EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Examining the Efficacy of Universally Delivered Social and Emotional Learning Curriculum, Second Step: A Mixed-Method Study of the Effects on Regular and Special Education Student Behavior and Teacher Instructional Competence A Dissertation Presented to The College of Graduate and Professional Studies Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate of Special Education by Joseph A Jablonski June,2021 Copyright © 2021 Joseph A Jablonski Keywords: Social Emotional Learning, Second Step, Student Behavior, Emotional Support, School Climate EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Copyright © 2021 Joseph A Jablonski All Rights Reserved Signatory Page for Dissertation Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania Depa1iment of Special Education A Dissertation Written By Joseph A Jablonski Bachelor of Music in Music Education, Mercyhurst University, 2009 Master of Music, Cleveland State University, 2011 Post-Master's K-12 Principal's Certification, Edinboro University, 2016 Doctorate of Education in Special Education, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, 2021 Approved by 6/22/21 Dr. Eric J Bieniek, Dissertation Committee Chair Date 6/22/21 ~sr~ Date ~ichard Busi, Comm~~Mem~r (-ZZ-2-6X) Dr. Edward ~ i m p , Committee Member Date Accepted by Dr. Keith Dils, Dean, College of Education, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania 6/22/2021 \ EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING IV Abstract Since the establishment of social emotional learning (SEL) as a conceptual framework to increase students' prosocial and emotional competencies, research has been conducted to provide an evidence base to its programmatic effects. This study examined the efficacy of Second Step, a universally delivered SEL curriculum. Evidence of efficacy is supplied through a mixed-method research design providing three separate data metrics for quantitative and qualitative analysis. The sample set was derived from the behavior data of 505 students who attended a suburban K-5 elementary school in northwest Pennsylvania for two consecutive years. Also included in the sample are 22 teachers who participated in a voluntary survey. Quantitative analysis was conducted through a quasiexperimental design utilizing a McNemar test to determine the statistical significance of negative behavior prevalence in comparing two school years. Additional quantitative data was supplied through a Likert-scale questionnaire. Contextual qualitative information was supplied from an open-ended survey. Through this study, it was determined that the Second Step SEL program had a statistically significant impact on the behaviors of students as well as an impact on the climate of the building. While teachers felt the stress of teaching the newly implemented SEL curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic, results from the study suggest that the benefits of implementing the program outweighed this negative effect. Results also showed an impact on students in the special education emotional support subgroup. The evidence this study provides will help schools work to strengthen their students' social, emotional, and behavioral capacities. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING V Dedication This project is dedicated to the three individuals who without their love and support this would not have been possible. Karson and Levi-Never let anyone tell you what you can't do. Reach for the stars and once you reach those, reach even higher. Lisa-Many years ago we began our journey together "one mile at a time". This was a long stretch, but we made it. Here's to continuing to the next mile and beyond! EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING VI Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to extend the sincerest thanks to my committee; Dr. Eric Bieniek for pushing and supporting me. Your passion and drive for learners of all abilities is truly inspirational. Dr. Ed Nientimp, thank you for always being a great mentor. Your advice and counsel have not only helped me in my research pursuits but also in my professional endeavors. Dr. Richard Busi, thank you for your guidance and tutelage. Your perspectives and advice helped to lead me through this process. To my school district's administrators and staff, without your support, this would not have been possible. Specifically recognizing Dr. Ian Roberts and Mrs. Darcie Moseley. Thank you for advocating for the importance of emotional intelligence in our students. Carolyn Warner, thank you for your data aggregation prowess, and Kimberly Damcott, thank you for all your assistance. To Bill Livingston for your blunt feedback and unwavering advocacy for the power of the English language. Jamie Plaster, thank you for being such a great partner and friend. Lastly, a truly heartfelt thanks go out to the teachers, staff, and students at Grandview Elementary. You have been a great team throughout all of this research and this project could not have been completed without you. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Vll Table of Contents Copyright Page .......................................................................................................... .ii Signatory Page .......................................................................................................... .iii Abstract ..................................................................................................................... .iv Dedication .................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xii List of Figures ............................................................................................................ xiii Chapter I-Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Problem ..................................................................................... 4 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................ 6 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 7 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 8 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 13 Significance of Study ..................................................................................... 14 Basic Assumptions ......................................................................................... 15 Limitations of Study ...................................................................................... 16 Organization of Study .................................................................................... 17 Chapter II-Literature Review ..................................................................................... 18 Historical Background ................................................................................... 18 Genesis of Social Emotional Learning .............................................. 18 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Vlll Theory of Discipline Relative to Research Questions .................................. .19 Social Emotional Learning (SEL) ...................................................... 19 Social and Emotional Growth of Students Participating in SEL ....... 21 Improved Behaviors from SEL .......................................................... 24 Impacting Special Education Students ............................................... 25 Academic Growth Associated with SEL ........................................... 26 SEL as an Aspect of Trauma-Informed Education ........................... .27 Positive Behavior Interventions and Suppotis (PBIS) and SEL ........ 28 Intersection of SEL and PBIS ............................................................ 32 SEL and Building Climate ................................................................. 34 Teacher Attitudes and Perceptions of Teaching SEL ........................ 34 Cost-Benefit Analysis of SEL. ........................................................... 35 Current Literature Relative to Research Questions ....................................... 36 Various Evidence-Based SEL Programs ........................................... 36 Feasibility of Implementation ........................................................... .44 Establishment of Second Step ........................................................... .46 Efficacy of Second Step ..................................................................... 47 Summary ............................................................................................ 48 Chapter III-Methodology ........................................................................................... 50 Restatement of Purpose .................................................................................. 50 Description of Participants ............................................................................. 51 Students .............................................................................................. 51 Teachers ............................................................................................. 52 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING IX Human Subject Consideration and Clearance from IRB ............................... 52 Description of Instrumentation/Measurement Procedures ............................. 54 Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) ............................................... 54 Teacher Attitudes about Social Emotional Learning (TASEL) ......... 55 Qualitative Inquiry ............................................................................. 55 Research Design ........................................................................................... 56 Mixed-Method Design ....................................................................... 56 Question 1 Quantitative Analysis ...................................................... 56 Question 2 Quantitative Analysis ...................................................... 58 Question 3 Qualitative Analysis ........................................................ 59 Description of Procedures .............................................................................. 59 Data Analysis and Display Procedure ............................................................ 60 Summary ........................................................................................................ 62 Chapter IV-Findings .................................................................................................. 63 Quantitative ODR Results .............................................................................. 64 Student Sample .................................................................................. 65 ODR Data and Analysis ..................................................................... 65 Statistical Significance ....................................................................... 66 Summary ............................................................................................ 69 Quantitative Likert-Scale Results .................................................................. 70 Likert-Scale Responses ...................................................................... 70 Teacher Sample .................................................................................. 71 Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Effect. ......................................... 71 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING X Instructional Feedback ....................................................................... 72 Tirne and Implementation .................................................................. 72 Training .............................................................................................. 72 Adrninistrative Support ...................................................................... 73 Qualitative Results ....................................................................................... 74 Coding ................................................................................................ 74 Question 1 Responses ........................................................................ 75 Question 2 Reponses .......................................................................... 77 Question 3 Responses ........................................................................ 80 Summary ...................................................................................................... 