in the
implementation of positive behavior supports in their classrooms and schools. Results indicated
that teachers had problems with: (a) time, (b) inadequate training, (c) lack of consistency among
staff, (d) lack of resources, (e) lack of administrative support, and (f) lack of parental support.
Additionally, teachers also reported that they needed technical assistance in data collection,
recording and input, soliciting administrative support, and monitoring the implementation of
interventions. Findings suggest that teachers felt under-supported by their administrators, under-
supported by their colleagues (not enough teacher buy-in), and under-prepared (lack of training
and professional development to build specific skills to manage behavior) to implement PBS in
their classrooms and schools. Implications for this study illustrate the need for adequate buy-in,
training, and support from principals before asking teachers and staff to implement schoolwide
SEL.
Bambara (2009) investigated the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing and
sustaining positive behavior supports by school-based team members across five stakeholder
groups. One of the most salient findings was that in order to implement PBS successfully, there
needed to be a substantial shift in the way educators thought about behavioral interventions and
the students who presented with the most challenging behaviors. As Bambara argued, it requires
letting go of entrenched beliefs and practices, and accepting those that emphasize prevention
rather than consequences, individualization rather than universal discipline, and inclusion rather
than exclusion of students. The absence of principal support, acceptance, or even understanding
of PBS was viewed as a major impediment, not only because of their lack of leadership to
promote new practices, but also because principals’ own conflicting views about behavior
management or inclusion can actively set up roadblocks that prevent PBS activities from
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 69
occurring in their school. Implications from this study highlight the need for principals to not
only be on board with, but to also adopt the new mindsets that are required to implement
reformative practices in their schools, such as SEL.
Fallon et al. (2014) interviewed school personnel about the fidelity with which a
schoolwide positive behavior support system was implemented at the classroom-level, as well as
perceived challenges to implementation. Findings suggested that 31-39% of teachers reported
being only somewhat consistent when delivering consequences, continuing instruction when
problem behavior occurs, and aligning classroom procedures with schoolwide procedures. A
considerable number of teachers (33-41%) found it somewhat challenging to match instructional
materials to students’ ability, ensure academic success, and align expected behavior with
schoolwide practices. Nearly half of all responders (47-50%) found it somewhat challenging to
give consistent consequence for problem behaviors, align consequences for problem behaviors
with schoolwide consequences, and continue instruction when problem behavior occurs. High
school teachers also found it somewhat challenging to teach expected behaviors directly. Schools
that have been implementing SWPBS for more than five years found it somewhat challenging to
define behaviors clearly. Overall, this study suggests that teachers struggle most with
consistently delivering consequences and teaching expected behaviors in high school.
High schools are large, complex, and often difficult sites in which to implement
successful school wide initiatives, not only because of the greater number of individuals
involved, but also because of the plethora of existing and often competing practices,
expectations, cultures, and ideologies. One way for principals to increase their likelihood of
program success is to follow existing, evidence-based practices that are highly structured,
systematized, and address the various aspects of successful SEL mentioned above.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 70
SEL Framework (Conceptual Framework)
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)
CASEL provided an evidence-based, organized framework for SEL competency and
guidelines for the systematic implementation of SEL at the school-site and district levels. The
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) first introduced Safe and
Sound: An Educational Leader’s Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
Programs (2005) as a guide to help educational leaders make informed decisions about adopting
the best programs for SEL and to understand how to implement them in a way that was systemic
and integrated with the school’s existing programs and interventions. The guide asserts that
effective SEL programs begin at an early age and continue through high school. The guide also
introduced a set of 5 core competencies that comprised social and emotional competence (see
updated competency framework in Figure 3). They include: 1) Self-Awareness: Knowing what
we are feeling in the moment; having a realistic assessment of our own abilities and a well-
grounded sense of self-confidence. 2) Social Awareness: Understanding what others are feeling;
being able to take their perspective; appreciating and interacting positively with diverse groups.
3) Self-Management: Handling our emotions so they facilitate rather than interfere with the task
at hand; being conscientious and delaying gratification to pursue goals; persevering in the face of
setbacks and frustrations. 4) Relationship Skills: Handling emotions in relationships effectively;
establishing and maintaining healthy and rewarding relation- ships based on cooperation,
resistance to in-appropriate social pressure, negotiating solutions to conflict, and seeking help
when needed. 5) Responsible Decision Making: Making decisions based on an accurate
consideration of all relevant factors and the likely consequences of alternative courses of action,
respecting others, and taking responsibility for one’s decisions.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 71
The guide (CASEL, 2005) also established characteristics for effective SEL practice.
According to the guide SEL should: be grounded in theory and research, teach children to apply
SEL skills and ethical values in their daily lives, build connections to school through caring,
engaging classroom and school practices, provide developmentally and culturally appropriate
instruction, help schools coordinate and unify programs that are often fragmented, enhance
school performance by addressing the affective and social dimensions of academic learning,
involve families and communities as partners, establish organizational supports and policies that
foster success, provide high-quality staff development and support, and incorporate continuing
evaluation and improvement. CASEL’s implementation guidelines are aligned to key success
factors highlighted by previous research on program implementation in schools.
In 2015, CASEL created an updated systematic framework for assessing the quality of
SEL programs so educators can make informed decisions about the selection and implementation
of SEL programs in their schools and districts. According to researchers, “Adopting an evidence-
based SEL program is not enough to ensure positive outcomes. The success of a program
depends on high-quality implementation. Poor program implementation can undermine a
program’s success and its impact on student outcomes” (p. 8). CASEL suggested that social and
emotional skills were critical to being a good student, citizen, and worker, and that many risky
behaviors could be prevented or reduced when multiyear, integrated efforts were used to develop
students’ social and emotional skills. Researchers argued that effective SEL occurs as a result of
(1) effective classroom curriculum and instruction, (2) a school climate, policies, and practices
that promote student engagement in positive activities in and out of the classroom, and (3) broad
family and community involvement in program planning, implementation, and evaluation (see
updated model in Figure 3).
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 72
The knowledge, skills, and attitudes within the CASEL (2015) five competency clusters
are especially relevant during adolescence because youth at this stage are going through rapid
physical, emotional, and cognitive changes. Adolescents also engage in more risky behaviors
than younger students and face a variety of challenging situations, including increased
independence, peer pressure, and exposure to social media.
Figure 3: CASEL's Model for SEL
CASEL spent more than a decade drafting, field testing, studying, and refining a guide to
schoolwide SEL through the collective work of the Collaborating Districts Initiative (CDI), and
contributions from over 25 years of research from dozens of practitioners. In 2019, The CASEL
Guide to Schoolwide Social and Emotional Learning was created for the development and
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 73
implementation of systemic, schoolwide SEL for school teams and school leaders to follow. The
guide was designed to help schools coordinate and build upon SEL practices and programs to
create an environment that infuses SEL into every part of students’ educational experience and
promotes equitable outcomes for all students. The School Guide consists of four focus areas to
help organize, implement, and improve a school’s SEL efforts (see Figures 4 and 5). Those
focus areas include building awareness and creating a plan, strengthening adult SEL, promoting
SEL for students, and practicing continuous improvement.
Figure 4: Cycle of SEL Implementation
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 74
Figure 5: CASEL Schoolwide SEL Implementation Process
In 2018, Ross and Tolan conducted a study that utilized confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA) to validate the measurement utility of the five-factor model of SEL competency
developed by CASEL when compared to an evidence-based model of positive youth
development (PYD), as well as the relation of the model to important adolescent outcomes.
Results indicated a generally reliable basis for measurement of SEL competency. Findings also
revealed significant levels of interdependence among factors, suggesting that changes in one area
of SEL competency should effect changes in others. Results support the SEL model’s relation to
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 75
critical youth outcomes, indicating a positive relationship with school engagement and grades,
and a negative relationship with risky behaviors, delinquency, and depressive symptoms.
Meyers et al. (2019) studied the feasibility and degree of implementation of the CASEL
School Guide implementation model, which was developed to guide school leadership teams in
establishing a vision; selecting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs; and
integrating SEL schoolwide. Results demonstrated the feasibility of using the CASEL School
Guide implementation model in urban schools who primarily serve students of color. Results
also indicated substantial growth in the SEL Teams’ ability to implement an evidence-based SEL
program using the School Guide. There were several key takeaways from the study.
First, Meyers et al. (2019) found the Ideal months for planning SEL implementation were
the last two months of the prior school year because that was when principals were finalizing
their professional learning calendars for the coming year and that’s also when budgets were
released. Next, researchers found that sustained progress should be approached by embedding
the implementation model into existing district structures and supports. Embedding SEL into the
district-mandated improvement plans, and making deliberate connections between SEL
leadership teams and district-level personnel whose role it is to oversee SEL efforts, ensures
nothing falls by the wayside when invested staff leave the district. It is also important to link all
existing interventions and programs in a school community to evidence-based SEL programs to
enhance their relevance, feasibility of implementation and effectiveness for promoting positive
student outcomes. This study by Meyers et al. (2019) confirms the CASEL School Guide’s
effectiveness and feasibility for school leaders to use as a guide for the development and
implementation of an evidence-based, schoolwide SEL program. Simply put, CASEL’s School
Guide offers an effective and feasible tool for school leaders looking to develop and implement
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 76
schoolwide SEL. While CASEL has gathered over 25 years of research and a decade of field-
data to create their own framework for effective SEL, there have and continue to exist school
leaders who seem to have figured out how to promote successful schoolwide social and
emotional practices for their students without the support of CASEL or their work.
Positive Deviance (Theoretical Framework)
The Positive Deviance theory suggests that in every community there are certain
members or groups whose uncommon, or “deviant”, behaviors and strategies lead them to find
better solutions to problems than their peers, while having access to the same resources and
facing similar, if not worse challenges. In 1976, Wishik and Vynckt described the methodology
for identifying “Positive Deviants” via nutrition surveys as part of a dietary modification
program for deprived populations. Their study is one of the first studies to recognize “Positive
Deviants” as those who show better than usual nutritional status of young children in the absence
of particularly favorable socioeconomic status and fertility history.
Fast-forward to 2012, and Singhal and Durá discussed the Positive Deviance (PD)
approach as it applied to social change in the Handbook of Global Health Communication
(2012). The authors analyzed the PD approach to two highly complex problems (1) combating
malnutrition in Vietnam, and (2) reducing maternal and newborn mortality in Pakistan. Findings
suggest that the effectiveness of PD is rooted in a variety of communicative practices,
community assets, and facilitative skills. Authors suggested the PD approach is a process of
change that enables communities to discover the wisdom they already have, and find a way to
amplify it.
Pascale and Sternin (2005) articulated a six-step Positive Deviance model for
organizational change in an article published in the Harvard Business Review. The six steps
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 77
outlined are: 1) Make the group the guru, 2) Reframe through facts, 3) Make it safe to learn, 4)
Make the problem concrete, 5) Leverage social proof, and 6) Confound the immune defense
response. Pascale and Sternin wrote, “People are much more likely to act their way into a new
way of thinking than to think their way into a new way of acting” (p. 81). The authors
emphasized the role reversals that occur in the PD approach, where experts become learners,
teachers become students, and leaders become followers.
In 2010, Pascale authored a book titled “The Power of Positive Deviance: How unlikely
innovators solve the world’s toughest problems.” In the book, he argued that there are three basic
premises of PD. First, solutions to challenging problems already exist. Second, these solutions
have already been discovered by a member of the community. Last, these “Positive Deviants”
have succeeded even though they share the same constraints and barriers as others in the
community. Pascale wrote that positive deviants are often invisible, and don’t realize they are
doing anything unusual or exceptional. Similarly, the community often doesn’t realize its own
latent potential to self-organize, tap into its own wisdom, and address problems.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 78
Figure 6: Positive Deviance Framework for Implementation of SEL by Urban High School Principals
According to Pascale (2010), the PD approach excels over most alternatives when
addressing problems that: a) are enmeshed in a complex social system, b) require social and
behavioral change, and/or c) entail solutions that are rife with unforeseeable or unintended
consequences. Implications for principals suggest that PD may explain why some principals have
been able to successfully implement schoolwide SEL without the use of existing frameworks or
models. More specifically, the PD approach may explain how some high school principals were
able to overcome the many challenges other principals face and how they were able to leverage
their existing teams and knowledge to find alternative solutions to promote effective SEL in their
schools.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 79
Summary
Over two decades of research has affirmed the importance of social and emotional
competence to the successful growth and development of children and adults. The teaching of
knowledge and skills necessary for the effective and proactive management of inter- and intra-
personal experiences has been the focus of a growing number of stakeholders in Pre-K-12
education. While the practice of social and emotional learning has been a long-standing
assumption of early-childhood education, far less has been documented and studied at the high
school level. With the rise in problematic student outcomes related to mental health, school
climate, student engagement, and academic achievement, many are led to question why high
schools are unable to address these issues in a manner that results in positive student outcomes.
