It seems almost intuitive that if we teach students in our schools the essential social-emotional skills they need for life that it would not only benefit them greatly but would benefit society as a whole as well. However, because of the tremendous pressure in schools today to focus all efforts strictly on academics we focus very little on teaching social-emotional skills.

This is true despite research showing a direct connection between academic gains and social-emotional learning.  A meta-analysis of 213 studies, involving 270,034 students, on the impact of teaching social-emotional learnings skills to students found a significant improvement in academic performance (Durlak et. al, 2011). Thirty-three of the studies included in the meta-analysis also conducted follow-up at least six months after implementation and academic improvement was sustained.

A recent study gives us another reason to consider implementing social-emotional learning (SEL) programs in schools.  At the RSE-TASC we talk a lot about teaching behavior within the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework. The “4 to 1 ratio” rule, which states that for every negative staff-to-student contact there should be at least four positive staff-to-student contacts, is an important research-based element of that framework.

Now, a new study from the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College Columbia (Belfield et. al, 2015) brings us the “11 to 1 ratio”. In studying the impact of six social-emotional learning curricula, the authors found that “on average, for every dollar invested equally across the six SEL interventions, there is a return of eleven dollars, a substantial economic return” (p. 5).  In an article reviewing the study, Timothy Shriver and John Bridgeland (2015) report on a conversation they had with the lead author in which he said, “These are unprecedented returns, particularly given that, while the estimates of the costs are clear, only a portion of the possible benefits are captured.” He described those other benefits as “reductions in child aggression, substance abuse, delinquency, and violence; lower levels of depression and anxiety; and increased grades, attendance, and performance in core academic subjects.”  If it’s not enough to know that teaching social-emotional skills helps kids become happier, healthier people, we now have a bottom line cost-to-benefit ratio to support focusing on those skills.

At the Lower Hudson Regional Partnership Center we know that to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, we need to focus on effective approaches to school-wide improvement.  Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, or MTSS, is a framework in which schools implement universal systems of social-emotional and academic instruction and use objective screening measures to determine which students might require additional or increased supports and services.

Both RTI and PBIS are examples of multi-tiered systems.   The teaching of social emotional and behavioral skills is already a critical component of the universal level of PBIS.   For schools looking to enhance this component of either their universal or Tier 2 interventions, they can explore various curricula through the references that follow this article and the School Tool on page 3 of this newsletter.

References

Belfield, C, Bowden, B, Klapp, A, Levin, H, Shand, R & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning.  Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education Teachers College, Columbia University retrieved from http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SEL-Revised.pdf

Shriver, T & Bridgeland, J.M. (2015) Social-emotional learning pays off. Education Week. Retrieved frp, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/26/social-emotional-learning-pays-off.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

Durlak, J, Weissberg, RP, Dymnicki, AD, Taylor, RD & Schellinger, KB (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child Development Special Issue: Raising Healthy Children, Volume 82, Issue 1, pages 405–432.