83 Chapter V-Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 84 Discussion of Study and Results .................................................................... 84 Effect on School-Wide Behavior ....................................................... 84 Effect on Grade Level Cohort Behavior ............................................ 85 TASEL Likert-Scale Response to Behavior ...................................... 86 Qualitative Response to Behavior Impact... ....................................... 86 Impact on Behavior of Emotional Support Subgroup ........................ 87 Impact on School Climate .................................................................. 88 Teacher Perceptions and Attitudes about SEL Instruction ................ 90 COVID-10 Implementation Considerations ...................................... 92 Considerations/Limitations ............................................................................ 93 Significance and Research Contributions ...................................................... 94 Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................ 95 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING xi Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 96 References .................................................................................................................. 98 Appendix A-Second Step Implementation Timeline ................................................ .11 l Appendix B-Qualitative Questionnaire ...................................................................... 113 Appendix C-TASEL Questionnaire ........................................................................... 114 Appendix D-Grandview Elementary PBIS Behavior Matrix ................................... .117 Appendix £-Millcreek Township School District Discipline Matrix ........................ 116 Appendix F-Research Participant Informational Letter ............................................. 127 Appendix G-Site Approval to Conduct Research ...................................................... 131 Appendix H-Anonymous Google Form ..................................................................... 132 Appendix I-IRB Clearance ........................................................................................ 140 Appendix J-TASEL Permission Use ......................................................................... 141 Appendix K-Response Frequency Distribution ......................................................... 142 Appendix L-Response Frequency Distribution ......................................................... 143 Appendix M-Mean Response Distribution ................................................................ 144 Appendix N-Mean Response Distribution ................................................................. 145 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Xll List of Tables Table 1: ODR Totals by Cohort ................................................................................. 66 Table 2: McNemar Crosstabulation of Overall ODRs ............................................... 67 Table 3: McNemar Statistical Significance of Overall OD Rs ................................... 67 Table 4: McNemar Crosstabulation ofindividual Grade Level ODRs ..................... 68 Table 5: McNemar Statistical Significance ofindividual Grade Levels ................... 69 Table 6: Question 1 Qualitative Coded Responses .................................................... 76 Table 7: Question 2 Qualitative Coded Responses .................................................... 78 Table 8: Question 3 Qualitative Coded Responses .................................................... 81 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING xiii List of Figures Figure 1: SEL Framework ......................................................................................... 21 Figure 2: PBIS/MTSS Tier Illustration ...................................................................... 30 Figure 3: SEL Program Lists ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 4: SEL Program Selection ............................................................................. .46 Figure 5: Hierarchal Relationship of Research Questions and Analysis ................... 63 Figure 6: TASEL Domain Response Means .............................................................. 71 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 1 Examining the Efficacy of Universally Delivered Social and Emotional Learning Curriculum, Second Step: A Mixed-Method Study of the Effects on Regular and Special Education Student Behavior and Teacher Instructional Competence Chapter I - Introduction Background Public schools have an obligation to ensure that their students have an opportunity to receive a free and appropriate public education regardless of exceptionality (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). The obligations imposed on public schools in this regard emanate from federal law and are also finnly rooted in the traditions of the American educational system. However, what if a student's social or emotional needs preclude him or her from attaining that education? What if social and emotional needs exist, but they do not impact the student's ability to learn? Do school districts have an obligation to meet the social and emotional needs of all their students? Current trends in school systems, along with legislative efforts, have worked in recent years to provide the answer to this question. Within the past 20 years, the concept of addressing the social and emotional needs of students has been brought to the forefront of educational policy and practice (Weisberg et al., 2015). In 1994, a group of educators, researchers, and advocates met at the research foundation, Fetzner Institute, to discuss the needs of enhancing students' competence of social and emotional constructs, academic performance, health, and citizenship. To address these needs, they developed the conceptual framework of "social and emotional learning." This framework of social and emotional learning (SEL) sought to prevent mental health and behavioral problems by teaching students the competence of five EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 2 domains: self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision making, relationship skills, and social awareness (Weisberg et al., 2015). A result of the meeting at the Fetzner Institute was the establishment of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). The mission of CASEL was to establish evidence-based SEL that focuses on the five identified domains, from preschool through high school, in educational systems throughout the entire country (Weisberg et al., 2015). Since the establishment of SEL as an instructional framework, there has been an ever-growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of SEL in establishing prosocial behaviors and emotional competence in students. Studies from Low, et al.; Bierman, et al.; Chi-Ming, et al.; and Doughty, all provide evidence on the impact SEL has on students' prosocial and emotional competence in different settings and programs (Bierman et al., 2010; Chi-Ming et al., 2004; Doughty, 1997; Low et al., 2015). As the concept of SEL is being addressed in the research and school-based sector, it is also paralleling the mental health legislation occurring in the public sector. In 1990, the state of Pennsylvania began to address the issue of young adults abusing drugs, alcohol, and/or tobacco. In a concerted effort, Act 211 was enacted and section 154 7 of the Pa School Code was added. This legislation mandated that all school districts must implement a drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention program. Through this program, the Student Assistance Program (SAP) was developed (Act 211, 1990). SAP helped to screen and find students who may be at risk and provide intervention and/or counseling services to them. This system was found to be successful and, as a result, in 2006, Chapter 12 of the Pennsylvania School Code was expanded to increase the scope of SAP to include a mental health component (Chapter 12, 2006). More legislation regarding student mental EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 3 health was to follow. Specifically, in 2019, Pennsylvania enacted Act 18, which required schools to recognize the impact of trauma on students and provide them with the necessary support for students (Act 18, 2019). SEL is an integral part oftrauma-inf01med care, as it fosters resilience capabilities through emotional literacy and problem-solving (Payton et al., 2008). Aside from SEL increasing prosocial and emotional behaviors and working through the lens of trauma-informed education, there is an academic component of SEL that provides justification for its inclusion as an educational practice in schools. Noted psychologist, Abraham Maslow, made the argument that for higher-level thinking to occur, a human must first receive their basic and psychological needs. He created a hierarchy with psychological necessities following basic needs, before self-fulfillment (Maslow, 1943). For example, if a student is not eating, that student is not worried about long division. Likewise, if a student does not feel safe, comfortable, and secure, they are not worried about long division. From a very rudimentary standpoint, if we are not addressing basic needs, based on Maslow's theory, motivation for academic achievement can never be met. A student's emotional needs will supersede their academic needs, due to their emotional state (Plumb et al., 2016). Therefore, from an academic correlation, if schools want to ensure academic growth and achievement, they must fulfill an obligation to meet those social and emotional needs that preclude students from reaching academic motivation. To substantiate SEL's effect on academic performance, many studies have been conducted to ascertain the positive effects that SEL programs have on a student's wellbeing and academic achievement. A recent meta-analysis of hundreds of these studies EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 4 was conducted, demonstrating a positive correlation between social/emotional well-being and higher academic achievement in participants of social and emotional learning programs (Durlak et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2017). These benefits of SEL are further quantified from a school district fiscal perspective when examining the benefit-cost analysis (BCA). In 2015, Belfield et al. conducted a BCA of various SEL programming. Through their analysis, the researchers found that the benefit of SEL instruction substantially outweighed the cost, where in some cases a $1 expenditure translated to an $11 benefit (Belfield, et al., 2015). Given the extensive amount of evidence supporting benefits attributed to SEL, and following along with current legislation and research about the positive effects of SEL, this framework has been identified as a possible solution to a localized problem at an elementary school in northwest, Pennsylvania Statement of Problem The school being studied is one of five elementary schools located within a school district in the greater Erie area. The district has a current student enrollment of approximately 6500 students. As of 2020, the school featured in this study is the largest of five elementary schools located within the district, with approximately 630 students. It is a suburban elementary school housing grades K-5 with 49% of the student population considered to be economically disadvantaged and approximately 8% who are identified as English Language Learners (ELL). Another 12% of the student population need Special Education services and 26 of those students are identified as needing Emotional EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 5 Support (ES) Services, accounting for 45% of the special education demographic (Millcreek Township School District, 2020). The school's demographic has changed substantially over the past six years. This is due in part to the consolidation efforts following the closure of two elementary schools within the district, as well as the addition of federally subsidized Section 8 housing within the school's boundaries. Prior to the consolidation, in the school year (SY) 20122013, the school had an enrollment of 561 students. With this enrollment, 25.6% of students were considered economically disadvantaged. After the consolidation, in SY 2013-2014, the school's enrollment increased 36% to 763 students. The increase in student enrollment correlated with an increased