Some point to the many challenges high schools face: district support, funding, systems, training,
and personnel. The responsibility is often placed on the shoulders of individual school principals,
and their ability or inability to implement SEL at their school. The likelihood of which is
dependent upon a litany of variables that contribute to one’s ability to do so. While research has
highlighted a majority trend of “would like to, but haven’t yet”, this study proposes the use of
positive deviance theory to identify the factors that have led to certain principals facing similar
challenges to find a way to implement SEL at their schools. Those strategies and practices will
then be compared to the implementation guidelines set forth by the leading organization in SEL
research and implementation, CASEL.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Statement of the Problem
While it appears that almost all stakeholders in Pre-K-12 education agree on the
importance of SEL for their students, as is evident by major federal, state, and district-level
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 80
policy reform in the last decade, the actual number of school principals implementing social and
emotional learning in their schools appears to be far less auspicious. In fact, one of the most
recent studies on principals’ perceptions and implementation of SEL programs found that only a
little over one third of principals (35 percent) surveyed reported having developed a plan for SEL
and were currently implementing it schoolwide (DePaoli et al., 2017). This gap in SEL
implementation in schools is especially a problem at the high school level, where SEL program
effects have been studied the least (Durlak et al., 2011). Furthermore, in schools where SEL is
barely or not being developed and implemented at all, principals play a vital role in helping their
teachers become more engaged and participatory in the adoption of SEL in their classrooms and
schoolwide (Meyers et al., 2015).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that led to the implementation of school
wide social and emotional learning in Southern California’s urban high schools, specifically
those related to the role of principals. Furthermore, it aimed to understand the degree to which
high school principals were developing and implementing SEL with best practice, as outlined by
the CASEL schoolwide implementation framework.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study.
1. What school district and site-level organizational processes and supports make it possible for
high school principals to implement school wide social and emotional learning at their
school?
2. What knowledge and skills are needed by high school principals in order to implement
school wide social and emotional learning at their school?
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 81
3. What school district and site-level motivational factors make it possible for high school
principals to implement school wide social and emotional learning at their school?
4. When high school principals led the implementation of social and emotional learning, to
what extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) schoolwide implementation guide?
Selection of the Population
To conduct this study, the researcher used a combination of convenience and purposive
sampling. Convenience was based on the researcher’s limited ability to obtain willing and
qualified subjects, since the number of urban high school principals currently implementing
social and emotional learning in Southern California is limited (Merriam, 2009). Since the study
is focused on urban high school principals in Southern California who are currently
implementing SEL, schools were purposely selected based on their geographic location,
demographic composition, academic performance, and the presence of social and emotional
learning. The sample population included a total of 5 participants, which is a common sample
size for phenomenological studies (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). All 5 participants were current
high school principals in either the Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, or Orange
County regions of Southern California. Participants were selected based on their respective high
school’s performance, demographic, and program information. 5 high schools were identified
using the California School Dashboard, and selected on the basis of meeting all of the following
criteria in either 2018 or 2019: (a) 50% + socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), (b) Grade of
“Green” or higher on Graduation Rate, (c) Yellow or higher on College/Career, and (d) Green or
higher on Suspension Rate. The researcher selected schools with 50%+ SED due to the large
number of urban school districts with majority SED populations. The graduation rate and
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 82
college/career indicators were chosen based on the research suggesting that schools with SEL are
more likely to have positive academic outcomes (Durlak et al., 2011). The suspension rate was
chosen based on the evidence that SEL reduces schoolwide suspensions (Teske, 2011). All of the
criteria were selected based on the research that suggests SEL leads to positive academic and
non-academic outcomes for students, especially for those belonging to disadvantaged
populations (Zins & Elias, 2007). It was important to this study that the participant selection
criteria was rooted in Positive Deviance theory. Therefore, principals had to be working in
schools that were dealing with historic educational barriers (i.e. poverty, majority-minority
populations, etc.), but still managing to demonstrate successful outcomes for their students via
SEL implementation using the same resources available to similar schools and principals; ergo,
demonstrating positive deviance.
Design Summary
A phenomenological research design was chosen for this study to allow the researcher to
describe the lived experiences of individuals about a phenomenon as described by the
participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The qualitative design was also selected based on the
researcher’s desire to interact with the participants in their natural settings, and to allow the
researcher to interpret how participants made sense of their own personal experiences (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, it was also important to select a qualitative design for this study
because SEL is a relatively under-studied topic in high schools, and it is often difficult to know
which factors researchers should examine in new topics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
This study was organized around the steps for conducting qualitative research (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The study focused on the research problem and
purpose of the study in chapter one; followed by a review of the literature in chapter two. The
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 83
methodology for data collection was described in chapter three; and chapters four and five
emphasized analyzing, interpreting, and reporting the data.
Methodology
The methodology consisted of gathering qualitative data from multiple sources, including
open-ended interview questions obtained from urban high school principals, school websites, and
the California School Dashboard. In order to respect the highly complex and systematic nature of
SEL implementation, as well as the individual experiences and perspectives of each principal, it
was decided that semi-structured interviews would best serve as the primary method of data
collection because they would allow the researcher to respond to the emergent worldviews and
ideas of each respondent (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). Each interview question was designed to
address one or more of the research questions. All four research questions were addressed in the
interviews. Responses would also be compared against the CASEL (2020) schoolwide
implementation guide for SEL to determine the degree of influence.
Qualitative Method
To further add to the internal validity of the study, member checks were conducted by the
researcher in order to rule out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what participants
said and what was observed. Member checks allow for the researcher to identify their own biases
and misunderstandings by soliciting feedback of preliminary findings from some of the
participants throughout the data collection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Instrumentation and Protocols
Qualitative Instrument
Semi-structured interviews were used to ask all five high school principals open-ended
questions about their role in the implementation of SEL at their schools. Participants were further
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 84
probed with follow-up questions based on individual responses (Lunenburg and Irby, 2008). A
semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix A) was designed with 10 questions based on
the steps outlined by CASEL’s Schoolwide SEL Implementation Process in order to root the
questions in an evidence-based framework for SEL implementation (Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2019b). The questions were designed around the
school leaders’ perceptions of SEL, their role in the implementation process, the requirements
for implementation, the fidelity of implementation at their school, and whether or not they
believe they have been successful.
Data Collection
Qualitative data collection procedures were based on the steps provided by Creswell and
Creswell (2018): (a) purposefully identify participants or sites that will best help the researcher
understand the problem or research question, (b) follow steps to recruit or gain access to
participants, (c) select sample, (d) collect and record data, (e) resolve any data collection issues,
(f) store data.
Interviews
Before interviews were conducted, participants were selected based on a review of the
California School Dashboard data. The search of schools was limited to the Southern California
region due to convenience so the schools would be within a 100-mile radius of the researcher’s
location, and the interviews could be conducted in-person. The researcher searched through the
listed high schools for schools that met the required criteria in that region. An explanation of the
criteria is listed in the Selection of the Population section above. Once the schools were selected,
the researcher mailed a formal letter, sent an identical email invitation, and made phone calls to
the principals inviting them to participate in the study. While there are likely more than five
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 85
schools that met these criteria, the first five principals to agree were chosen for the study. Once
the principals were selected, arrangements were made to meet with each principal for a one-hour
in-person interview. In the interview, principals were asked preliminary questions from the semi-
structured interview developed by the researcher, and follow-up questions were probed based on
situational responses for each respondent. Probes allowed for the researcher to gain further
clarity on what the respondents just said (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After the conclusion of the
interviews, respondents were asked if they would be willing to provide follow-up information via
email or phone call at a later time if necessary. The researcher ensured all participants that their
individual, school, and any other identifiable information would remain confidential and
anonymous throughout this process, as well as once this study was concluded. The purpose of
this study was to identify factors leading to success, and not to identify or single out any specific
schools or individuals. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed using the ATLAS.ti
transcription software on the researcher’s iPhone. Subsequently, transcripts were read in their
entirety to check for accuracy.
Document Review
As briefly described above, prior to the selection of principals, online data from
California School Dashboard was reviewed and analyzed to determine participant qualifications.
In addition to the dashboard review, school websites and social media were also reviewed to see
if the school had listed any information regarding their approach to social and emotional
learning. While the information on the school website or social media was not required (verbal
confirmation of SEL by principal was also an option), schools that had a listed program online
were preferred and considered prior to schools that did not. This was based on a combination of
convenience and purpose. The convenience aspect related to the process of selection, and by not
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 86
requiring the extra step of contacting the principals to confirm whether or not the school had an
SEL program in place, the researcher was able to choose a school more quickly. The purposeful
aspect regarded the researcher’s assumption that schools that were actively promoting their
efforts via online resources (e.g. school website, social media) were already demonstrating a
greater level of success in the implementation of SEL. In addition to these digital sources of
information, any physical flyers, handouts, or documentation that was provided by the principals
during the interview meetings was reviewed and considered as relevant data to the study.
Data Analysis
This study followed the simultaneous data collection and analysis processes prescribed
by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) for qualitative research. All of the interview questions were
directly linked to the research questions, and the research questions guided the data analysis for
this study.
The interviewer recorded separate audio files for each interview and uploaded each audio
file to the data storage and coding software provided by ATLAS.ti. All of the data was then
transcribed and coded using ATLAS.ti. Once coded, a horizontalization of data was conducted in
order to organize clusters and themes. By utilizing a horizontalization technique, the researcher
was allowed to treat all data as equal during the initial analysis stage, which then allowed for an
interweaving of data from different sources, and the creation of holistic themes (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
This study was conducted in congruence with Patton’s (2015) assertion that credibility
hinges partially on the integrity of the researcher. Throughout the study, the researcher made
every effort to ensure the highest levels of validity and reliability. To do so, the researcher
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 87
adhered to best practices outlined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Creswell and Creswell
(2018), including: member checking, adequate sample size, adequate time spent collecting data,
purposefully looking for variation in the data, researcher reflecting on biases and worldviews,
efficient and reliable data recording, storage, and analysis tools, and peer review.
Summary
This study used a qualitative methods approach to collect multiple forms of data through
interviews, physical and online document review, and observation. The data collected from
interviews with urban high school principals in Southern California were analyzed to target four
research questions: school district and school site organizational processes and supports that
made it possible for high school principals to implement SEL at their school, knowledge and
skills needed by high school principals in order to implement SEL, school district and site level
motivational factors that made it possible for high school principals to implement SEL, and the
extent to which implementation aligned with the CASEL schoolwide SEL framework. These
findings have been presented in chapter four, followed by a discussion of the findings in chapter
five.
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Background
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected from the study which aimed to
identify factors that led to the implementation of social and emotional learning in Southern
California’s urban high schools, specifically those related to the role of principal. In one of the
most recent studies on principals’ perceptions and implementation of SEL programs, researchers
found that only a little over one third of principals (35 percent) surveyed reported having
developed a plan for SEL and were currently implementing it schoolwide (DePaoli et al., 2017).
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 88
This gap in SEL implementation in schools is especially a problem at the high school level,
where SEL program effects have been studied the least (Durlak et al., 2011). Furthermore, in
schools where SEL is barely or not being developed and implemented at all, principals play a
vital role in helping their teachers become more engaged and participatory in the adoption of
SEL in their classrooms and schoolwide (Meyers et al., 2015). This study also aims to
understand the degree to which high school principals are developing and implementing SEL
with best practice, as outlined by the CASEL (2020) schoolwide implementation framework.
By utilizing a phenomenological research design, the researcher was able to describe the
lived experiences of the principals from each of the participating schools (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The findings from this study will identify the specific
experiences that led to the planning and implementation of SEL by urban high school principals.
Additionally, findings may uncover strategies that can produce coherence in the daily lives of
principals who seek to implement SEL in their schools (Fullan, 2014).
CASEL (2020) provided an evidence-based, organized framework for SEL competency
and guidelines for the systematic implementation of SEL at the school-site and district levels.
This study utilized CASEL’s guidelines for SEL implementation as a metric against which
principals could be compared in their unique and often personalized interpretation, planning, and
implementation of social and emotional learning in their schools. While CASEL has gathered
over 25 years of research and a decade of field-data to create their own framework for effective
SEL, there appears to have been and continue to exist school leaders who seem to have figured
out how to promote successful schoolwide social and emotional practices for their students
without the support of CASEL or their framework.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 89
Positive Deviance theory (PD) (Mertens et al., 2016) suggests that in every community
there are certain members or groups whose uncommon, or “deviant” behaviors and strategies
lead them to find better solutions to problems than their peers, while having access to the same
resources and facing similar, if not worse challenges. This study employed the PD approach to
explain how some high school principals were able to overcome the many challenges other
principals face and how they leveraged their existing teams and knowledge to find alternative
solutions that promoted effective SEL in their schools.
Qualitative data was gathered via one-on-one interviews with five urban high school
principals. The five principals interviewed are referred to as Principals A-E. Semi-structured
interviews were used to ask all five high school principals open-ended questions about their role
in the implementation of SEL at their schools. Participants were further probed with follow-up
questions based on individual responses (Lunenburg & Irby, 2008). A semi-structured interview
protocol (see Appendix A) was designed with 10 questions based on the steps outlined by
CASEL’s Schoolwide SEL Implementation Process in order to root the questions in an evidence-
based framework for SEL implementation (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning, 2019b). Furthermore, the questions were designed around the school leaders’
perceptions of SEL, their role in the implementation process, the requirements for
implementation, the fidelity of implementation at their school, and whether or not they believe
they have been successful.
This study followed the simultaneous data collection and analysis processes prescribed
by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) for qualitative research. All of the interview questions were
directly linked to the research questions, and the research questions guided the data analysis for
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 90
this study. The interviewer recorded separate audio files for each interview and uploaded each
audio file to the data storage and coding software provided by ATLAS.ti.
Demographics of Participants
To conduct this study, the researcher used a combination of convenience and purposive
sampling. Convenience was based on the researcher’s limited ability to obtain willing and
qualified subjects, since the number of urban high school principals currently implementing
social and emotional learning in Southern California is limited (Merriam, 2009). Since the study
was focused on urban high school principals in Southern California who are currently
implementing SEL, schools were purposely selected based on their geographic location
(Southern California), demographic composition (50+% SED students), academic performance
(CA Dashboard indicators), and the presence of social and emotional learning. The goal was to
have the sample population include a total of 10 participants, which is a common sample size for
phenomenological studies (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). However, due to a limited number of
principals available to participate in the study at the time of the data collection, a total of five
principals were ultimately selected for participation in the study.
All five participants were current high school principals in either the Los Angeles
County, San Bernardino County, or Orange County regions of Southern California. Participants
were selected based on their respective high school’s performance, demographic, and program
information. Five high schools were identified using the California School Dashboard, and
selected on the basis of meeting all of the following criteria in 2018 and/or 2019: (a) 50+%
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), (b) Grade of “Green” or higher on Graduation Rate, (c)
Yellow or higher on College/Career, and (d) Green or higher on Suspension Rate. Because the
CA Dashboard performance indicators are color coded, for the purposes of this research study
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 91
and selection criteria, a sequential numeric value was assigned to each performance color to
calculate an overall “SEL GPA.” Table 1 presents the individual school demographic data for
each principal that participated in the study.
Table 1: Participant CA Dashboard Data
It is important to note that school selection was based on evidence of each individual
criterion in either 2018 or 2019, and irrespective of other selection criteria, meaning all criteria
did not have to occur simultaneously within the same year for a school to be selected.
Research Questions
The findings in this research study have been guided by the following research questions:
1. What school district and site-level organizational processes and supports make it possible for
high school principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
2. What knowledge and skills are needed by high school principals in order to implement social
and emotional learning at their school?
3. What school district and site-level motivational factors make it possible for high school
principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
4. When high school principals led the implementation of social and emotional learning, to what
extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) schoolwide implementation guide?
Purpose of the Study
2018 SED
(50+% desired)
2018
Graduation
(Green desired)
2018 College/
Career Ready
(Yellow desired)
2018
Suspension
(Green desired)
2019 SED
(50+% desired)
2019
Graduation
(Green desired)
2019 College/
Career Ready
(Yellow desired)
2019
Suspension
(Green desired)
2018 SEL
GPA
2019 SEL
GPA
Principal A N/A 5 3 4 73.7% 5 3 2 4.00 3.33
Principal B 66.2% 5 3 4 66.5% 5 3 4 4.00 4.00
Principal C 51.9% 3 4 2 51.8% 5 4 4 3.00 4.33
Principal D 69.8% 5 5 4 76.7% 5 5 3 4.67 4.33
Principal E 57.9% 5 4 2 58.4% 5 4 4 3.67 4.33
2018 CA Dashboard Data 2019 CA Dashboard Data SEL GPA by Year
Principals
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 92
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that led to the implementation of
schoolwide social and emotional learning in Southern California’s urban high schools,
specifically those related to the role of principals. Furthermore, it evaluated the degree to which
high school principals were developing and implementing SEL with best practice, as outlined by
the CASEL schoolwide implementation framework.
Coding of Data
All of the data was transcribed and coded using ATLAS.ti. In order to conduct data
analysis, the researcher began by categorizing data sets that were potentially relevant and
responsive to the research questions using a process of open coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The data analysis process consisted of listening to each interview’s audio-recording while
reading along with the interview transcript and using Maxwell’s (2013) strategies for qualitative
data analysis: 1) memos, 2) categorizing strategies (such as coding and thematic analysis), and 3)
connecting strategies, such as narrative analysis (Maxwell, 2013, p. 105).
After reviewing all of the interview data, the researcher organized the data into
categories, compared the responses to CASEL’s guidelines for SEL implementation, made
connections to the literature review and identified significant themes and experiences. The
researcher used analytical coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to finalize categories and themes in
response to the research questions.
Findings
The researcher has presented the findings in categories, themes, and theories, which have
been derived from the data analysis in relation to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The following data analysis is from this study, which sought to identify factors that led to
the implementation of schoolwide social and emotional learning in Southern California’s urban
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 93
high schools, specifically those related to the role of principals, in order to shed light on viable
solutions to a pervasive problem for countless principals; the majority of whom wish to
implement SEL (DePaoli et al., 2017), but continue to fail to develop and maintain effective SEL
in their schools.
Research Question #1
What school district and site-level organizational processes and supports make it possible for
high school principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
SEL-Embedded Practices
Zins and Elias (2007) argued, while specific populations may benefit from more targeted
SEL meant to teach specific social and emotional competencies, SEL is intended to develop the
healthy behaviors and social-emotional growth of all students. One of the key insights from
CASEL’s (2017) Collaborating Districts Initiative, which collected SEL implementation data
from 10 of the largest districts in the country, was that effective SEL is ideally integrated into
every aspect of the school, from classroom instruction to school climate and culture to
community and family partnerships. Integrating SEL into the daily practices of a school allows
for continuous exposure, learning and practice of social and emotional skills between all
members of a school community. All of the principals interviewed in this study gave evidence of
SEL-embedded practices in their schools, where they were either explicitly or implicitly
providing opportunities for both students and staff to learn and practice social and emotional
skills. Some of these practices stemmed from district-led initiatives, but all of them appeared to
have been uniquely modified and adjusted for the specific stakeholders and needs of each school.
Some examples of those practices are given here.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 94
Principal B shared about his weekly practice called “Thankful Thursdays” in which
students and staff are recognized for demonstrating respect and other school values.
We actually got a committee of teachers and students together to start talking about what
was “Respect.” And what does respect look like? What is that, you know, and one of the
things that came out of that was what we call “Thankful Thursdays.” In fact, today is
Thursday. I can show you this Thursday’s. And it's where staff, they give a shout-out to
students, students give shout-outs to us…I write them to teachers, or students or I've
gotten them from students. I've gotten them from teachers. So, it's pretty cool. Again, it's
little things of knowing each other, and one of the things that we really try to do here is,
you know, teachers have got issues too, you know, and once you talk to students about
that, they're like, “Oh. Okay.” You know, so we're all in this together.
The SEL-based practice known as “Thankful Thursday” was born out of the collaborative
discussions between teachers and students on what respect was and what it looked like in their
school. The result of that collaboration was a practice aimed at celebrating stakeholders at all
levels for demonstrating the school’s highest values and was embedded into the daily routines of
the school simply by making it a weekly practice. Principal B also noted that he put the Dean of
Student Discipline in charge of the Thankful Thursdays initiative in order to “counteract” the
perception that she was always the “bad guy” on campus, which he said appeared to be working
because she was well-liked. Principal B attributed much of his school’s culture and climate to the
“little things” that they do all the time.
Another instance he shared was how one year all of the seniors decided to bring their
dogs and small pets to school as a prank, and instead of turning them away and sending them
home, they welcomed them onto campus, allowed them to all get together with staff to take a
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 95
group photo, and embraced the students’ idea and celebrated their creativity and collaboration
rather than punishing and rejecting them for it like most other schools would. He said of the
incident:
In the beginning we were like, “What's happening?” but then it took all about 10 minutes
to see that it was organized. The kids did it on their own. And then by the end of the day,
we were having them take a huge group photo outside like from our photography teacher
that says "Senior Prank 2018" you know, and that will go down in history as like the best
senior prank that they've come up with so far. So, instead of rejecting, we embraced, and
I think a lot of times we do that with things that are sometimes different or new. We try
really hard to not reject, and instead embrace, and again how can we make it work for us?
Principal B stated that now the school continues the spirit and tradition of that senior class prank
by hosting “Good Dog Fridays” every year, where teachers are allowed to bring their dogs to
school for the day, and the students apparently love it. He stressed the importance of the
numerous “little things” like these that help to foster relationships between teachers and students,
students and students, and students and their surrounding community.
Bar-On (2007) argued that emotionally intelligent people are attuned to the emotions and
needs of others, which is necessary to effectively manage meaningful relationships. Principal B
and his school staff’s ability to turn a normally condemnable act into a praiseworthy display of
student collaboration and comradery is an excellent example of emotional intelligence and
illustrates how attuned they are to the needs of their students. They were able to adapt to a novel
situation, and instead of viewing the situation as a negative and inappropriate display of
behavior, they used creative problem-solving and seized the opportunity to develop stronger
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 96
relationships with their students and created a positive cultural experience for future generations
of students and staff to come.
Principal A discussed some of the ways her school has embedded both general and
intensive SEL supports in her school.
Yeah, I think it's from my experience of losing kids, seeing kids in distress. We opened a
wellness center here. About three years ago. So, we have a wellness center, I have a fifth
counselor who's actually just a freshman counselor, specifically because the transition is
so difficult between middle school and high school. So that immediately becomes a
caring adult on campus.
Her experience as a principal who had seen multiple student and staff suicides heavily influenced
the types of practices and resources she chose to embed in her school. However, she was also
intentional about empowering and leveraging the SEL skills of her socially and emotionally
competent students as well. She spoke about her school’s peer counseling program that was
designed to act as a general SEL support for all students, but also the first step in a multi-tiered
support system for at-risk students.
We have a fairly robust peer counseling program here…and those are the kids that
actually do the counseling, they do low level counseling, and then anything that you
know is considered, you know, kind of a higher end social-emotional issue would be
referred to their teacher, our counselors, and then we also have a mental health specialist
that's here three times a week. And that came out of the original suicides, that we had. We
had two freshmen, same year, committed suicide.
In two large samples of California high school students in grades 9 through 11, Benbenishty et
al. (2018) found that a mean of about 20% of students experienced suicidal ideation, though rates
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 97
ranged from 4% to 67%. Additionally, researchers found that student suicide rates were related
to student-level characteristics such as school climate and connectedness. Principal A, having
experienced multiple suicides by both students and staff in recent school history, employed a
multi-tiered system of support, an ideal approach to SEL (Zins & Elias, 2007) that began with
the general population and worked its way up to the most intensive forms of support necessary.
She relied on the students who had signed up for peer counseling to not only offer social and
emotional support to their fellow peers, but to also model the skills that they hoped to teach those
students. Students requiring more support would be referred up to the counselors, then the mental
health providers, and so on. This type of support creates the context that Zins and Elias (2007)
argued provides students with easily accessible opportunities to address their personal needs and
problems, and supports their need to establish positive relationships with peers and adults. It also
created systemic SEL, involving every level of stakeholder from the students themselves, to the
counselors and outside service agencies, all the way up to the district mental health coordinator.
Elias et al. (2015) claimed that effective SEL implementation requires a foundation of synergetic
systems in place that coordinates the efforts of varying supports and services, as well as
integrates and promotes the participation of all stakeholders in and out of the school. The peer
counseling program in Principal A’s school may seem like a typical peer mentoring program at
face value, but it is actually the first step in a set of systemic and synergistic supports that may be
provided to any given student in need.
In another example of the ways principals were able to embed SEL into their daily
practices, Principal D explained how they were able to bring in a school psychologist part-time
to address more intensive social and emotional needs.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 98
So, we've actually this school year, have hired a school psychologist. And she's part time.
Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. A lot of the kids that we have, have difficulty with
time management, understanding social cues. You know, that grit they talk about. Higher
levels of anxiety, higher levels of depression. Not understanding. You know, how to
address your feelings in a situation and then they close down, or they get easily
overwhelmed. So, we started using our school psychologist, and it's just been a
tremendous benefit.
Afterwards, Principal D admitted that while they had attempted to implement a more formalized
SEL curriculum for the entire student population the year prior, there did not appear to be much
buy-in from students and staff, which ultimately led to the termination of the program. However,
by providing an on-campus school psychologist who was able to address more severe social and
emotional needs, the principal was able to establish a much more effective and well-accepted
form of SEL support three days out of the week. By eliminating the unfavorable schoolwide SEL
curriculum and adding an extra form of support (school psychologist), Principal D was
essentially employing the ecological model of SEL, in which collaborative decision-making
requiring multiple perspectives (admin, teachers, parents, psychologists, etc.) and adaptation to
changing needs leads to successful implementation, solicited by Meyers et al. (2014).
As demonstrated by several examples, principals were able to implement SEL at their
schools by embedding it directly into the daily practices of the school. Sometimes that took the
form of routine celebratory events; sometimes it was the creation and implementation of a
program run by students who were able and willing to help other students in need; and
sometimes it took scrapping a failed attempt at a formalized plan and bringing in a specialist to
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 99
be on campus as often as possible to help meet the social and emotional needs of their students.
In either form, SEL was embedded as a support and service that appeared to benefit all students.
Investing in Adult SEL
Jones and Bouffard (2012) suggested that administrators could effect substantial change
in the way schools approach SEL, so long as they were adequately prepared via training and
support. Each of the five principals who participated in this study mentioned either district-
offered or site-based training and professional development in SEL. Some excerpts from their
interviews are presented here.
Principal B described the SEL-based training that all teachers in their district were
required to attend.
All teachers did go through professional development though for "Capturing Kids'
Hearts", that's what it's called. And that's basically a training where teachers kind of go
and feel invigorated to get to know their students, to have social contracts, to realize that
you don't have to teach bell to bell, that the more time that you spend a little bit each day
getting to know your kids remembering things about them, letting them know that you
missed them while they were gone yesterday, recognizing they were absent, that they got
a new haircut. That training really sets up a kind of like a cookie cutter way to interact
with kids.
The training Principal B’s teachers attended focused on multiple social and emotional skills that
benefitted both teacher and student competency. Referring to the more formalized and systematic
approach as “cookie cutter”, he did mention that the teachers and school tended not to implement
what they learned exactly as recommended, but that they preferred to personalize the approach to
meet the needs of their students. Despite this fact, the formalized training increased the
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 100
likelihood that teachers would infuse SEL skills into the daily practices of the classroom (i.e.
creation of class contracts, greetings, development of inter-personal relationships), which Jones
and Bouffard (2012) argued was essential to implementation success. Afterward, Principal B also
mentioned that the district was now working on a plan to get all of the school leadership teams
and administrators trained next.
Principal E talked about how her school was working to ensure that not only teachers, but
also parents were being trained on SEL-related topics and skills.