percentage of economically disadvantaged students at a rate of 35 .5%. Shortly after the consolidation, there was the establishment of Section 8 federally subsidized housing within the school's boundaries. Due to this, within four years, the economically disadvantaged percentage grew substantially and reached 48.5% in SY 2018-2019. In the span of six years, the school saw its economically disadvantaged percentage almost double in size (Millcreek Township School District, 2020). With the influx of economically disadvantaged students, there was also an increase in the number of students with socially inappropriate and maladaptive emotional behaviors. Evidence-based research confirms this. The relationship of economically disadvantaged students correlating to an increase in maladaptive behaviors can be found in the evidence-base of the second-order meta-analysis ofKorous et al. Their study consisted of 327,617 participants and found that those students who came from lowerincome families were found to experience more negative externalizing and internalizing EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 6 behaviors (Korous et al., 2018). Dodge, et al., also found that low socioeconomic status was found to negatively c01Telate to higher conduct problems in students of grades K, 1, 2, and 3 (Dodge et al., 1994). This increase of inappropriate and maladaptive social and emotional behaviors led to reflective questioning on how these students can be better provided with a skillset to address their social and emotional deficiencies. Prior to the study, the school and its district did not have an SEL curriculum that provided instruction in these areas to students. The school had a positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS) framework in place. However even with the PBIS framework, the school found itself without the necessary tools to combat the increasing negative social and emotional behaviors with no systematic, explicit, evidence-based instruction to educate the students on their deficiencies. This omission left teachers without the appropriate skills to help deal with these areas of need. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to examine the school's implementation of an evidence-based SEL curriculum, "Second Step", on a universal level while focusing the efficacy of the program. Second Step was chosen as the SEL program to be utilized due to its extensive evidence base in impacting the SEL competency of students, while providing age-appropriate differentiated K-5 curriculums with defined lesson plans for each grade level that are CASEL, PBIS, MTSS/RTI, and Common Core Aligned (Second Step Alignment Charts, 2017). Effectiveness was measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. A comparison of Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) was used to EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 7 quantify the extent and amount of externalizing behavioral infractions as compared to the previous school year. The study will not only quantify the efficacy of SEL as evidenced by behavioral infractions, but also the self-reported instructional attitudes and competencies of the teachers who are providing SEL instruction to both regular and special education students through the use of a Likert-scale questionnaire. A qualitative inquiry was added to the questionnaire to report on the student behavioral observations conducted by teachers. This was used to detennine the program's effects on the prosocial and emotional competence of both regular education students and the special education students in need of emotional support. The qualitative inquiry also gauged the effect that the program had on the climate of the building students and their behaviors within the school. Research Questions • What is the effectiveness of the Second Step SEL Curriculum on student behavior as evidenced by Office Disciplinary Referrals when it is delivered in the regular education classroom at a universal level? • After completing one year of the program, what are the attitudes and responses of both regular and special education teachers with regard to the implementation of delivering social-emotional instruction? • What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following categories: emotional support students and their behaviors; regular education students and their behaviors; and, the school climate and culture? EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 8 Definition of Terms Collaborative for Academic Social Emotional Learning (CASEL)- Advocacy organization with a mission to establish evidence-based SEL in education systems, pre-K through high school, throughout the entire country (Weissberg, 2015). Common Core- standardized goals set forth by the National Governors Association to provide academic targets for each grade level (United States Department of Education, 2020). Economically Disadvantaged- Pennsylvania Department of Education states that a school district has the discretion to determine what classifies a student as economically disadvantaged (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2020). The school district in which the study is being conducted, defines Economically Disadvantaged as those students who qualify for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program. To qualify for this program, families must apply and be located within a specific income threshold as compared to the number of dependents in their household (United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 2020). Emotional Support (ES)-A special education placement for students with disabilities in need of specially designed instruction due to the adverse effect of their inappropriate emotional responses, social interpersonal interactions, and/or functional behaviors on their ability to learn (Pa Code 22, Chapter 14, 2008). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 9 Free and Appropriate Public Education (F APE)- a key provision of IDEA that mandates that all students in the United States, regardless of ability or disability, will be able to attend a public education institution at no cost and receive educational instruction that meets their individual needs either through regular education or special education (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). Individuals with Disability Act (IDEA)-Act that was originally passed in 1975 and then reauthorized in 2004. This act states that every child regardless of ability or disability is entitled to a free and appropriate public education (F APE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). Infinite Campus (IC)- The school district's student information system. All demographic, behavioral, grading, and student information is located on this system. Ad hoc data reports can be completed to provide smaller and more focused data reports from this system. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)- a central component ofIDEA requiring that students who receive special education services will receive those services with their regular education peers as much as is appropriate to do so (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Mental Health- As defined by the World Health Organization; "a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community" (World Health Organization, 2004). Minor Incident Report (MIR)- At the school being studied, these are forms that are filled out for students who do not abide by the SOAR behavioral expectations and engage in inappropriate behaviors on a smaller scale. Examples include; talking at inappropriate times, being unkind, not following school rules, etc. A full breakdown is included in Appendix D. These minor incidents are dealt with by the teacher on a personal level and no official office disciplinary consequence is given. When three MIRs accumulate for a student, the teacher will write an ODR and all three MIRs will then be logged into the district's student information system, Infinite Campus. Multi-Tiered System of Supports/Response to Intervention (MTSS/RTI)- An academic and behavioral intervention system that utilizes regular use of data to monitor progress and provide different levels of evidence-based support typically within a three-tier system. Generally, Tier One being a universal evidence-based practice, Tier Two is a small group evidence-based practice, and Tier Three is an individualized evidence-based intervention. (Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016). Office Disciplinary Referral (ODR)- At the school being studied, when a student has received three MIRs or commits a more egregious offense, as outlined in the district's EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 11 Discipline Matrix located in Appendix E, the teacher will fill out an ODR. The student will be called down to the office to receive a disciplinary consequence that is commensurate with the district's board approved matrix. The consequence will be logged in Infinite Campus. Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)-Type of a conceptual framework designed for a school system to build its practice of establishing and sustaining a positive school culture with behavior supports to ensure academic and behavioral success. All of the school's processes and procedures tie back to the guiding principles that the school identifies as being the cornerstone characteristics for their student body (Association for Positive Behavior Support, 2019). Regular Education- Education that is given to the general population of all students. Second Step- Comprehensive K-5 evidence-based SEL program that provides ageappropriate differentiated K-5 curriculums with defined lesson plans for each grade level that are CASEL, SWPBS, MTSS/RTI, and Common Core Aligned (Second Step Alignment Charts, 20 I 7). SOAR- The study school's PBIS system. Students are taught behavior expectations of Being Safe, Organized, Accepting, and Respectful. The school's behavioral expectations are aligned to these four principles and they have operational definitions displayed for each area within the school. There are various incentives, assemblies, and common EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 12 language that align the various academic and behavioral systems within the school under the SOAR framework. Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)-The conceptual framework which seeks to prevent mental health and behavioral problems by teaching students the competence of five domains: self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision making, relationship skills, and social awareness (Weissberg et al., 2015). Socioeconomic Status- The American Psychological Association defines socioeconomic status as "the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation" (2020). Special Education- Type of individualized education provided to students who have been identified as needing specially designed instruction through the classification of one of the 13 disability categories identified in IDEA (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2020). Trauma-Informed Education- Framework of providing instruction that is sensitive to students who have experienced adverse life events such as; abuse, neglect, violence, or witness to such an event. Trauma-Informed Education aims to repair the personal regulatory and attachment deficits that occur as a result of those events and build upon the strengths of the individual student (Bruznell et al., 2016). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 13 Universal Delivery-Method of instruction that encompasses all learners in the environment. Procedures This study utilized a mixed-method approach to provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the efficacy of Second Step. This was achieved through a pre/post analysis of ODRs and a post-program analysis with both a standardized questionnaire that features strong inter-item reliability and strong content validity, and an open-ended questionnaire. The mixed-method approach provides both empirical and descriptive evidence to either support the efficacy of the program or highlight its deficiencies. The inclusion of the qualitative data serves in an explanatory function, to provide a contextual understanding and discuss the positive and/or negative aspects of the empirical findings and program implementation. Implementation of Second Step occurred during the 2020-2021 school year. Teachers were given an introductory in-service on the program and received ongoing professional development about the program throughout the year as outlined in the Implementation Timeline (Appendix A). Teachers provided the Second Step SEL instruction to students approximately every week. Second Step has 22 weekly lesson plans for grades 1-5 and 25 weekly lessons for Kindergarten. The start and end guidelines, whole school assembly, and whole school announcement schedule are included in Appendix A. At the end of the program, the teachers were given a questionnaire to qualitatively assess their views and perceptions of student behavior, both regular and special ed. The EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 14 questionnaire is included in Appendix B. The teachers also completed the questionnaire; Teacher Attitudes about Social and Emotional Learning (TASEL) located in Appendix C. A quantitative analysis was also conducted to provide empirical evidence to substantiate the efficacy of the program. This was achieved through the analysis of ODRs in comparison to the previous year. Year to year comparisons were made for the whole student body. Significance of Study This study is significant in that it not only contributes to the evidence base surrounding the efficacy of SEL instruction and the Second Step program, but it also highlights previously unstudied aspects. While there is an evidentiary base to suppo1t the positive social, emotional, and academic results of Second Step (Edwards et al., 2005; Frey et al., 2005; Low et al., 2015; Low, Smolkowski et al., 2019) the program has not been studied while focusing on the efficacy of the program on special education students. Specifically, special education students who are identified as emotional support, when the program is delivered at the universal level. An additional aspect of the study, that does not have a significant amount of research base, is the analysis of teachers and their perceived competence of providing SEL instruction to students. As teachers are the primary disseminators of this instruction, it is important to study their comfort level of providing this type of instruction. Uniquely, this study was able to examine the implementation and effects of SEL during a school year taking place within the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 15 collected during the course of the school has significant research implications as this type of event is a once in a hundred-year occurrence. Aside from the global contribution of the study, this study provides an evidence base at the local level. By studying the impact on fonnal disciplinary processes such as ODRs, the empirical findings will help to justify whether or not to provide this SEL resource throughout the school and/or district. The ramifications of the study may be used to drive resource conversations at the district level and help to prioritize district-wide initiatives regarding academic and mental health resources. Basic Assumptions All of the teachers in this study are Pennsylvania certified elementary or special education public school teachers, counselors, or educational psychologists. The individuals are familiar with the school's disciplinary process of ODRs and follow this disciplinary system with fidelity. This study operates under the basic assumptions that those who are identified as needing special education services have been so identified through a formal evaluation process conducted by a certified educational psychologist. Those identified students qualify for special education under one of the 13 disability categories as identified by IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). More specifically, the subgroup of emotional support students in this study have been identified through this process and have been found to need emotional support services. The students that qualify for this need, do so under either the classification of emotionally disturbed or through another health impairment; needs that preclude them from attaining their education without the EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 16 added social and emotional support and individualized accommodations for their social and emotional needs. Limitations of Study The limitations of this study can be found in the scope of its geographic location. While the school represents a fairly diverse population with almost 8% of its population as English Language Learners and 20% of its students identified as non-white, this study is limited to the suburban region of northwest Pennsylvania (Millcreek Township School District, 2020). A more comprehensive look at various regions in rural and urban neighborhoods with the same research parameters would provide a more global perspective. An additional limitation of this study is that the 2019-2020 behavior data was only collected through approximately 3 quarters due to the COVID-19 school closures. In light of this, the 2020-2021 behavior data that was compared in the pre/post quantitative analysis only included ODR behavior data associated with the same number of days that school was in session during both the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. The instructional delivery model of the 2020-2021 school year was also different as it was impacted by safety measures for the COVID-19 pandemic. The school year included hybrid, virtual, and in-person models throughout the year. However, these various models did not limit the delivery of SEL as it was administered in all three models. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 17 Organization of Study The articulation of this study is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provides the contextual background of the problem while also providing an overview of the study with guiding research questions. The second chapter will review the relevant research with foci on the justification of social-emotional learning within a school system, the efficacy of social-emotional learning on students, the evidence-base of the selected SEL program, Second Step, and other programs that were excluded from consideration. The third chapter will discuss, in detail, the methodology behind the study. Chapter Four will present the results of quantitative and qualitative inquiries. The study will conclude with the fifth chapter, which will discuss the findings, implications, and an overall summary of the study. The genesis of this study came from a school's need to find a solution to a problem. Their question of; how to address socially maladaptive behaviors and inappropriate emotional responses, led to a significant amount of research into both social-emotional learning and the various program offerings associated with SEL. Based upon the needs of the study body, the SEL program, Second Step, was selected to be incorporated as a school-wide curriculum to attempt to address the social and emotional needs of the students. The study seeks to examine the efficacy of the program, both qualitatively and quantitatively, by examining student behavior and SEL instructional competence. Through the next chapter, the research around SEL and its educational programming will be explored. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 18 Chapter II - Literature Review Historical Background "It is critical to the future of a society that its children become competent adults and productive citizens. Thus, society and parents share a stake in the development of competence and in understanding the processes that facilitate and undermine it. Research on competence builds a fundamental knowledge base for policies and programs that aim to promote successful development" (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998, p. 205). Genesis of Social Emotional Learning- School systems are tasked with preparing students for success in college, careers, and life. This has traditionally been met through the encouragement of academic success. However, recent research has suggested that in order to cultivate this academic success, students require skills for social and emotional competence (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2018). Despite this knowledge, the dissemination of these social and emotional skills is not an established, or widely recognized, systematic component of education systems (Greenberg et al., 2003). A widely transforming societal culture in America has set the stage to suggest a shift in pedagogical framework to encourage the incorporation and implementation of social and emotional learning is needed. This can be seen through the transformation of the family landscape within the past century. With the increasing unfettered access to information and media and a seemingly constant global-interconnectedness, families find themselves under increased social and economic pressures (Weissberg et al., 2015). In EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 19 addition to these pressures, children show an increasing disengagement with school systems (Klem & Connell, 2004). Counterintuitively, this increase in disengagement is coupled with decreasing support for institutions that grow a child's social and emotional competency. Thus, putting extra pressure on the educators and the education system to address these needs (Weissberg et al., 2015). To address these needs collectively, a group of educators, advocates, and researchers met in 1994 at the Fetzer Institute, a research foundation in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The group met to collaborate on strategies to reduce student behavioral and mental health issues while increasing their social-emotional competence, academic performance, health, and citizenship. This meeting was the genesis of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Through their organization, CASEL created the concept of"Social Emotional Learning" (SEL) (Elias et al., 1997). Since the creation of SEL, a framework has been developed to provide guidance to school systems as they work to increase the social and emotional competency of their students. Theory of Discipline Relative to Research Questions Social Emotional Learning (SEL)- SEL is a conceptual framework to help schools prevent mental health and behavioral problems by increasing prosocial and emotional competencies. CASEL categorizes these competencies into five domains: selfawareness, self-management, responsible decision making, relationship skills, and social awareness (Weissberg et al., 2015). These five domains provide the framework and foundation of social and emotional programming. The effectiveness of the five domains EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 20 is evidenced through an increase in prosocial behaviors, emotional competence, academic achievement, and a decrease in negative behavioral incidences (Greenberg et al., 2003). CASEL advocates delivering these five domains by utilizing evidence-based SEL curriculum and programs that are implemented universally, either school or district-wide. The program must incorporate and encourage positive classroom relationships between teachers and students, whereas the lesson instruction must provide opp01iunities for the students to practice and model the skills that are being taught (CASEL, 2013). It is imperative that teachers not only incorporate direct SEL instruction but also to embed and integrate the skills across the various academic learning settings and within the culture and climate of the building (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). Skill integration should be reinforced in the home setting through continuous communication with the family unit. The programming should include ongoing professional development for staff, as teachers are the recommended disseminators of this instruction to fmiher facilitate relationship building. (CASEL, 2013). Figure 1 provides an illustration from CASEL regarding this SEL framework (CASEL, 2017). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 21 Figure 1 SEL Framework Through CASEL's research and guidance, educators, psychologists, and program developers have worked to create programming that provides the recommended ongoing, systematic, coordinated SEL incorporation into school systems (Greenberg et al., 2003). Further discussion will highlight how several of these SEL programs are evidenced to have significant benefits for students who partake in them. These benefits are evidenced in students' social and emotional growth, a decrease in conduct problems and behaviors, and improvement in academic achievement. Social and Emotional Growth of Students Participating in SEL- When measuring social and emotional growth, researchers typically measure both competencies together. This is due to the enforcement of the social and emotional symbiotic relationship created by program developers to integrate the skills of emotion, cognition, EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 22 communication, and behavior of participants (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Crick & Dodge, 1994). Two meta-analyses specifically highlight the overarching benefits of partaking in social emotional programming. The first meta-analysis focused on the social and emotional programmatic benefits of SEL, while the second had a focus on the mental health and academic achievement benefits of SEL. In 2011, Durlak et al., sought to comprehensively measure the social and emotional competencies of individuals that participated in SEL programming. The researchers completed a meta-analysis of various SEL efficacy studies. Their metaanalysis encompassed 213 schools that implemented universal, Tier 1, SEL instruction. The total sample size of their study consisted of 270,034 students, ranging from kindergarten through 12th grade. Through analysis of the differences between groups that received SEL instruction (treatment) and groups that did not (control), the averages of the SEL competencies were compared. The difference in those averages, in statistical terms, is called effect size. Through this statistical measurement, an effect size of 0.2 means that the treatment is found to have a small effect, 0.5 means that there is a medium effect, and 0.8 means there is a large effect (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017). Through their findings, Durlak, et al. discovered that SEL instruction accounted for a 0.69 effect size, with regard to social cognition, emotional recognition, stress-management, empathy, problem-solving, and decision-making skills (2011 ). The second meta-analysis of universal, school-based social and emotional learning was conducted by Sklad et al., in 2012. Sklad et al. examined 75 SEL efficacy studies that were published from 1995-2008. The researchers examined seven outcome EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 23 categories; academic achievement, antisocial behavior, mental disorders, positive selfimage, prosocial behavior, social-emotional skills, and substance abuse. Through their meta-analysis, the researchers found that there were positive effects on all seven outcomes. The largest positive effects were found in the social-emotional skills category, whereby program participants had 76% better skills in this category than their controlled counterparts (Sklad et al., 2012). As the 2011 Dudak et al. and 2012 Sklad et al. meta-analyses highlighted the immediate social and emotional benefits of participating in a school-based SEL program, a follow-up meta-analysis was conducted to review the long-term effects on students after having participated in a school-based SEL program. In 2017, Taylor et al., conducted a longitudinal meta-analysis by sampling studies that consisted of 82 schools with 97,406 students from kindergarten through 12th grade. While conducting the follow-up, the researchers created seven outcome categories to be measured. Four of the categories measured growth in social and emotional skills; attitudes toward self, others, and school; positive social behaviors; and academic performance. Three of the outcome categories measure decreases in; conduct problems; emotional distress; and substance abuse (Taylor et al., 2017). In the study, the researchers examined the follow-up effects of SEL programming at least six months or more removed from the program. The researchers found that all seven outcome categories had statistically significant results as an effect of participation in the SEL programs. The effect sizes ranged between .13-.33 and the improvement percentage was found to have increased by 5.17-12.93% in all categories (Taylor et al., 2017). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 24 These meta-analytical evidentiary findings of the positive causal effects of SEL and its increase in prosocial and emotional competence have shown that observable and measurable gains can be realized from partaking in these programs both immediate and in the long term. Additional research also exists to suggest that SEL instruction can have a neurological effect on students. Greenberg suggests that certain executive functioning skills can be positively affected by students who partake in SEL programs. This occurs within the prefrontal areas of the cortex, as the programs emphasize inhibitory control and planning (Greenberg, 2006). Improved Behaviors from SEL- In conjunction with the social and emotional growth of students who partake in school-based SEL, there is also an improvement of socially acceptable behaviors (Durlak et al., 2011 ). Domitrovich et al., completed a metaanalysis in 2017 of five studies that examined SEL program effects on problem behaviors. The five studies collectively covered 300 published and unpublished studies encompassing over 300,000 students. Through this review they found that SEL programs had statistically significant effect sizes of .14-.26 on the outcomes of students' at-risk and problem behaviors (2017). Not only is this behavior benefit observed in the sh01t-term, but Domitrovich et al. reviewed several research studies to suggest that this improvement in behaviors can be observed longitudinally (2017). A study by Eddy et al., found after a 120-week follow-up of student patiicipation in SEL that there was a decrease of 18.5% in arrests for students who participated in SEL versus their control group counterparts (2003). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 25 Further, Jones et al., performed a longitudinal examination of the correlational effects between students with high social and emotional competence in kindergarten and their behavioral outcomes in adulthood. Through this study, the researchers found that those students who had a higher level of social and emotional competence were less likely to receive public assistance, be incarcerated, or engage in substance abuse (2015). Impacting Special Education Students- The implications of these studies suggest that while SEL increases competencies in all students, it has a significant impact on those with lower pretest scores. In the current study, it was determined that it will be important to examine the results of not only the entire student population but also the specific effects of those students in special education for emotional support services. When establishing an SEL curriculum within a school district, the research and evidence base suggests that universal implementation not only affects the behavior of those students with little to minimal problem behaviors but also those students who have significant behavior issues who would usually be targeted for a small group (tier 2) or individual (tier 3) interventions. Novak et al., advocate for universal SEL interventions over targeted ones as they provide preventative interventions and more practice for higher risk children (2017). They argue that universal interventions provide a nuanced effect of individualization as the universal nature helps to target a wide variety of SEL skills. The researchers also argue that when all children participate in the interventions, there is less stigmatization of the higher risk children (Novak et al., 2017). Duncan et al., conducted a growth measure study examining the growth trajectory of social, emotional, and behavioral skills of students who participated in an evidence- EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 26 based SEL program. Their randomized study included 1,129 students from 14 different schools. Through their growth trajectory analysis, they found that regardless of the behavioral trajectory, whether it be minimal externalizing negative behaviors or prevalent externalizing negative behaviors, all students were projected to make equivalent gains in their competencies. They further suggest that the implications of these findings can most likely be attributed to other evidence-based SEL programs. The authors' conclusions provide more support for the integration of SEL at the universal level as opposed to a targeted, individualized approach (Duncan et al., 2018). This research suggests that those who are identified with significant behavioral issues can be positively impacted by a universal SEL curriculum. These students do not necessarily need individually targeted interventions, as the positive effects of the universal interventions can mitigate many of the behavioral issues. The research helps to provide support for the universal delivery of SEL instruction. Social and emotional growth and improved behaviors are the main targets of social-emotional learning. However, by being more competent in these constructs, there is a direct academic benefit associated with SEL programming (Zins et al., 2007). Academic Growth Associated with SEL- While not a direct academic pedagogical practice, there is a great body of research behind a correlation to SEL competence and academic achievement (Zins et al., 2004; Zins et al., 2004). Aside from this research base, there is also an empirical body of evidence illustrating the efficacy of SEL with regard to academic achievement. The 2011 Durlak et al. meta-analysis found a documented 11 percentile gain in academic performance in a subset of their analysis (2011). The 2017 longitudinal meta-analysis conducted by Taylor et al., found that those EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 27 who participated in SEL programs had a 6% increase in high school graduation rates, an 11 % increase in college completion rates, and 6% fewer placements in special education (201 7). In the Sklad et al., meta-analysis there was an immediate statistically significant effect size of .46 that SEL had on academic achievement. Furthermore, at follow-up, the effect of SEL on academic achievement was measured in an effect size of .26 (2012). In their report, The Positive Impact of Social and Emotional Learning for Kindergarten to Eight-Grade Students, Payton et al. state: "The positive impact of these programs on academic outcomes, including school grades and standardized achievement test scores, was particularly noteworthy in light of the current educational policy environment in which schools are held accountable for raising student test scores. Although some educators argue against implementing this type of holistic programming because it takes valuable time away from core academic material, our findings suggest that SEL programming not only does not detract from academic performance but actually increases students' performance on standardized tests and grades" (Payton et al., 2008, p. 16). This research helped to guide the current study as an initiative to produce, replicate and ultimately expand upon these findings. SEL as an Aspect of Trauma-Informed Education- The evidence and research surrounding the academic achievement effects of SEL is not surprising when examining the psychological research that links the correlation between academics and SEL. In their article, Trauma-Sensitive Schools: An Evidence-Based Approach, Plumb, et al. discussed adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and how they can preclude a student from EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 28 achieving in an academic setting. They state that most ACEs are caused by complex trauma and that two-thirds of the American population are believed to have at least one ACE. The researchers go on to discuss the impact that ACEs have on focusing, learning, self-regulation, decision-making, empathy, regulating emotions, managing stress, emotional regulation, and social deficits (2016). They state: "Students' significant emotional and behavioral needs take precedence over their academic needs because, as previously discussed, they will most likely have difficulty learning if their brains are in a hypo-aroused or hyper-aroused state" (Plumb et al., 2016, pp, 44-45.). The research of Plumb et al. suggests that SEL is a component in helping schools become more trauma-informed in their approach to students. Emotional literacy and problem-solving are two of the individual capacities that help treat students dealing with trauma by increasing their resiliency (Plumb et al., 2016) SEL helps to bolster the enforcement of these two areas (Payton et al., 2008). By increasing students' resiliency, they are being provided with protective strategies and processes that reduce maladaptive behaviors (Greenberg, 2006). SEL is presented as a trauma-informed pedagogy that increases both social and emotional growth and academic achievement while decreasing the negative behaviors of students. It also presents comprehensive prevention and intervention strategies to 21stcentury students of all abilities. Not only are the positive effects realized in the aforementioned skills, but fmiher discussion will highlight the research that suggests SEL fills a cultural gap in education systems by working in conjunction with school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports to provide a balanced holistic approach. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 29 Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and SEL-Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) is a conceptual framework designed for school systems to build their practice of establishing and sustaining a positive school culture with behavior supp01is to ensure student academic and behavioral success (Association for Positive Behavior Support, 2020). Both SEL and PBIS have overlapping behavioral goals, however, they are often implemented in isolation (Durlak et al., 2011). There is growing research and preliminary evidentiaiy support to suggest their integration with one another (Cook et al., 2015). Before discussing the intersection of SEL and PBIS in a school setting, it is first important to understand the research and concept behind PBIS. The PBIS system was developed out of Applied Behavior Analytic (ABA) approach to intervention (Horner & Sugai, 2015). In accordance with the assumptions of ABA, the system adheres to a data collection process that focuses on changing student and educator behavior based on school-wide policies and procedures. After data on behavioral incidents are collected and analyzed, school systems utilize the implementation of a multi-tiered intervention model to prevent school problems and teach appropriate behavior and thus, improve school culture (Bear et al., 2015). PBIS's framework follows the multitiered systems of support (MTSS) model. MTSS is a continuum of supports that is grounded in evidence-based practices and data decision making. It typically occurs within a three-tier system (Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016). An illustration of this three-tier system is found in Figure 2 (Oklahoma State Department of Education, 2020). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 30 Figure 2 P BISIMTSS Tier Illustration Tier one intervention in a PBIS framework constitutes a universal preventive behavioral intervention. The main component of tier one is the use of positive reinforcers to promote expected school-wide behaviors to the entire school population (Bear et al., 2015). Burke et al. assert that students who are found to meet the expectations of the tier one PBIS programming, generally coincide with aspects of overall positive behavior. The researchers also correlate that those who did not meet the tier one expectations score higher on behavioral rating scales. Whether or not a student adheres to the expectations in tier one will affect if he or she will be recommended for further intervention in tier two (Burke et al., 2014). The second tier of a PBIS system can be used to target the roughly 10-15% of students who are not successful in tier one. This second tier provides small group, educational experiences for students to learn expected behaviors in a positive and supportive fashion when participation in tier one is not sufficient enough for their success. Tier two has students focus on building social skills, mentoring, check-ins, and EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 31 self-regulation and management (Horner & Sugai, 2015). Bruhn et al. examined three different, tier two interventions to facilitate tier two skill-building; Check In Check Out (CICO), Check, Connect, and Expect (CCE), or the Behavior Education Program (BEP). Bruhn et al. found these interventions to lead to an increase in academic engagement and decreases in problem behaviors and office disciplinary referral (ODR) rates (2014). The third tier of the PBIS system is reserved for roughly 5% of the student population that does not respond to the first two tiers of support. These are generally students with an individualized education plan (IEP) to help support them behaviorally (Horner & Sugai, 2015). The behavioral goals in the IEP are derived from a functional behavior assessment (FBA). The FBA includes a summary statement that describes the relationship between an environmental event and the problem behavior(s) of the student. After the summary or hypothesis statement is made, observational data is collected. This data can consist of frequency recording, intermittent re-coding, duration recording, or latency recording of problem behaviors. It can also come from teacher interviews, direct observation of the student, a review of records, behavioral rating scales, students, and personal interviews. After the function of the behavior is determined, then appropriate antecedent strategies are defined as well as replacement behaviors to serve the same function as the negative behaviors. Also defined in the FBA are the consequences, both positive and negative, for engaging in either the replacement or negative behaviors. Once the FBA is developed, progress monitoring should occur regularly to ensure that the student is making progress towards their established behavior goals (Cooper et al., 2008). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 32 These three tiers of a PBIS system function to positively affect student behavior, just as SEL does. While both share common goals and bear similarities, each system utilizes different strategies to ultimately achieve their goals (Bear et al., 2015). Intersection of SEL and PBIS-Both SEL and PBIS advocate for evidence-based techniques to establish life skills that give students the ability to increase their capacities proactively in social competence and behavioral regulation (Bear et al., 2015). However, PBIS is viewed as more of a teacher-driven classroom management mechanism as the teachers are who reinforce the student behaviors. The focus on immediate reinforcement for behavior leads PBIS to be viewed as an immediate short-term fix as it does not address the underlying root cause of the behavior (Plumb et al., 2016). Juxtaposed to the short-term fix is SEL which is student-driven. SEL is viewed as a more long-term fix, in that it works to address the long-term root issues and challenges that plague the student (Plumb et al., 2016). In simplest terms, SEL focuses on teaching the behaviors through a curriculum, whereas PBIS reinforces positive behavior expectations (Cook et al., 2015). SEL and PBIS have a somewhat synergistic effect in that where one system lacks aspects, the other system will compensate. (Cook et al., 2015). Both skills are needed and can work in concert with one another. As SEL works with more internalizing and student acquired self-management skills, PBIS focuses on the extrinsic rules that teachers positively reinforce to manage student behavior. (Osher et al., 2010). Osher et al. argue for the integration of SEL and PBIS programs by providing students with exposure to various universal preventative supports. Both methodologies stress positive approaches to behavior change rather than punitive. Osher et al., states that the programs are complementary and work to establish a positive, supportive, learning EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 33 environment that empowers students in their development of behavioral competencies (2010). Cook et al., cited a paucity of evidence with regard to the integration of PBIS and SEL. Therefore, they conducted a study where they utilized a quasi-experimental design to examine the efficacy of an integrated SEL and PBIS approach. The researchers found that while SEL and PBIS acting as stand-alone systems have significant effects on student behavior, as opposed to those control classrooms, the combined effect of both SEL and PBIS realized significantly greater behavioral improvements (Cook et al., 2015). Cook et al. argue that in an MTSS model, the universal tier-one delivery of content looks to target all students. However, they state: "A singular or standalone approach to universal prevention, however, may be shortsighted if the goal is to address the diverse mental health needs of students" (Cook et al., 2015, p.168). They state that an integrated approach with PBIS and SEL can be advantageous by providing a more comprehensive and complementary approach to address students' needs (Cook et al., 2015). There is an established PBIS system at the school where this paper's study was conducted. The aforementioned studies offer a promising view of the integration of a new SEL program within the study school's current PBIS system as both offer systemic frameworks to positively affect student social interactions and behaviors at school. Up until recently, these systems existed in isolation. However, recent research and experimental studies have suggested that when the two frameworks work in concert with one another, they can have a greater complementary effect on students and increase the efficiency of their results. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 34 SEL and Building Climate- As the universal delivery of SEL impacts all student's competencies, research suggests the building climate will also begin to be positively affected. There is a current belief that the relationship between SEL and a building's climate is bidirectional. In their issue brief, Osher and Berg define a school's climate as the "culture, norms, goals, values, practices, characteristics of relationships, and organizational structures" (p. 3., 2017). They go on to argue that SEL and school climate have significant overlap in their core elements of; supportive relationships, engagement, safety, cultural competence, cultural responsiveness, and challenge with high expectations (Osher & Berg, 2017). Making a basic correlation, Osher and Berg state that evidentiary data suggests that SEL lowers disciplinary incidents and behavioral disruptions, leading to a more positive, safer learning environment and increased positive school climate. Conversely, if the climate is a safe, and supportive environment, then students will be more apt to engage in SEL and further develop their competencies. They argue that the relationship is defined by a cyclical influence (Osher & Berg, 2017). The influence on school climate can be seen through the universal implementation of SEL affecting all subgroups of students exhibiting negative behavior. This includes those who are identified as behaviorally challenged and those who are not. Teacher Attitudes and Perceptions of Teaching SEL- Affecting the climate of a school building, creating positive outcomes in students, and establishing an SEL program effectively, is contingent upon the quality of implementation (Schultz et al., 2010). Schultz et al. described the need to assess the implementation from the lens of teacher disseminators to remove ban-iers and drive quality implementation. The EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 35 researchers developed a questionnaire to examine; teachers' perceptions of administrative support, teacher competence with program delivery, teacher attitudes about program necessity, teacher attitudes about program effectiveness, the time constraints for program delivery, and teacher attitudes regarding responsibility for the social-emotional development of their students (Schultz et al., 2010). The researchers state that while their initial study only measured the teachers' attitudes and perceptions mid-way through the implementation year, they state that administering the questionnaire at multiple points in implementation can provide valuable information before, during, and/or after, program implementation (Schultz et al., 2010). The questionnaire that Schultz et al. developed, "Teacher Attitudes about Social and Emotional Learning (TASEL), was utilized in this study to examine teacher attitudes and instructional competence, and implementation. The questionnaire is located in Appendix E (Schultz et al., 2010). Cost-Benefit Analysis of SEL- When it comes to the efficiency of SEL, Benjamin Franklin's quote that "time is money" (Franklin, p.188., 1978) is very much applicable to the integration of the SEL framework. In a unique, seminal study, Belfield, et al. completed a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of SEL interventions in school systems. This analysis was conducted to examine the economic value of SEL to determine whether an investment was worth participating in the program (2015). To start, Belfield et al., created a framework utilizing both economic and methodological principles to establish a monetary value for specific SEL skills. The researchers then applied that framework to SEL efficacy studies to measure the costs and benefits. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then the researchers believe that SEL is worth EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 36 the investment for school systems. For this study, costs were not limited to the monetary value of resources and materials, but also what time and resources are now reallocated or displaced due to the integration of a program that takes up a previous allotment of time (Belfield et al., 2015). Belfield et al. examined four separate SEL curricular programs that have evidence-based quantitative studies supporting their efficacy. The programs selected were 4Rs, Life Skills Training (LST), Second Step, and Responsive Classroom. After completing the analysis through their framework, the researchers found that, overall, interventions were found to have inexpensive costs. They concluded that the benefit of SEL instruction substantially outweighed the cost, where in some cases a $1 expenditure translated to an $11 benefit (2015). They further state; " ... only a fraction of the overall benefits are being calculated. If immediate benefits were properly modeled and all benefits were included, the present value benefits of SEL interventions would likely exceed costs by even larger magnitudes" (Belfield et al., p. 540, 2015). Current Literature Relative to Research Questions Various Evidence-Based SEL Programs-Both the BCA and the previously mentioned meta-analyses include a variety of evidence-based SEL programs. While all of these programs have evidenced positive results, it is important to examine the various programs and discuss considerations when determining which program to implement within a school. In 2013, CASEL published a guide entitled Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs: Preschool and Elementmy School Edition. In this guide they EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 37 reviewed 23 different K-5 evidence-based SEL programs. Their review was broken into two parts. The first part was a breakdown of implementation and program design. This aspect of the review provided a snapshot of each program by providing information on; which grade range was covered, the grade by grade sequence, the average number of sessions per year, if they included explicit skills instruction, integration with academic curriculum areas, whether there were opportunities to practice SEL skills, which environmental contexts were used to promote and reinforce concepts, and the assessment tools for monitoring both student behavior and program implementation (CASEL, 2013). The second part of the review focused on the evidence-base that was attributed to each program. This aspect provided information about the demographics of the study, the type of quantitative methodology that was utilized, and the evaluation outcomes (CASEL, 2013). In addition to the program reference guide provided by CASEL, the Harvard Graduate School of Education provided a report in 2017 entitled; Navigating SEL From the Inside Out: Looking Inside & Across 25 Leading SEL Programs: A Practical Resource for Schools and OST Providers (Elementa,y School Focus). In this report, the researchers examined 25 different SEL curriculums. In their report, they examined the specific skills targeted by each program, the instructional methods used in each program, and the specific components of each program (Jones et al., 2017). Both the Harvard and CASEL program lists can be found in Figure 3. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 38 Figure 3 SEL Program Lists Combining the two reports, there were a total of 48 program reviews completed. Of the programs reviewed, 13 were reviewed in both repo1is for a total of 35 different programs being examined. These references and reviews helped to guide the study school through examination of SEL programs suited to address their school-wide needs. Prior to selection, certain parameters of the program needed to be established. The program needed to have a significant evidence base supporting its efficacy in the needed competency areas of social-emotional learning. The system also had to be able to fit within the master schedule, be a K-5 school-wide system, include direct instruction on SEL skills during the school day, including teacher training, and have an implementation design that included flexibility for weekly lessons with daily embedded activities across EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 39 various academic curriculums. Figure 4 illustrates the selection process with these search parameters. From the list of 35 different programs, the first step was to only include those that were evidence-based. The programs also needed to be designed for K-5 instruction. This narrowed the list to 23 programs. From there, programs that did not include a direct instruction component that was differentiated by grade level and administered during the school day were also eliminated. This left 13 programs. From there, one program was excluded due to its lack of ability to embed and integrate the program in other academic areas, bringing the total to 12. The final 12 programs all included a teacher training component which was included in the search criterion. All 12 also have at least one experimental or quasi-experimental study to provide evidence for the program's efficacy (CASEL, 2013 & Jones et al., 2017). In examining the individual studies, Competent Kids, Caring Communities only had evidence to suggest an academic improvement; there was no evidence to suggest improvement in SEL competency or behavior. This led to its elimination. The remaining 11 studies all had realized gains in SEL competence and prosocial behavior. To further narrow down the program selection, many of the programs only had one or two studies in their evidence base. Only three studies had an evidence base of multiple randomized studies (CASEL, 2013 & Jones et al., 2017). The decision was made to focus on these three programs due to the significant amount of evidentiary impact on SEL competencies. The three programs are Positive Action, PATHS, and Second Step. After the reports from Harvard Graduate School and CASEL were referenced to narrow down the program selection, an individual look at the evidence base of the three EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 40 remaining programs was examined in greater detail. The individual study results are explored, with Positive Action serving as the first review. Positive Action is a comprehensive school-based social and emotional learning curriculum incorporating different tiers by grade level. There is an incorporated schoolwide model as well as cunicular lessons for each grade level. Grades K-6 utilize 140 lessons that are 15 minutes long. Grades 7-8, on the other hand, use 82 lessons. The integration of the universal school-wide model, as well as the age/grade-specific lessons, help to create a more positive behavioral, social, and emotional climate within the school (CASEL, 2017; Duncan et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2016). Duncan et al. conducted a multi-year longitudinal study on Positive Action that was published in 2017. This study primarily focused on groups that were in a low socioeconomic and minority demographics. The study followed students as they progressed from 3rd to 8th grade in 14 different schools that utilized the Positive Action program. Through the study it was found that the Positive Action program benefited the student body as a whole. The holistic program helped to meet student needs and address issues before they became problems. Evidence was provided to showcase how the positive climate that was created helped to change the building culture and address the negative behavior trajectories of at-risk youth (Duncan et al., 2017). Guo et al., aimed to research the effects of the program on more rural areas. Their longitudinal study was conducted over a three-year period comparing two likedemographic rural counties. Both counties had significantly racially diverse populations in low-income, violent rural counties. The study focused on the three years of data on EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 41 middle school youth. Through the study, they found statistically significant results to support the use of the Positive Action program. More specifically, statistical significance was found in the areas of school hassles, such as bullying, and self-esteem. There was also evidence for a decrease in aggression scores, but the researchers did not find the decrease large enough to define it as statistically significant (Guo et al., 2015). An additional study examined the effects of the Positive Action program on what the researchers called "Positive Youth Development". This was studied in an urban, high ethnic, low-income setting throughout 3-8. The researchers defined Positive Youth Development as a focus on the psychological and social development in youth. More specifically, the researchers examined self-concept, morality, and social skills. Through the study, the researchers found that the comprehensive program provided evidence of favorable effects of the program on Positive Youth Development. The researchers were encouraged because the findings illustrated how effective the results were when dealing with the low socio-economic ethnic youth demographic (Lewis et al., 2016). The next program, PATHS, is a comprehensive program differentiated for grades PreK-6. In the program, there are a total of 36-52 lessons in each grade level that are expected to be delivered twice per week. There are also take-home opportunities to bridge communication between home and school (CASEL, 2013; Jones et al., 2017). Bierman et al. took an extensive examination of the use of PATHS across varying school districts and populations. Their study involved 2,937 children who went through the SEL program for three years in grades 1, 2, and 3. The researchers found that the universal intervention illustrated effectiveness for both social competence and lowering aggressive behaviors in students (Bierman et al., 20 I 0). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 42 Chi Ming Kam et al., illustrated the effects of this program on the special education student subgroup, specifically. They sought to isolate the effect of both regular education students and special education students. Although the study found significant positive effects on the whole population, there was not enough data to separate the specific program effect on the special education population. An important finding in the article found was that at baseline, students who were identified as needing special education had higher levels of externalizing and internalizing behaviors, depression, and lower levels of social and emotional problem-solving skills (Chi Ming Kam et al., 2004). Novak, et al., examined the efficacy of PATHS in Croatian elementary schools. The study sought to examine the difference in efficacy for two separate subgroups. Those who were high-risk at the point of pre-test and those who were low-risk at the point of the pre-test. The sample included a total of 568 first grade students from 30 different Croatian Elementary Schools. There were two significant major findings. The first was that there was a marginal statistical significance effect between the control and the treatment groups in the area of emotional regulation. The second finding was that the students in the high-risk subgroup illustrated no statistically significant effect from receiving the treatment. However, the low-risk subgroup found statistical significance in all categories (Novak et al., 2017). The last program examined was Second Step. Second Step provides ageappropriate differentiated K-5 curriculums with defined lesson plans for each grade level that are CASEL, PBIS, MTSS/RTI, and Common Core Aligned. There are 22-25 lessons that are designed to be delivered weekly. The program also provides embedded EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 43 integration for existing PBIS