So, we came up with our PTSA. And we've offered different mental health workshops on
how to identify what your teenager might be struggling through, what distress and
anxiety look like in your teenager. What are some mindfulness and resilience tips. So,
we've done that, through PTSA and parent workshops, and then with the staff too. I've
had my wellness specialist present at staff meetings, as well as in classrooms themselves
on what are the identifiers, and how could you catch it earlier and refer them to the office.
By involving the PTSA and educating parents and community members on SEL-related skills
and risk factors, Principal E is developing the underlying school-family-community partnerships
that Elias et al. (2015) proposed as part of a comprehensive model of SEL. This is especially
important given the number of students she has that are in her Inter-Baccalaureate program,
which is considered high achieving. While many schools and educators may not typically
consider this a group to be at risk and in need of SEL support, Principal E sees the need.
So we've also met with our within our IB cohort, all of our IB teachers, that's definitely
our most rigorous curriculum on this campus, and our wellness specialists have worked
closely with them too doing full presentations on what to look for, things for them to be
mindful of and have offered support too, and so some of them have even had the wellness
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 101
specialist push in and do even just mindfulness breathing techniques in class to help
students in peak stress times.
Because Principal E has dedicated Wellness Specialists on her campus, she was able to utilize
their expertise in SEL to push into the more rigorous academic classrooms and provide trainings
to the teachers on specific SEL skills related to self-regulation, stress management, and
mindfulness.
In schools where there are more at-risk students, or school crises are more frequent, more
specific and intensive training and development may be necessary. Principal A, who has had to
manage the school’s reaction to multiple student and staff suicides during her tenure as an
administrator, explained how her school was working to ensure that all stakeholders were being
educated and supported in regard to the SEL-related needs there.
It was very clear when we had the two suicides, how much we needed to really come up
with a plan and put resources in place… So, I work really closely with the peer
counseling teacher, to determine what his needs are, we dedicated a classroom with two
offices. They have furniture they have whatever it is they need. And we tend to go around
and visit other wellness centers. So, in terms of like strengths and weaknesses, I think the
strength is we have a lot to offer students that are in distress.
Principal A’s students and staff had a real present need to be educated on the risk factors related
to suicide. She explained that she was able to partner with an outside foundation that works with
schools and communities to prevent suicides, and out of that partnership was born an on-campus
wellness center and dedicated staff member whose job it was to develop meaningful
relationships with at-risk students, as well as supervise an entire peer counseling program where
students were in charge of developing those same types of meaningful relationships with their
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 102
peers, again for purpose of preventing potential suicides and teaching crucial SEL skills like
emotional regulation and responsible decision-making. This is a perfect example of what Meyers
et al. (2014) meant when they claimed that effective SEL implementation required systems
changes, including significant adjustments in professional roles, resource allocation, and beliefs
about the objectives of public education. Principal A reallocated one of her teacher’s time to
specifically address the social and emotional needs of her students, as well as collaborated with
outside professionals who specialized in teen suicides to come into the school and train the
teachers and the community on the signs and symptoms that may lead to suicide, as well as other
mental health concerns. Increasing her teacher’s knowledge of social and emotional risk factors
was one of the ways she was able to begin to increase the social and emotional competence of
her teachers, which she claimed was a priority after they had seen the loss of students and fellow
staff members.
District Support
O’Connor and Freeman (2012) found that district-level supports of effectively
implemented programs included: (1) District leaders’ knowledge of the program principles and
practices, (2) Coaching and support for all staff, (3) The support of prevailing attitudes and
beliefs (a supportive culture), (4) Professional development, (5) Guidelines for staff recruitment,
and (6) Resource allocation. In all five interviews that were conducted as part of this study, the
principal credited the district with at least some level of support for their SEL implementation.
Varying amounts of district-level support ranged from district-wide professional development
and trainings to district-promoted SEL foci and initiatives.
Principal C discussed his district’s focus on mental health, and the required trainings that
were shaping the way his teachers were dealing with students who had adverse experiences.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 103
So, we actually had professional development district-wide on kids who have adverse
childhood experiences (ACES), and to acknowledge that first, before we get to the
teaching. So, how do you engage a kid who comes into your class that has an adverse
childhood experience that's contributing to their shutting down, their inability to engage,
and you try to make connections there first before you teach them anything.
Principal C admitted that when they conducted a staff-wide survey, teachers’ knowledge of how
to work with children who had adverse experiences was “all over the map.” So, he was grateful
that the district had created this opportunity for his teachers to learn more about situations and
students like that. Principal C also discussed a district-wide process developed with a focus on
“creating a structure to support kids on a social emotional level.” The process, dubbed “EMT:
Education Monitoring Team” worked in similar fashion to a student support team (SST) in most
schools, with teachers and staff referring students based on concerning performance or
behaviors, but went a step further and involved multiple stakeholders including the student’s
family and service providers (if any), sought out available resources in and out of school, and
aimed to support the “whole child” educationally and social-emotionally through repeated
attempts at the process until the child shows improvement. When asked how this process was
developed, Principal C replied:
So, the process of EMT was already here. And that was the focus of creating a structure
to support kids on a social emotional level. My part was just refining it to fit this school,
because even though I take resources from the district, it has to fit our students and what
we're doing here with our personnel.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 104
While Principal C’s district provided the basic framework for how his EMT process should run,
he stressed how important it was that he considered the specific needs of the students, families,
and staff at his school.
Other principals attributed their success with SEL to the relationships they had developed
within the district and the community over the years. When asked what the district was doing to
support SEL, Principal B spoke about his ability to call upon the superintendent and individual
school board members for support in the following:
The district's been very supportive and again, I can call the superintendent and say, “Hey,
I need help here” and he'll do it. That and again, I can't emphasize enough the stability. I
think that's huge. You know, I personally know every school board member. They've
known me, I mean for years. So, I think that's really, really nice, where I can have a
genuine, authentic conversation with one of the school board members.
Principal B noted that he believed “they all saw it”, in regard to the rise of social and emotional
needs in his school. He credited his district for their support whenever he would ask for it, and
his ability to have meaningful conversations with district leaders about the need for SEL.
Principal B also talked about the importance of genuine SEL, and how the district was working
on a plan for K-12 SEL so that everyone could receive the same support.
If you're trying to fake social emotional learning, it's never going to work. The kids are
going to know that it's fake… So that's where we’re at now on meeting to develop a plan
of what we're going to do moving forward. So that way, K-12, everyone's getting the
same SEL type programs and the same SEL support. At the district level too, they send us
these mindfulness newsletters. They have these different classes and opportunities you
can go to for therapy or groups. They always try to remind us of that.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 105
Principal B continued to talk about how important it was that the kids felt that the interactions
from teachers and school leaders were authentic, and how they were meeting with district admin
teams to figure out how to make sure that their SEL approach “feels real.” This highlights the
district’s willingness to listen to the input of the individual school admin teams by moving to
develop a district-wide plan for SEL, as well as supporting school staff and teacher SEL skills
with periodic newsletters on mindfulness and opportunities for therapy or groups.
In another example, Principal E discussed how her district was particularly supportive of
SEL by providing numerous opportunities for professional development, and even funding for
specific trainings.
Our district is really great about professional development, they push out weekly
offerings to our staff district-wide, both administrative blasts as well as teacher blasts.
And in that there's a lot of restorative justice, talking circles, PBIS. They have full on
pull-out days for PBIS teams at every single site. And so, at our site too, we fund a PBIS
specialist. And the district pays for half of that as well, and so the district is very big on
professional development. And on SEL. So, they provide funding for all of the trainings,
as well as sub days that are required.
In terms of how her district was supporting her school’s SEL, Principal E mentioned various
professional development opportunities as well as funding for substitutes needed for longer or
off-site trainings, but she also noted that the district has continued to expand the types of
resources available to the school. For instance, over the last five years, the district had adopted a
more intensive focus on student wellness, and had provided for each school to have at least one
Wellness Specialist dedicated to providing a multitude of SEL-related services in the school
(ranging from in-class presentations and lessons to sitting in on student referrals and disciplinary
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 106
meetings to discuss interventions and alternatives to suspension for at-risk students along with
families, teachers and administrators).
So, every high school has wellness specialists. We have 1.5 because of the high need of
the school. So, we're grateful for that too, and they push into classes, do presentations.
They do direct support of course. They sit in on all of our high discipline meetings to
ensure that the whole student is being considered, and that there's someone that they can
begin seeing immediately after those incidents too because we know that the discipline is
just a symptom of what's really happening.
Principal E pointed out that the need for her students and families was so great, the district
actually provided 1.5 Wellness Specialists for her campus. In addition, Principal E stated that the
district was also willing to allow the school to develop their own plans for SEL implementation,
specifically in their freshman transition curriculum due to the between-school differences that
existed within the district. Other supports included district-wide stakeholder surveys on school
climate, culture, safety, and connectedness. The results of which were then disseminated
amongst principals and leadership teams to analyze and develop plans for intervention and
growth. These practices are in line with Seashore et al.’s (2010) findings that suggested districts
should be more involved in the process of educating and involving local parents and community
members in the education process and decision-making.
In each of the five interviews conducted for this study, the principal mentioned that there
was either an entire department dedicated to mental health/student wellness, and/or at least a
single “expert” based out of the district offices, who was in charge of overseeing SEL
development, implementation, monitoring, and/or resources throughout the district. In Principal
A’s example, she portrays the significance of her district’s “expert” to SEL at her school:
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 107
We have a director that's over all mental health. She's a great woman if you want to
interview somebody. She oversees all of it, and so she disseminates the mental health
specialists too… She oversees them and that training. She does a lot… We've had almost
every summer since then we've had some form of SEL for ourselves.
Principal A credited her district mental health director with much of the supports related to staff
training and adult SEL, noting that she often brought in various types of therapies and counseling
services to support school staff (i.e. art therapy, yoga, EASE referrals). Principal A also
mentioned that suicide was unfortunately a very prevalent problem in both the student and adult
populations in her district over the last several years, and that those incidents had led to much of
the district’s focus on mental health, SEL, and the push to make as many resources available as
possible.
Research Question #2
What knowledge and skills are needed by high school principals in order to implement social
and emotional learning at their school?
Making SEL a Priority
Domitrovich et al. (2017) argued through social and emotional learning (SEL), students
gain social and emotional competencies that are critical to healthy social, behavioral and
academic development, as well as life outcomes in adulthood. While this may seem congruous
with the goals of K-12 education, seldom does one hear a school administrator place the
importance of SEL over, or even at the same level as, academics and other emergent buzz words
like technology or STEM. As the saying goes, “The first step in fixing the problem is admitting
that you have one.” The principals in this study were all acutely aware of their students’ need for
SEL and were intentional about raising awareness of that need through a multitude of means,
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 108
including collecting schoolwide SEL data, meeting with and disseminating information to
parents and other stakeholders, and even prioritizing SEL in school policies, procedures, and
practices. In the following examples, you’ll see how each of them viewed SEL, how they chose
to approach it, and what knowledge and skills were necessary for each principal to implement it.
When Principal A was asked what she thought of SEL, she responded:
I think making sure kids understand that there are resources in place is important. In a
high school, it just becomes a little difficult in terms of “where does that fit in?” … It fits
in all over the place, from the classroom to us letting parents know what resources are
available, letting kids know what resources are available. In terms of administration, this
needs to be a priority in what I do day to day, year to year.
Principal B responded to the same question with the following:
I think it's as important as academic learning. Like I said, I've been principal here, 14
years, in the last four or five years, I've seen a huge rise in anxiety, suicidal ideation,
homicidal ideation, a lot of issues behaviorally… So, I’m just really into that emotional
learning and the social part of it. I just think that's something that is imperative that we
teach kids these days.
Principal B also discussed the issue of convincing more traditional parents and staff of the
importance of SEL.
I think sometimes with older staff and more traditional parents, the idea of social
emotional learning wasn't the way that they grew up. So, implementing that and making
it a priority for everyone, for all, showing them that it's just as important as everything
else.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 109
In the next few examples, Principal C gave several responses that addressed three key
components of effective SEL implementation and may help explain why he and the other
principals appeared to be so keenly aware of the need for SEL and distinctly intentional about
how they were approaching it. First, Principal C discussed how he determines the needs of his
students on an annual basis, as well as how he approaches meeting those needs with teachers and
staff.
We're getting to a point right now in the year where a lot of it is self-evaluation for next
year already… So, what I do think we do well is we do say what our truths are. So, 97%
of students are successful here, but like I said it's the nature of how you look at the data
right. I see the 3%, I don't just see the 97%, and we went through the dashboard and said
this is a need.
This annual practice of self-evaluation is a critical component in the development,
implementation and sustainment of SEL. Elias et al. (2015) maintained that effective SEL
implementation requires continuous assessment of school climate and culture, as well as
evaluation of the program design, implementation, and adaptation of current interventions in
respect to how synergized they are with one another. This continuous cycle of assessment not
only creates awareness of the need, but also allows for ongoing discussions in planning and
intervention as response-to-intervention data is measured and analyzed. It was out of this self-
evaluation that Principal C admits the idea for a task force for SEL was born. He shared:
We have a task force and focus groups that are placed in areas that we see the needs. So,
there will be a social emotional learning task force next year... We talked about the first
line of intervention is how while you're instructing, “What do you bring to the table?” If
you're bringing to the table engaging lessons, you're connected with kids, you're trying to
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 110
empower them to be good thinkers and to learn. They're going to be engaged and want to
come to your class, and we're going to start working on that component of mental health
if they're dealing with something.
As Hager et al.’s (2016) research on the implementation of school wellness policies found,
implementation obstacles may be overcome when designated groups/councils and perceived
systems of support are present. By creating the SEL task force, Principal C was essentially
building a lighthouse that would repeatedly shine its light on the issue of SEL every time the
committee would meet. This repeated exposure would theoretically keep any serious threats at
bay by acting proactively and preventively, rather than waiting for a tragedy to occur before
responding. Principal E gave another example of how using committees to develop and maintain
SEL in her school can work.
We do have a staff committee. So, the staff is divided into five different committees of
their choice, and so one of the committee's is multi-tiered systems of support. A big part
of it is, what are our services that we provide students, what are the tiers of intervention,
how can we better support students, and our wellness team.
This was a common finding all of the principals in this study shared and contributed to the level
ownership and commitment to SEL each principal was able to facilitate amongst their staff.
Lastly, Principal C demonstrated that he possessed something that was as obvious as it
was subtle: a growth mindset.
Let's not deny that it exists because we can get better. We can get better. So, it is my job
to get in front of the staff and talent, and make sure they understand the why backed up
with data.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 111
Bambara’s (2009) study of barriers to school-wide behavior supports suggested that in order for
a new program to be implemented and maintained, not only was it imperative for principals to
get on board with the new program, but they also had to adopt the new mindsets that showed that
they were accepting and in support of the new program as well. Principal C’s insistence that “We
can get better”, and his determination coupled with his willingness to take responsibility and lead
his team to accept this challenge is evidence that he possessed the social and emotional
competencies required to effectively implement and maintain SEL at his school.
Furthermore, not only did Principal C model the skills which he hoped to instill in his
staff and students, but he also vehemently stood by what he believed was an educational priority,
regardless of the opposition and obstacles he knew he would have to overcome. This sentiment
was also a common thread between all of the principals in this study and is a testament to the
awareness and understanding of SEL that is required by principals who wish to implement it
effectively.
Principal Social and Emotional Skills
The old adage “you can’t teach what you don’t know” may be the perfect phrase to
explain why so many school leaders struggle to implement SEL in high school. For years,
researchers have posited that in order for students to learn and eventually exhibit the desired
social and emotional skills, then teachers and school leaders must first themselves be able to
demonstrate those very same skills (Francom, 2016; Jones et al., 2017; Moore, 2009; Valentino
& Stipek, 2016). Furthermore, Williams (2008) found that there appeared to be a positive link
between social and emotional competency and principal effectiveness. In order to understand
what knowledge or skills contribute to a principal’s ability to develop and implement SEL,
Principals were asked about their previous knowledge or experience with SEL. While some
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 112
principals credited their SEL knowledge to experience as an academic or mental health
counselor, others cited extensive careers as educators and administrators. For example, Principal
C who transitioned from counseling to school administration, shared how his training as a
counselor influenced his current role and approach to implementing SEL:
I think my counseling background gives me kind of a step up in aligning with what our
mental health services actually provide, and what's realistic for a family… So I take that
experience in trying to, you know, approach things with a lot of care and compassion and
trying to instill that within our, our staff, and our teachers, and our students to recognize
how to be more educated about whether it's depression, anxiety.
Principal C noted the “lens” through which he sees his role as a leader in the school is one that is
based on his previous experience as a counselor. He also admitted that he approaches his role
with “a lot of care and compassion”, aware of the impact that it will have on the staff, students,
and families, particularly when dealing with mental health issues. As Williams (2008) found,
outstanding principals often exhibit a broader repertoire of emotional and social intelligence
competencies which allow them to adapt in complex environments and make different choices
about how to exercise the role of principal.
In Principal B’s case, he attributes his knowledge and experience with SEL to his “on the
job training” over the years as an administrator, educator, and parent in the community he serves.
I would say it's on the job training. I've been in school administration for over 25 years
now. And all of it in this school district. So, it's been very stable. I've seen the changes of
the community over the years, both good and bad. I'm a father of three. My kids are all in
their 20s now. So, it's also just being a father. It’s the experience of being in this seat and
seeing and just knowing kids and talking to kids…
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 113
Fullan (2001, p. 93) argued that effective leaders are not those with the highest IQ, but those who
combine mental intelligence with emotional intelligence. Principal B appears to have developed
highly effective social and emotional skills as an adult in each of the roles he’s facilitated. The
stability of being in the same district for over 25 years has also allowed him to further develop
and tailor his social and emotional skills to the needs of his community. He draws upon his
experience as a father of three to make decisions about relationship-building with kids and staff
at his school. And he has continued to learn about his own strengths and weaknesses as a leader
and a learner. In the following example, he describes some of the strengths and weaknesses he’s
learned about himself during a district-provided skills training for the administrative teams.
I'm very different than most people. Most principles for sure… one thing I think the staff
really appreciates about me is that, you know, I make decisions every day, I'm not going
to get them all right. And when I screw up that I can, you know, eat the humble pie and
say, yeah, that didn't work. And I think that's probably the best thing I've learned.
While specific social and emotional training and extensive careers as a school leader
were common traits of principals implementing SEL, there were also those who were able to
draw upon the SEL-related experiences they’ve had in many different roles in order to prepare
them for the skills they would need as principal. Principal E explained how her experiences
contributed to the work she was doing now:
I was an AVID coordinator and teacher at my former site. And then a math teacher, prior
to that. So, while AVID isn't SEL curriculum, per se, there is a lot of SEL that occurs
through AVID. Working with a specific target group of students who don't have the home
support, but who are trying to push themselves to achieve great things. So, in that role
you have to shift from being a sage on the stage and disseminator of information to really
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 114
being their support and family network at school. And because of that background that I
have, it's really built the foundation for everything that we're trying to do here.
Principal E developed her social and emotional skills through particular experiences earlier in
her career as an AVID coordinator and teacher. Now, she was able to leverage those experiences
in her approach to the complex problems her students, their families, and the school faced. As
Hallinger (1992) explained, transformational leadership requires the principal to be more
comfortable with uncertainty, but also more focused on collaborative efforts to develop and
support teachers and parents in their efforts to set clear and appropriate goals for their students,
while also exploring new curricula and programs to improve student learning and achievement.
When asked about their knowledge and experience with SEL, each principal appeared to
call upon some previous experience that had not only prepared them to meet students’ social and
emotional needs, but which also required the principals themselves to possess some level of
social and emotional competency. Jones et al.’s (2017) research suggests that the most effective
SEL programs require some component of administrator competency and skill-building. The
principals in this study all appeared to demonstrate a level of social and emotional competency
that was sufficient for modeling those skills to their staff and students. Some were more self-
aware than others about their own strengths and weaknesses, but all appeared to have some sense
of their own ability to demonstrate the social and emotional skills required by their roles, and
that their ability to demonstrate such skills, was both and asset and an advantage in their work.
Research Question #3
What school district and site-level motivational factors make it possible for high school
principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
Positive School Climate
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 115
Clark and Estes (2008, p. 94) wrote, “organizations will benefit from helping people
maintain the level of positive emotion that supports their maximum commitment.” Each of the five
principals in this study mentioned individual practices at their schools that were purposely meant
to create positive experiences for their teachers and staff. The result of such efforts led to a greater
commitment to the organization’s SEL implementation practices, including developing stronger
and more meaningful relationships between students and staff and creating a more positive school
climate overall.
Principal B talked more about his school’s “Good Dog Friday”:
We do like, some strange stuff that I don't know if anybody would ever do, but we have
like "Good Dog Friday". So, teachers bring their dogs to school, we'll have 100 dogs here,
and the entire climate of the school, it is amazing what happens. The entire climate of the
school changes when you've got some animals here, and I think the teachers are proud of
bringing their dogs too. So, it's cool. That's actually going to be during our Mental Health
Week.
As Principal B noted, “the entire climate of the school changes” when the teachers bring their dogs
to campus. Zins and Elias (2007) argued, positive school climates lend themselves to effective
SEL and vice versa.
Principal A also shared one of the ways she tried to maintain a positive school climate for
her teachers. She described a regular celebratory practice for her teachers, during which anyone
could recognize a teacher or fellow staff member for something they were grateful for. She noted
the positive effect it had on teacher morale, and how it may not seem like a big deal, but that she
recognized how much it meant to them.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 116
We do something called (school mascot) paws on the back, which is really just
acknowledging another staff member for something that they did for you… So, it's like a
little pat on the back and, you know, the teachers don't expect too much, I don't think. But
I think when you do have some unique situations happen. You know, you realize how much
they need as well.
In another example, Principal E illustrated how she was able to leverage the strengths of
her teachers to continue to promote a positive school climate in her school.
I think that one of our strengths is that our staff understand that student connectedness is
one of the greatest predictors of their success. And because they understand that they put a
lot of weight behind it and they go out of the way to try and do that…So, monthly they
send note cards out to students, which we deliver to encourage them and to just let them
know that they appreciate the work they're doing.
Principal E noted that she had started the practice of recognizing students monthly, and that it had
grown into something that the students regularly looked forward to from their teachers. Principal
E’s example illustrates an important role that Francom (2016) identified as essential to the
development, implementation, and sustainment of a schoolwide SEL initiative. Francom found
that principals needed to be “Cultural Engineers”, overseeing the planning, designing, and
development of school culture and climate through various means and practices. By intentionally
creating and practicing activities that recognized the desired behaviors and values of teachers and
students, Principal E and the other principals in this study were creating positive experiences for
everyone, which led to continued desirable behaviors, a positive school climate, and a sustained
effort from all stakeholders.
Positive Deviance and Self-Efficacy
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 117
One notable factor related to motivation that all of the principals appeared to display was
the confidence in their ability to implement SEL. Clarke and Estes (2008, p. 83) maintained that
“our motivation for work is therefore controlled by whether we believe the environment provides
us with work goals and resources that can result in a reasonable amount of effectiveness.” While
all of the principals had felt supported by their respective districts, they all also affirmed that each
of their approaches to implementation was uniquely modified to fit their school’s stakeholders and
needs. The key to their success while straying from the path was their ability to “make it safe” for
their staff and stakeholders to learn how to implement SEL effectively, by allowing the group to
own the planning, implementation, and sustainment of SEL. This is an essential tenant of Pascale
and Sternin’s (2005) Positive Deviance model for organizational change. As they put it, “the focus
is on identifying and removing obstacles, not killing the messengers. Candor is crucial to this
work.”
In regard to the principal’s confidence in their environments’ ability to provide the
necessary resources and goals for success, this does not refer to the environment created by their
districts, so much as it applies to the environment within the school, including its staff, students,
and internal systems and processes. All of which create a greater sense of self-efficacy for the
principals and their motivation to pursue the complex operation of implementing SEL.
Observe Principal B’s statement about making SEL work in his school:
You give us a cookie cutter and we make it work for our school. So, do we implement
PBIS? Yes. Do we implement it the way that they tell you to implement it? Not necessarily,
but we do what's best for our staff and our students. And I would say that's because our
culture is so strong, because we know our staff and students, and we know what they need.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 118
We know when we can push. We know when we really need to drive something home. We
know what is needed at that time from both staff and kids.
Principal B continued to talk about how other “cookie cutter” initiatives were adopted and
modified to fit their students’ needs, such as Link Crew, Capturing Kids Hearts, and other
programs.
Principal C also alluded to the environment he has created for his staff. “I can't speak for
other schools. I know what I've experienced here, and I think our teachers are not afraid of the
truth and how to address the truth.” What his statement reflects is the level of safety his teachers
feel as messengers of truth and agents of change. This embodies one of the most important tenants
of Positive Deviance (Pascale & Sternin, 2005), which is to “make the group the guru.” Pascale
and Sternin argued that problem identification, ownership, and action should all begin and remain
within the community, rather than relying on the “expertise” of the leader. Pascale and Sternin
(2005, p. 81) also contended that “instead of being the CEO – chief expert officer – the leader
becomes the CFO – chief facilitation officer – whose job is to guide the positive deviance process
as it unfolds.” Principal C was willing to relinquish his role as the “go-to-guy” and expert, and
allow the formation of a task force and committees to take charge of the inquiry, development, and
maintenance of SEL; whilst still acting in a managerial capacity to facilitate action and resources
as needed, and empowering the community to take as much ownership of the goals and efforts and
resulting rewards as possible. The willingness to become a chief facilitator of SEL was a common
finding among all principals in this study.
Research Question #4
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 119
When high school principals led the implementation of social and emotional learning, to what
extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL)
schoolwide implementation guide?
Upon initial discussion of systematic SEL implementation during each of the five
principal interviews in this study, it was clear that none of the five principals had followed
guidance as prescribed by the CASEL (2020) schoolwide implementation framework. Instead,
each of them described a vast array of approaches to how SEL was bought into their schools.
However, whether it was due to any previous training in leadership, program implementation, or
change management, many of the principals did appear to demonstrate a surprising number of
the proposed steps for SEL implementation as recommended by CASEL. The following tables
present CASEL’s rubric for schoolwide SEL implementation, organized by focus area, and
identify which of the recommended actions were taken by which principals. It is important to
note that “evidence of action” refers to any anecdotal evidence provided by the principals during
their individual interviews and was not investigated or confirmed beyond the interview process
by the researcher. Furthermore, the mere evidence of an action as provided in the rubric does not
indicate the fidelity to which any single action was carried out as prescribed by the CASEL
(2020) schoolwide implementation guide and cannot therefore indicate any quality of such
actions.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 120
Table 2: CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 1
Table 3: CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 2
Focus Area 1: Build Foundational Support and
Plan
SEL Implementation Steps Principal A Principal B Principal C Principal D Principal E
1-A: Develop a shared vision and aligned
goals for SEL
✘ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓
1-B: Assess SEL needs and resources
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
1-C: Develop and execute a district plan for
systemic SEL implementation
✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
1-D: Develop and execute an aligned
evaluation plan
✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
1-E: Organize the district to promote
collaboration among school and district
leaders around SEL, academics, and equity
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓
1-F: Communicate about SEL as a district
priority
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
1-G: Align financial resources
to support SEL
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓
1-H: Implement human resource practices
and policies that support SEL
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓
Evidence of action?
Focus Area 2: Strengthen Adult SEL
Competencies and Capacity
SEL Implementation Steps Principal A Principal B Principal C Principal D Principal E
2-A: Strengthen central office SEL expertise
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓
2-B: Design and implement an effective
SEL professional learning program for
school staff
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓
2-C: Strengthen staff social,
emotional, and cultural competence
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2-D: Develop structures that promote
trust, community, and collective efficacy
among staff
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Evidence of action?
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 121
Table 4: CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 3
Table 5: CASEL Implementation Alignment – Focus Area 4
As you can see from the data, most of the principals unknowingly adhered to a majority
of the implementation guidelines anyway. In fact, an analysis of the data showed that even
without consulting the implementation guide, the five principals in this study were actually able
to take the CASEL-recommended action about 81% of time. While this may seem shocking at
first, upon further analysis, one can see how these principals were able to achieve such a high
implementation percentage. In fact, Meyers et al. (2019) conducted an analysis on the feasibility
of CASEL’s implementation model and found that it was highly feasible for principals who were
working in urban settings, primarily serving students of color. It is quite possible that the
Focus Area 3: Promote SEL for Students
SEL Implementation Steps Principal A Principal B Principal C Principal D Principal E
3-A: Adopt and implement PreK-12
SEL standards or guidelines
✘ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓
3-B: Adopt and implement evidencebased
programs and practices
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3-C: Integrate SEL with academics
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3-D: Develop and strengthen family
partnerships
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3-E: Develop and strengthen SEL-related
community partnerships
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3-F: Align discipline policies and
practices with SEL
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3-G: Integrate SEL with a continuum of
student supports
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Evidence of action?
Focus Area 4: Practice Continuous Improvement
SEL Implementation Steps Principal A Principal B Principal C Principal D Principal E
4-A: Establish continuous improvement
processes, roles, and responsibilities (Plan)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓
4-B: Document implementation and outcomes
(Do)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4-C: Report data and reflect on results
(Study)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4-D: Share with stakeholders and take
action (Act)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Evidence of action?
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 122
principals in this study, selected based on their exceptional performance in urban settings serving
a majority of disadvantaged students, already possessed many of the skills and traits necessary to
implement SEL effectively without having to explicitly consult a more formalized
implementation guide. The fact that the principals were able to demonstrate so many of the steps
in the guide is a testament to the feasibility and appropriateness of CASEL’s evidence-based
guide for schools and principals with similar characteristics to those presented in this study.
Interestingly, many of the actions that were not taken by the principals in this study were
from the first focus area on CASEL’s implementation guide, which centered on building
foundational support at the district level and developing a systemic plan for implementation. In
fact, none of the principals in this study spoke of a district-developed plan for systemic SEL
implementation, and subsequently, none of them had executed any district-aligned SEL plans in
their schools. This finding may be explained by the fact that each of the principals had admitted
to developing their own unique approach and plan for SEL implementation and had either not
been given or were simply not required to follow a district-developed plan.
Where the principals excelled was in the remaining foci of the implementation guide. In
fact, when only data from Focus Areas 2-4 was analyzed, the five principals had taken the
recommended actions for implementation 92% of the time. The number of actions taken in each
focus area was represented as the percentage of implementation or POI. The POI for each focus
area was as follows: Focus Area 1 – Build Foundational Support and Plan (60% POI), Focus
Area 2 – Strengthen Adult SEL Competencies and Capacity (90% POI), Focus Area 3 – Promote
SEL for Students (91% POI), Focus Area 4 – Practice Continuous Improvement (95%).
What the data from the implementation rubric suggests is that the principals in this study
were much more adept at implementation practices related to supporting the development of staff
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 123
and teacher SEL competencies, providing resources and supports for their students and their
families, and in reflective and collaborative practices geared towards continuous improvement.
Areas of weakness appeared to be related to systemic planning and development, starting at the
district level, and developing one cohesive shared vision for SEL. Furthermore, none of the
principals had cited any formalized implementation guide or rubric in the development and
planning of their SEL. This suggests that principals had relied on best practices learned from
other disciplines, experts, and input from community members to develop a unique approach to
SEL in each of the five schools.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings of the individual interviews conducted with five
principals currently serving in urban high schools throughout Southern California. This chapter
looked at the district and site-level organizational processes and supports that made it possible
for principals to implement SEL, the knowledge and skills that were needed by principals in
order to implement such practices, and the district and site-level motivational factors that led to
implementation. Additionally, an analysis was conducted on the degree to which the CASEL
Schoolwide Implementation Guide (2020) influenced implementation at each school. Results
from this research study indicated that there were a number of SEL-embedded practices at each
school, in addition to varying levels of staff training and professional development, as well as
unanimous support from each district, including the provision of mental health and wellness
experts and resources. All of the principals in this study made SEL a priority in their school by
acknowledging and conveying the need for social and emotional skills in their students and staff,
conducting self-evaluative surveys of their staff and students, and creating committees and task
forces to develop action plans. Findings also indicated that each principal possessed many of the
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 124
desired social and emotional skills, of which they had hoped to instill in their staff and students.
Motivational factors that led to the implementation of SEL included positive school climates and
adequate levels of self-efficacy, supported by principals’ confidence in their staff and school’s
ability to achieve the desired goals. Lastly, results suggested that even though none of the
principals had cited a formalized implementation guide in their SEL planning and development,
they were still able to demonstrate the CASEL-recommended actions 81% of the time, and
excelled in specific focus areas related to strengthening adult SEL, promoting student SEL, and
continuous improvement.
Chapter five will present a summary of the research findings and implications for
practice. Recommendations for future research will also be presented.
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Chapter Five summarizes findings as related to implications for practice by high school
principals in urban high school settings. Key research findings are discussed with the intention of
providing viable solutions to developing and implementing effective SEL for urban high school
principals. Additionally, recommendations for future research are made within the context of this
study.
This study focused on positive deviants that were able to identify solutions to the
problems preventing many high schools from implementing SEL (DePaoli et al., 2017). While as
many as 95% of school principals believe that their children should learn SEL skills at home,
research shows that as little as one-third of all school principals have actually developed a plan
for teaching SEL schoolwide (DePaoli et al., 2017). This gap in SEL implementation in schools
is especially a problem at the high school level, where SEL program effects have been studied
the least (Durlak et al., 2011). The purpose of this study was to identify factors that led to the
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 125
implementation of schoolwide social and emotional learning in Southern California’s urban high
schools, specifically those related to the role of principals. Furthermore, it aimed to understand
the degree to which high school principals were developing and implementing SEL with best
practice, as outlined by the CASEL schoolwide implementation framework. The following
questions guided this research:
1. What school district and site-level organizational processes and supports make it possible for
high school principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
2. What knowledge and skills are needed by high school principals in order to implement social
and emotional learning at their school?
3. What school district and site-level motivational factors make it possible for high school
principals to implement social and emotional learning at their school?
4. When high school principals led the implementation of social and emotional learning, to
what extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) schoolwide implementation guide?
This study implemented a phenomenological research design (Creswell & Creswell,
2018), which consisted of gathering qualitative data from multiple sources, including responses
to semi-structured, open-ended interview questions obtained from urban high school principals,
school websites, and the California School Dashboard. This method was selected in order to
respect the highly complex and systematic nature of SEL implementation, as well as the
individual experiences and perspectives of each principal. It would also allow the researcher to
respond to the emergent worldviews and ideas of each respondent (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
Principal interview data was analyzed in relationship to the individual research questions, and
responses were also compared against the CASEL (2020) schoolwide implementation guide for
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 126
SEL to determine the degree of influence. Results were further analyzed, and connections were
made to the literature review, from which significant themes and categories were drawn.
Findings
The findings in this study suggest that positively deviant principals were able to embed
SEL directly into a number of schoolwide practices, developed the SEL competencies of their
staff through trainings and professional development opportunities, and felt empowered by their
districts to implement SEL, even when they chose to tailor their approach to their school’s
specific needs. All of the principals in this study made SEL a priority in their school. Findings
also indicated that positively deviant principals were socially and emotionally competent,
portraying the very same skills they wished to teach. The principals in this study all maintained
and promoted a positive school climate and projected self-efficacy in relationship to SEL
implementation. Last, results suggested despite none of the principals having cited a formalized
implementation guide in their SEL planning and development, they were still able to demonstrate
the CASEL-recommended actions 81% of the time, and specifically excelled at strengthening
adult SEL, promoting student SEL, and continuous improvement. Seven themes emerged related
to the study’s first three research questions. The last research question yielded findings indicating
the level of congruence between CASEL’s school guide and principals’ SEL implementation.
This section presents a summary and discussion of the study’s findings in relationship to existing
literature and modern practice.
Research Question One
Research Question One asked, What school district and site-level organizational
processes and supports make it possible for high school principals to implement social and
emotional learning at their school? Interview data related to Research Question One produced
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 127
three findings. The first finding that emerged confirmed that the most effective SEL practices are
embedded throughout policies, practices, and partnerships within a school site (CASEL, 2017).
Principals implementing SEL were not narrow-minded about where SEL fits, but rather open to
asking how SEL fit into every aspect of the school. The principals’ perception of SEL as an
underlying support for all students was a critical aspect of the first finding, and is in line with
research by Elias et al. (2015), which suggested that SEL should act as an underlying and
foundational part of the school, through which all other systems, processes, and programs are
interwoven.
Interview responses from each principal highlighted specific practices that were designed
to promote maximum teacher motivation and student engagement via positive activities in and
out of the classroom. Principals were intentional about the decisions they made regarding
schoolwide activities, especially when those activities involved recognizing desirable attitudes
and behaviors of staff and students. They were purposeful about creating positive experiences for
their students and staff. Furthermore, principals implementing SEL were more likely to provide
and refer to mental health and wellness resources as general population supports, and not limited
to at-risk students. This finding is consistent with the work of Zins and Elias (2007), who argued
that while specific populations may benefit from more targeted SEL meant to teach specific
social and emotional competencies, SEL is intended to develop the healthy behaviors and social-
emotional growth of all students.
The second finding that emerged in relationship to Research Question One confirmed the
importance of investing in adult SEL. All of the principals implementing SEL mentioned some
form of SEL training or professional development that they sent their teachers and staff to, and
some even made efforts to educate parents and community members on the subject. By doing so,
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 128
principals were more likely to effect substantial change in the way their schools approached SEL
(Jones & Bouffard, 2012). SEL research contends that in order for implementation to be
effective, it must include some component of adult learning and training, in which teachers, staff,
and parents are explicitly taught the skills and competencies necessary for success (Bambara,
2009; Chitiyo & Wheeler, 2009; Evans et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2017; Moore, 2009; Payton et
al., 2000). While all of the principals provided training and support, some were more deliberate
about the types of training they sought for staff and families, in order to meet specific needs such
as suicide risk factors and stress factors related to high achievement. This finding is more aligned
with the work of Hallinger (1992) which posits that transformational leadership requires the
principal to work more collaboratively with local stakeholders (staff and parents) to develop their
competency and support their efforts to maximize student learning and achievement.
The third finding that emerged in relationship to Research Question One confirmed the
significance of district-level support for SEL implementation. In each of the five interviews, the
principal credited the district with some level of support for SEL implementation. This finding
confirms Meyers et al.’s (2019) findings that it is important to embed SEL into the existing
district structures and supports to ensure sustained progress. The principals in this study relied on
various district supports for their implementation, ranging from district-provided trainings to
centralized experts and specialists in SEL. However, while each principal felt supported by their
respective districts, every one of them admitted that they either were not provided or did not
adhere to a district-aligned plan for SEL implementation. Instead, each of the principals stressed
the importance of personalizing their approach to meet the needs of their school and were willing
to make the development and implementation of SEL an in-house job. This finding strays from
the conventional recommendations for SEL implementation to be unilaterally aligned within a
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 129
district, but also follows the positive deviance approach (Pascale, 2005) of making the group (in
this case, the school-site community) the “guru.” This finding will be discussed further in
relation to Research Question Three.
Research Question Two
Research Question Two examined, What knowledge and skills are needed by high school
principals in order to implement social and emotional learning at their school? The first finding
that emerged from Research Question Two indicated that all of the principals had consciously
made SEL a priority in their views on the goals of K-12 education. This required each principal
to engage in and facilitate reflective and evaluative practices such as schoolwide surveys on
school climate and connectedness, as well as take specific action to explicitly prioritize SEL in
the systems, processes, and programs of the school. This finding confirms research by Meyers et
al. (2014), which suggested that effective SEL implementation required significant adjustments
in the roles, resource allocation, and beliefs about the goals of public education. Three key
elements were related to principals prioritizing SEL, including: conducting schoolwide SEL
surveys, creating committees or task forces for SEL, and principals having a growth mindset.
These findings were consistent with Francom (2016) who found that high school principals who
implemented successful character education initiatives acted as reflective leaders, collaborative
leaders, and moral leaders as part of a number of roles they had to facilitate during the
development, implementation, and sustainment of the initiative.
The second finding in relation to Research Question Two was that each principal had
demonstrated that they possessed many of the social and emotional skills and competencies they
had hoped to teach in their schools. This finding is supported by Williams’ (2008) research,
which found that there appeared to be a positive link between social and emotional competency
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 130
and principal effectiveness. Each of the five principals attributed their knowledge of SEL to
various backgrounds, including personal family experience, school counseling, coaching and
school administration. In speaking with each principal, the researcher noted examples where they
were able to effectively demonstrate self-awareness, social awareness, relationship building,
collaboration, and the ability to empower others to make change in their schools. Findings
confirm that principals who are socially and emotionally competent are more likely to
successfully implement schoolwide SEL because they can more effectively manage themselves,
which allows them to exhibit higher levels of change agency, discipline, focus, evaluation, and
resource provision (Williams, 2008).
Research Question Three
Research Question Three inquired, What school district and site-level motivational
factors make it possible for high school principals to implement social and emotional learning at
their school? The first theme that emerged from Research Question Three was that all of the
principals in this study intentionally promoted practices that were meant to create positive
experiences for their teachers and staff. Research by Clark and Estes (2008, p.4) suggested that
organizations benefit from keeping their workers’ positive emotions at a level that sustains their
motivation to work diligently toward the organization’s goals. The efforts by principals to ensure
their teachers experience a positive work environment creates the conditions necessary for
continued effort on behalf of the teachers to work toward the principal’s implementation goals.
Principals cited practices such as special days where teachers could bring their dogs to school,
weekly and monthly recognition of desirable behaviors and attitudes, and empowering the
teachers to practice celebrating their students for positive achievements. All of these practices
served a dual purpose of creating a positive climate for the schools staff, as well as subsequently
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 131
creating opportunities for relationship building and positive experiences between teachers and
students, which has a greater effect on the overall school climate and student engagement
(Martin & Collie, 2018).
The last finding that emerged from Research Question Three indicated that all of the
principals in this study possessed a sufficient level of self-efficacy in relation to their ability to
implement SEL in their school. Principals who were able to implement SEL effectively were
motivated to tackle the challenge of implementing SEL because they were confident that the
environments in which they operated were abundant with resources and conducive to the goals
they wished to accomplish (Clark & Estes, 2008). The ensuing result of that self-efficacy, an
essential part of the positive deviance approach (Pascale & Sternin, 2005), was each principal’s
willingness and intentional effort to “make the group the guru” by allowing committees to take
the take ownership and lead the development, implementation, and sustainment of SEL. Another
key aspect of this work was the principals’ ability to “make it safe” for teachers and staff
members to give feedback and share openly their thoughts about the program. As Pascale and
Sternin (2005) put it, “candor is crucial to this work.” Principals lauded their teachers’
willingness to address the truth and take corrective actions. Principals successfully implementing
SEL were good at shifting from “CEO – Chief Expert Officer” to “CFO – Chief Facilitation
Officer” (Pascale & Sternin, 2005). Every principal in the study also affirmed the importance of
personalizing traditional SEL approaches to meet the needs of their school, as one principal
remarked, “you give us a cookie cutter and we make it work for our school.” This finding is
consistent with CASEL’s (2017) study of SEL implementation in 10 of the largest school
districts in the country, which found that successful implementation can follow multiple
pathways, based on the unique needs and strengths of each district.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 132
Research Question Four
Research Question Four examined, When high school principals led the implementation
of social and emotional learning, to what extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic,
Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) schoolwide implementation guide? As noted in Chapter
Four of this study, interview data revealed that none of the principals had referenced the CASEL
(2109) schoolwide implementation guide or any other formalized SEL implementation
framework in their individual approaches to developing, implementing, and sustaining SEL.
However, despite having no official SEL implementation guide, the five principals were still able
to accomplish 81% of the prescribed steps by CASEL. This finding confirms the feasibility of
CASEL’s school guide for principals in urban settings (Meyers et al., 2019). Since CASEL’s
school guide was divided into four separate focus areas, results were compared in relation to
each focus area accordingly.
Findings related to Focus Area 1 – Build Foundational Support and Plan appeared to
suggest that the principals tended not to develop or align with a centralized district plan for SEL,
implementing just 60% of the recommended actions by CASEL. However, this trend was seen as
a trait of positive deviance amongst the principals, who insisted that their schools required
unique approaches to meet their specific needs. Findings related to Focus Area 2 - Strengthen
Adult SEL Competencies and Capacity indicated a 90% implementation rate, with principals
providing plenty of opportunities for their staff and parents to learn about SEL and increase their
own adult competencies. Findings related to Focus Area 3 – Promote SEL for Students yielded a
91% implementation rate, indicating that principals tended to embed SEL into many of the direct
policies, practices, and programs that students experienced on a daily basis. Lastly, findings
related to Focus Area 4 – Practice Continuous Improvement generated the highest
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 133
implementation rate, at 95%, with many principals engaging in practices for continuous
improvement. All of the actions taken by principals in this study in relation to implementing SEL
were consistent with CASEL’s schoolwide implementation guide, and confirmed the feasibility
and effectiveness of the guide for schools with similar demographics. The fact that none of the
principals consulted the CASEL school guide, but were still able to demonstrate so many of its
actions is a testament to both the principals, who have exemplified outstanding leadership and
SEL competency, as well as the guide itself, which was developed by CASEL as the culmination
and articulation of 25 years of evidence-based SEL research.
Limitations
Limitations of the study largely pertained to two areas: generalizability due to purposive
sampling targeting participants that could provide sufficient expertise on the phenomena being
studied coupled with a small sample size; and respondent validity due to the sole reliance on
interview testimony for qualitative data collection. In an effort to maximize the credibility of the
data, the researcher did triangulate interview data with existing research literature and each
school’s California Dashboard data. While participants were intentionally selected based on their
specific traits and performance demographics, the researcher had to rely on convenience
sampling and when the originally desired number of participants (10) was not reached in time for
the data collection process, the study was limited to a total five participants. The study findings
were never intended to apply to all high school principals, and the generalizability of the study
instead acts as a delimitation due to the purpose of the study, which aimed to identify factors
related to SEL implementation specifically as they pertained to the roles of urban high school
principals who serve a majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students.
Implications for Practice
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 134
This study examined the factors that contributed to Southern California’s urban high
school principals implementing schoolwide SEL in schools serving predominantly socio-
economically disadvantaged students. Study findings established themes that may inform
educational practitioners at the site and district levels and provides valuable information for
urban high school principals in similar settings interested in developing and implementing their
own schoolwide SEL. Specifically, regarding the scope of the study and resulting thematic
findings, implications for school leadership practices and SEL implementation processes were
established.
The first implication for practice by school site principals and district leaders emphasizes
the importance of district-level supports and efforts to make school-site principals feel supported
in their attempts to develop and implement schoolwide SEL. Triangulated study findings appear
to support the relationship between district support and sustained program implementation at the
school site level. Study findings suggest that even when principals are not given explicit
implementation plans and guides by the district, they will continue to pursue program
development and implementation as long as they feel the district is supportive of their efforts,
which may require the provision of resources such as trainings or experts and funding for
staffing and materials. This finding translates one step further down the line, as it would appear
that when principals choose to take a personalized approach to SEL implementation that
program’s effectiveness can be supported by the principal’s ability to maximize the level of
autonomy and ownership that its stakeholders (teachers, parents, community members) feel they
have over that program.
The second implication for practice highlights the need for principals to model the social
and emotional skills they wish to instill in their staff, students, and stakeholders. The findings in
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 135
this study suggest that the benefits of principal social and emotional competency are, at the very
least, threefold. Principals who demonstrated social and emotional competency in their roles
were able to successfully gain staff and community support, developed meaningful relationships
with individuals and groups, and were able to operate as facilitators, collaborators, and cultural
engineers embracing the shifting demands of their roles as modern school leaders.
The third implication for practice pertains to the importance of intentionally creating
positive school experiences for all stakeholders. Extant literature on workplace environments and
school climate confirms the importance of maintaining positive climates for both staff and
students in order to maximize motivation, engagement and productivity, and to prevent against
negative outcomes. Principals should take deliberate action to create positive experiences for
their staff and students as often as possible. This not only creates a positive school climate, but
also helps to maintain the levels of motivation necessary for stakeholders to sustain the effort
required to overcome challenges to the organization’s goals; and creates opportunities for the
development and reinforcement of interpersonal relationships between stakeholders,
strengthening the sense of connectedness to the community for all individuals. Principals were
also most enthusiastic about sharing their specific practices that celebrated their staff and
students, which may be interpreted as a sense of pride and perceived self-efficacy in their role,
further demonstrating how positive experiences can have exponential and reciprocating effects.
Future Research
This study’s review of existing literature noted the need for further research regarding the
implementation of schoolwide SEL in high schools and both the barriers to and factors
promoting the implementation of such programs. While this study did provide additional
contextual evidence of the processes and practices that contribute to urban high school
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 136
principals’ implementation of schoolwide SEL, further research is needed. Additional research is
recommended to address two areas related to this study.
The first recommendation for future research is to strengthen the generalizability of this
study’s findings. While this study acknowledged that generalizability was not the focus of the
research, educational practitioners may benefit from continuing to investigate the factors that
contribute to the successful implementation of SEL in high school. Future research should
include more studies of high school SEL implementation in various settings (geographically and
socio-economically), serving varying population sizes and demographics. This study’s findings
revealed a number of factors that supported the implementation of schoolwide SEL for urban
high school principals, and it would be beneficial for future research to further investigate the
feasibility of such practices and processes in other settings.
The second recommendation for future research would be to investigate the barriers that
prevent high school principals from implementing schoolwide SEL. While this study aimed to
focus on supportive factors that led to implementation, findings suggested that principals did
have to overcome a number of obstacles in order to do so. Furthermore, existing literature tends
to stress the importance of SEL to positive life outcomes, but much of the research focuses on
the primary and middle school grades. Educators at all levels would benefit from continued
research into the existing systems and structures that have prevented the continuation of
systematic SEL in high school. By uncovering those barriers, we create more opportunity for
students to continue to learn the social and emotional skills necessary to become successful and
products members of society.
Conclusions
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 137
This study confirmed that there are specific factors that contribute to the successful
implementation of schoolwide SEL for urban high school principals. While almost all school
leaders believe in the benefits of SEL and agree that their students should receive it (Bridgeland
et al., 2013; DePaoli et al., 2017), SEL has largely remained a focus that schools choose to
address in the primary and middle school grades (Durlak et al., 2011; Weissberg, et al., 2015);
leaving a majority of high school students to navigate complex and evolving social structures and
emotional experiences with little systematic support (Austin et al., 2018; Benbenishty et al.,
2018; Kann et al.; Theriot et al., 2010). This study highlighted the practices of principals who
were able to implement SEL in urban high schools, defining them as “positive deviants” because
of their unique ability to overcome obstacles and barriers that similar schools face, with no
additional resources. Study findings suggest that positively deviant principals were able to
embed SEL directly into a number of schoolwide practices, developed the SEL competencies of
their staff through trainings and professional development opportunities, and felt empowered by
their districts to implement SEL, even when they chose to tailor their approach to their school’s
specific needs. All of the principals in this study made SEL a priority in their school through
deliberate actions that included conducting schoolwide surveys, facilitating committees for SEL
development and implementation, and creating practices designed to promote schoolwide SEL.
Findings also indicated that positively deviant principals were socially and emotionally
competent, portraying the very same skills they wished to teach and acted as models for all
stakeholders. Most importantly, they were intentional about maintaining and promoting a
positive school climate through the practice of celebrating staff and students for displays of
valued behaviors and attitudes, and the strengthening of community through regular
opportunities for the development of interpersonal relationships between members. The study
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 138
revealed that all of the principals projected a high level of self-efficacy about their ability to
overcome barriers to SEL implementation due to the perceived levels of support from their
district and the members and resources within their own schools; a finding that offers additional
insight into the minds of successful implementors of SEL and for all educational practitioners
who hope to replicate these successes in their schools.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 139
References
Austin, G., Hansen, T., Polik, J., & Zheng, C. (2018). School Climate, Substance Use, and
Student Well-being in California, 2015-17. Results of the Sixteenth Biennial Statewide
Student Survey, Grades 7, 9, and 11. San Francisco, Ca.
Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., &
Pinderhughes, E. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social–emotional learning
program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 78(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018607
Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming Youth At Risk: Our Hope
for the Future (Revised Ed). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The Missing Piece: A National Teacher
Survey on How Social and Emotional Learning Can Empower Children and Transform
Schools. Retrieved from https://www.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/the-missing-
piece.pdf
Brown, J. L., Roderick, T., Lantieri, L., & Aber, J. L. (2004). The Resolving Conflict Creatively
Program: A School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Program. In J. E. Zins, R. P.
Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and
emotional learning; what does research say? (pp. 151–169). New York, NY: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
California Department of Education. (2017). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved July 9,
2019, from California School Dashboard website:
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/about/faq
California Department of Education. (2019a). California School Dashboard and System of
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 140
Support. Retrieved July 9, 2019, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (2019b). Social and Emotional Learning. Retrieved July 9,
2019, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/socialemotionallearning.asp
CASEL. (2020). The CASEL Guide to Schoolwide SEL. (p.1-80). Retrieved June 1, 2020, from
https://schoolguide.casel.org
Charis, K., & Losen, D. J. (2017). FIFTH INDICATOR: School Climate and Student Discipline
(Vol. 24). Retrieved from http://www.nasbe.org/wp-content/uploads/Charis_Climate-5th-
Final.pdf
Collaborating States Initiative. (2018a). Deeper Insights: How Six States Are Collaborating with
Local and Regional Educators to Implement Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Chicago, IL.
Collaborating States Initiative. (2018b). Innovation in Action: How States and School Districts
are Collaborating to Promote Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Chicago, IL.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2019a). SEL Impact. Retrieved
July 1, 2019, from https://casel.org/impact/
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2019b). What is SEL? Retrieved
May 11, 2019, from https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
DePaoli, J. L., Atwell, M. N., & Bridgeland, J. (2017). Ready to Lead: A National Principal
Survey on How Social and Emotional Learning Can Prepare Children and Transform
Schools. A Report for CASEL. In Civic Enterprises.
DePaoli, J. L., Atwell, M. N., Bridgeland, J. M., & Shriver, T. P. (2018). Respected:
Perspectives of Youth on High School & Social and Emotional Learning. Retrieved from
https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Respected.pdf
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 141
Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The Study of Implementation: Current Findings
From Effective Programs that Prevent Mental Disorders in School-Aged Children. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(2), 193–221.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1102_04
Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why Program Implementation is Important. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community, 17(2), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J005v17n02_02
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-
Based Universal Interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of After-School
Programs That Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and Adolescents.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6
Dusenbury, L., Calin, S., Domitrovich, C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2015). What Does Evidence-
Based Instruction in Social and Emotional Learning Actually Look Like in Practice?
Dusenbury, L., Dermody, C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2018). State Scorecard Scan. Retrieved from
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Maps-and-Data/State-Data-Center/State-
Scorecard.aspx
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., …
Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning : guidelines for educators
(M. J. Elias, Ed.). Alexandria, Va., USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 142
Fullan, M. (2014). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-
Bass.
Fuller, E. J., Young, M. D., Richardson, M. S., Pendola, A., & Winn, K. M. (2018). The Pre-K-8
School Leader in 2018: A 10-Year Study.
Gallup. (2018). Leadership Perspectives on Public Education: The Gallup 2018 Survey of K-12
School District Superintendents. Washington, DC.
Graves, S. L., Herndon-Sobalvarro, A., Nichols, K., Aston, C., Ryan, A., Blefari, A., … Prier, D.
(2017). Examining the Effectiveness of a Culturally Adapted Social-Emotional Intervention
for African American Males in an Urban Setting. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1), 62–
74. https://doi.org/info:doi/
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and
Emotional Learning as a Public Health Approach to Education. The Future of Children,
27(1), 13–32. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/44219019
Hallinger, P. (1992). The Evolving Role of American Principals: From Managerial to
Instructional to Transformational Leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3),
35–48. https://doi.org/info:doi/
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal ’s Time Use and School Effectiveness.
American Journal of Education, 116(August).
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and
Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 79, pp. 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and Emotional Learning in Schools: From
Programs to Strategies. In Social Policy Report (Vol. 26). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 143
3988.2012.tb00073.x
Jones, S. M., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Social and Emotional Learning: Introducing the Issue.
The Future of Children, 27(1), 3–11. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/44219018
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Queen, B., … Ethier, K. A.
(2018). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2017 (Vol. 67). Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2017/ss6708.pdf
Lorenzo, S.-J. (2017). FIFTH INDICATOR: Social and Emotional Learning (Vol. 24). Retrieved
from http://www.nasbe.org/wp-content/uploads/Lorenzo_5th_SEL_Final.pdf
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole‐school positive
behaviour support: effects on student discipline problems and academic performance.
Educational Psychology, 25(2–3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000301265
McGraw Hill Education. (2018). 2018 Social and Emotional Learning Report.
Melnick, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Encouraging Social and
Emotional Learning in the Context of New Accountability Social and Emotional Learning in
the Context of New Accountability. (April). Retrieved from
http://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/sel-new-accountability
Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kohlborn, T., & Kummer, T.-F. (2016). A Framework for the Study of
Positive Deviance in Organizations. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 1288–1307.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1174519
Meyers, A. B., Tobin, R. M., Huber, B. J., Conway, D. E., & Shelvin, K. H. (2015).
Interdisciplinary Collaboration Supporting Social-Emotional Learning in Rural School
Systems. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 109–128.
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 144
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929956
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2018). Position Statement: Mental
Health.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2017, May 24). Press Releases: NASBE
Outlines “Fifth Indicator” Opportunities for State Boards to Ensure Student Success under
ESSA. Retrieved from http://www.nasbe.org/press-releases/nasbe-outlines-fifth-indicator-
opportunities-for-state-boards-to-ensure-student-success-under-essa/
Pascale, R. T., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The Power of Positive Deviance: How unlikely
innovators solve the world’s toughest problems (J. Sternin & M. Sternin, Eds.). Boston,
Mass: Harvard Business Press.
Perry, B. D. (2005). Maltreatment and the Developing Child: How Early Childhood Experience
Shapes Child and Culture. Retrieved from www.lfcc.on.ca
Reyes, M., Brackett, M., Rivers, S., Elbertson, N., & Salovey, P. (2012). The Interaction Effects
of Program Training, Dosage, and Implementation Quality on Targeted Student Outcomes
for The RULER Approach to Social and Emotional Learning. School Psychology Review,
41(1), 82–99.
Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating
the Links to Improved Student Learning.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The Influence of Principal Leadership on Classroom
Instruction and Student Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.
Singhal, A., & Durá, L. (2012). Positive Deviance, Good for Global Health.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118241868.ch24
Teske, S. C. (2011). A Study of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: A Multi-Integrated Systems
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 145
Approach to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing., Vol. 24, pp. 88–97. https://doi.org/info:doi/
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019). Emotion and Cognition in the Age of AI: A well-being
agenda for 21st century skills. Retrieved from
https://clouddamcdnprodep.azureedge.net/gdc/gdcWRrXfv/original
Vaishnov, A., Cristol, K., & Hance, A. (2016). Social and Emotional Learning: Why Students
Need It. What Districts are Doing About It.
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and
emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In Handbook for Social and Emotional
Learning: Research and Practice (pp. 3–19).
Weissberg, R. P., Shriver, T. P., Bose, S., & DeFalco, K. (1997). Creating a districtwide social
development project. Educational Leadership, 54(8), 37.
White-Smith, K. A., & White, M. A. (2009). High School Reform Implementation. Urban
Education, 44(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909333942
Wishik, S. M., & Vynckt, S. (1976). The use of nutritional “positive deviants” to identify
approaches for modification of dietary practices. American Journal of Public Health, 66(1),
38. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.66.1.38
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The Scientific Base
Linking Social and Emotional Learning to School Success. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413145
Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Social and Emotional Learning: Promoting the Development of
All Students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2–3), 233–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413152
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 146
Appendix
Invitation to Participate
Date
(Principal’s Name)
Principal
(School Address)
RE: Invitation to Participate in Educational Research Study
Dear (Principal’s Name):
I am writing to invite you to participate in an educational research study. I am currently a doctoral
candidate enrolled in the Educational Leadership program at the University of Southern California, and
am in the process of writing my dissertation. The study is entitled Urban High School Principals
Implementing SEL.
The purpose of this study is to understand the role of principals who are currently implementing social
and emotional learning (SEL) in urban high schools. Research has already demonstrated the numerous
and exponential benefits of SEL for students’ academics, behavior, and personal growth. It is my hope
that the implications from this study may shed light on the promising practices that effective principals
employ when implementing SEL in urban high schools. Results may also benefit those who have been
unsuccessful or interested in the development and implementation of SEL at their schools. You have been
selected as a candidate for participation based on your school’s practice of social and emotional learning
and its positive performance according to the CA School Dashboard in spite of facing historically
challenging barriers for educators and communities. Well done!
This study will be conducted via 1-hour, in-person interviews with current principals at urban high
schools. All school and participant information will be kept confidential prior to, during, and after the
completion of this study. The interview process will consist of the researcher asking the participants 10
questions related to the role of the principal and the implementation of SEL at their school. Observations
of the school environment and any artifacts or documents the school displays or distributes will also be
permitted upon participant agreement. Principals who agree to join this study will be given a letter of
verification for their participation in the study upon completion; they will be provided a copy of the
completed study; and may, if they so choose, publicly post or advertise their participation in the
educational research study once it has concluded.
If you wish to participate, please complete the back of this form (or attached pdf) indicating your consent
to be audio-recorded solely for the purposes of transcription, desired meeting date and time, and meeting
location (specific room or location on your school campus). The interview data will be pooled for the
analysis portion and individual results of this study will remain absolutely confidential and anonymous.
Should this study be published, only pooled results will be documented. No costs will be incurred by
either your school or the individual participants.
Your participation in this study will be greatly appreciated and a major benefit to high school educators.
You may have received this letter either by U.S. Mail or Email, and you may return the completed form
via either method of delivery. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed in the physical of this letter. If you
have any questions or concerns prior to participation, you may contact me at my email address:
rbird@usc.edu.
Sincerely,
Ryan Bird
Doctoral Candidate, EdD in Educational Leadership
University of Southern California
URBAN PRINCIPALS & SEL 147
Interview Protocol
Alignment of Semi-Structured Interview Questions with Research Questions
1. How do you feel about Social and Emotional Learning in high
school?
RQ #3
Probe: What is your previous experience/prior knowledge about SEL? RQ #2,4
2. What are the SEL strengths and needs at your school? RQ #1,2,3
Probe: How did you/sour team determine those strengths/weaknesses? RQ #4
3. What is your school’s vision for SEL? RQ #2,3,4
4. What is your school’s plan for SEL implementation? RQ #1,2,3,4
Probe: Who is in charge of the implementation? RQ #1,4
Probe: What resources, if any, are provided for professional
development and training on SEL?
RQ #1,2,4
Probe: What is the district doing, if anything, to support SEL? RQ #1,2,3,4
Probe: What is your plan for strengthening adult SEL? RQ #1,2,4
5. How did you develop your implementation process/structure? RQ #1,2,3,4
6. What difficulties or obstacles did you encounter during the
planning, implementation, and/or maintenance of the program?
RQ #1,2,3,4
7. How did you gain staff, family, and community support for SEL? RQ #1,2,3,4
8. What makes your SEL program/implementation different from
others?
RQ #4
9. What outcomes have you seen as a result of SEL at your school? RQ #4
10. Looking back, what roles have you facilitated, either intentionally
or unintentionally throughout the development, implementation
and maintenance of your school’s SEL program?
RQ #1,2,3,4
Research Questions
1. What school district and site-level organizational processes and supports make it possible for
high school principals to implement school wide social and emotional learning at their
school?
2. What knowledge and skills are needed by high school principals in order to implement
school wide social and emotional learning at their school?
3. What school district and site-level motivational factors make it possible for high school
principals to implement school wide social and emotional learning at their school?
4. When high school principals led the implementation of social and emotional learning, to
what extent did it align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) schoolwide implementation guide?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Recent studies on principals’ perceptions and implementation of SEL programs found that only a little over one-third of principals (35 percent) had developed a plan for SEL and were currently implementing it schoolwide (DePaoli et al., 2017). This gap in SEL implementation in schools is especially a problem at the high school level, where SEL program effects have been studied the least (Durlak et al., 2011). This study highlighted the practices of 5 urban high school principals who were able to implement SEL schoolwide, defining them as “positive deviants” due to their unique ability to overcome obstacles and barriers that similar schools faced, without additional resources. A qualitative phenomenological research design was used to collect data via one-on-one interviews with each principal. Schools were selected based on ideal performance indicators according to the 2018 and 2019 California School Dashboard results. Study findings revealed that positively deviant principals were able to embed SEL directly into a number of schoolwide practices, developed the SEL competencies of their staff through trainings and professional development opportunities, and felt empowered by their districts to implement SEL, even when they chose to tailor their approach to their school’s specific needs. All of the principals in this study made SEL a priority in their school through deliberate actions that included conducting schoolwide surveys, facilitating committees for SEL development and implementation, and creating practices designed to promote schoolwide SEL. Implications for practice include district support for SEL, principals’ ability to model SEL skills, and the importance of intentionally working to build a positive school climate. Recommendations for future research include the continued examination of high school principals implementing SEL in various settings and populations and further investigation into the barriers that prevent the implementation of SEL in high school.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom
PDF
Examining approaches to implementing Responsive Classroom within international schools
PDF
Teacher as nurturer: perceptions of elementary teachers integrating social and emotional learning practices
PDF
Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach
PDF
Teachers' voices: SEL perceptions in a grade 9-12 school
PDF
Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance
PDF
The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study
PDF
Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice
PDF
Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools
PDF
Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools
PDF
Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate
PDF
Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices
PDF
The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs
PDF
Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students
PDF
The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices
PDF
Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change
PDF
Cultivating effective and resilient urban principals: empowering school leaders to create enduring success in the inner city
PDF
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
PDF
Social emotional learning curriculum implementation: an evaluation study of fidelity
PDF
The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bird, Ryan M.
(author)
Core Title
How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/01/2020
Defense Date
07/23/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Academic Achievement,administrator training,adult SEL,barriers to implementation,CASEL,district level support,Educational Leadership,educational practitioners,embedded practices,expulsion,funding,High School,implement,K-12,leadership,Mental Health,OAI-PMH Harvest,overcome barriers,positive deviance,positive deviant,positive school climate,principal's role,principals, urban,professional development,program implementation,school climate,school engagement,schoolwide SEL,SEL,SEL competencies,SEL competency,SEL-competencies,SEL-competency,self-efficacy,SELiImplementation,social and emotional learning,social and emotional skills,social emotional learning,social-emotional,social-emotional learning,socio-economic,Southern California,successful implementation,suspension,systems,systems of support,urban high school principals
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Cash, David (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael (
committee member
), Green, Alan (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rbird@usc.edu,ryan.bird@laverne.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-389389
Unique identifier
UC11665931
Identifier
etd-BirdRyanM-9096.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-389389 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BirdRyanM-9096.pdf
Dmrecord
389389
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Bird, Ryan M.
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
Tags
administrator training
adult SEL
barriers to implementation
CASEL
district level support
educational practitioners
embedded practices
expulsion
funding
implement
K-12
overcome barriers
positive deviance
positive deviant
positive school climate
principal's role
principals, urban
professional development
program implementation
school climate
school engagement
schoolwide SEL
SEL
SEL competencies
SEL competency
SEL-competencies
SEL-competency
self-efficacy
SELiImplementation
social and emotional learning
social and emotional skills
social emotional learning
social-emotional
social-emotional learning
socio-economic
successful implementation
suspension
systems
systems of support
urban high school principals