systems and academic courses as well as communication materials for home (CASEL, 2013; Jones et al., 2017, Low et al., 2019; Low et al., 2015). Low et al., conducted a large-scale randomized control study across 61 different schools with 321 teachers and approximately 7300 students. The study aimed to determine the efficacy of Second Step after one year of implementation. The study demonstrated that eight out of the eleven outcome SEL and behavioral variables had statistically significant improvement for students who lacked competency at the beginning of the program. This study highlights the benefits of the program for those students who have lower baselines for SEL competencies (Low et al., 2015) Following up on results from the I-year study, Low et al., examined the efficacy of Second Step over a 2-year implementation period. Their study encompassed 6 I schools, 321 teachers, and 8,941 students in two different states. This quantitative study took a longitudinal approach to analyze the effect on early elementary students. The sample included students in kindergarten through third grade from a total of six school districts in both rural and urban settings. The students selected were also from two different geographic areas, Washington and Arizona. In total 4,649 took part in the program from start to finish. The major finding was that students who took part in the Second Step curriculum achieved better results on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) than those students who did not. The SDQ is a measure of emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and prosocial competence. This was true regardless of the pre-test rating. The results were statistically significant and larger for those students who had lower pretest scores on both the SDQ and the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment-Second Step Edition (DESSA). DESSA EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 44 measured students' skills for learning, empathy, emotional management, and problemsolving. Another major finding was, contrary to the authors' hypothesis, there was no statistically significant improvement in academic achievement for those who took part in the program (Low et al., 2019). Through the in-depth review of program effects, a selection needed to be made. The program selected needed to meet the needs of school where the current study is taking place. Feasibility of Implementation-After examining the extensive evidence of the three remaining programs, all three had much evidence to warrant program implementation. The last aspect for consideration was feasibility. In a qualitative study examining teachers' viewpoints on SEL learning and implementation, Martinez found that although all teachers reported positive behavioral outcomes from SEL implementation, they rep01ied that time constraints were the largest obstacle that they had to overcome. The teachers stated in their focus groups and individual meetings that they needed scheduled time allotted for SEL instruction (Martinez, 2016). These same perceptions about lack of time affecting implementation were realized in the qualitative study of Ee and Cheng (2013). Consideration of teachers' concerns about implementation is essential, as the fidelity of implementation is an integral part of having an effective SEL program. Low et al., examined the results of SEL when compared to the fidelity of implementation. The researchers broke up the teachers into three groups; high-quality implementation, lowengagement, and low program adherence. High-quality implementation had a great deal of success but surprisingly, they had the most negative results in the low-engagement EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 45 class rather than the low program adherence class. This suggests that it is better not to implement a program than to do so poorly (Low et al., 2016). As the fidelity of implementation is evidenced to have a greater effect on SEL program efficacy, attention must be paid to the current schedule and how a specific program can be integrated into the master schedule without taking away from instructional time dedicated to academic subjects. While all three programs had the suppo1i to provide effective intervention to the current problem at the study school, Positive Action and PATHS required more time for direct instruction of skills. Positive Action had 140 lessons per grade level, and PATHS had 36-52 lessons. This time commitment, compared to Second Step with 22-25 lessons per grade level, was too significant considering all three programs had similar outcomes. The program design of Second Step allows for implementation on a flexible weekly basis to help ensure fidelity to the completion of the program. After an extensive review of various programming, Second Step was chosen to be utilized as the evidence-based SEL program. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 46 Figure 4 SEL Program Selection SEL Program Selection· Process l ------------~ ~Sdtool's + 1mpiementitron [ • Parameta-5~ second Step. 5turly school's impl"'"""tation Parameten;• _c l All Oi;ect lmtru::t.l:e.G"J!Vefi!don io·•.J=.= ... ·.... ·prrig.r.;mming •. ·mustb;:ab'.eto i. flexibf.it wffilyr?tatl~ Establishment of Second Step-Given that Second Step had been chosen for use in the study school, specific and additional background information will now be presented to establish background knowledge and explain the credibility of this curricula. In 1979, Committee for Children was founded to advance the study of child abuse and child sexual abuse. From their studies and research, the Committee for Children developed the Talking About Touching program in 1981. Talking About Touching was a personal safety curriculum that focused on teaching children how to recognize, resist, and report sexual victimization. As the program developed, so did the research regarding victimization. Committee for Children cited a growing research and evidence base to suggest that those individuals who are violent lack appropriate social and emotional competencies. From this realization and research, the Committee for Children began to EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 47 move on to the 'second step' of their company's vision and instead of focusing on reaction, began focusing on prevention (Committee for Children, 2018). Through the new focus on prevention strategies, Committee for Children developed their first version of Second Step. This first edition focused on primary abuse and prevention strategies and in 1998 was recognized by the White House as a "Model Program" in their annual Report of School Safety. In 2001 they were named to the United States Department of Education's "Safe and Drug-Free Schools Exemplary Program" and in 2002, CASEL awarded them "high marks" for their curriculum (Committee for Children, n.d.). Efficacy of Second Step-The initial Second Step program was evaluated in a study by Frey et al., in 2005. The study examined the effects of Second Step in control and treatment groups encompassing 1,253 children. The study found that students who partook in the program had higher levels of social competence, were less aggressive, and had more positive goals (Frey et al., 2005). In an additional study of the initial Second Step program, researchers found that students who partook in the program illustrated significant gains in prosocial behaviors and social-emotional skills (Edwards et al., 2005). In 2011, Committee for Children released its current version of Second Step. This program was evidenced to achieve better results in emotional management, prosocial competence, conduct, peer problems, hyperactivity, and problem-solving (Low et al., 2015; Low et al., 2019). Notably, the studies found statistically significant improvements in all students who had lower social-emotional pretest scores prior to treatment. These individuals had significant improvement in peer relations, emotional management, problem-solving, and skills for learning (Low et al., 2015; Low et al., 2019). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 48 Based on the rigor and effectiveness identified by these authors, Second Step was chosen to serve as the curricula used to intervene in the current study. The means for the evaluation of its efficacy will be discussed in the following chapter Summary Even though SEL is a relatively new educational concept and framework, the literature surrounding SEL illustrates that it can have a tremendous impact on the students and climate within a school system. Evidence suppmis SEL programming for increasing prosocial behaviors, emotional competencies, and academic achievement while decreasing conduct behaviors. These causal effects of SEL programming meet the criterion for trauma-informed care and have a substantial benefit when considered in respect to cost-benefit analysis. Further research suggests that universal implementation can have significant preventative and mitigating effects on more behaviorally challenged high-risk students, such as those with emotional support services. The SEL framework has shown that it can work together with current PBIS systems to create a synergistic relationship whereby students are being supported both in the short and long-term. This incorporation can have a positive effect on the overall climate and culture of the building when implemented. The significant impacts of SEL are realized through effective implementation and care must be given to formatively and summatively assess those who are providing the instruction. While there are many effective SEL programs available, Second Step is a program that meets specific criteria for implementation at the study school. Second Step works well by fitting logistically within the master schedule with little disruption to other EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 49 academic areas. The evidentiary base surrounding Second Step warrants its inclusion within the school system and its efficacy will be studied through a mixed-method inquiry. The methodology of this mixed-method study will be examined in the following chapter. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 50 Chapter III - Methodology Restatement of Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Second Step program as well as add to the body of research surrounding SEL. The efficacy of the program is examined by answering the following three questions: First, what is the effectiveness of the Second Step SEL Curriculum on student behavior as evidenced by Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) when it is delivered in the regular education classroom at a universal level? Second, after completing one year of the program, what are the attitudes and responses of both regular and special education teachers with regard to the implementation of delivering social-emotional instruction? Third, what are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program in each of the following categories: emotional support students and their behaviors; regular education students and their behaviors; and, the school climate and culture? This study is significant in that it not only contributes to the evidence base surrounding the value of SEL instruction and the Second Step program, but it also highlights previously unstudied aspects. Second Step has not been studied as to the efficacy of the program on emotional support special education students. An additional aspect of this study, that also does not have a significant amount ofresearch base, is the analysis of teachers' attitudes towards implementation and instructional competence of providing SEL instruction to students. This study will also provide an evidence base at the local level. The ramifications of the study can be used to drive resource conversations EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 51 at the district level to help prioritize district-wide initiatives regarding academic and mental health resources. Unique to the school year of implementation, the evidence that was collected happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. This provides an added benefit this aspect of implementation has never been studied before. Description of Participants The individuals being examined in this study are derived from a convenience sample of two groups; students and teachers from an elementary school in Erie, Pennsylvania. Students-Existing anonymous behavior data was generated from the regularly reported behavior data of all students enrolled in grades Kindergarten through fifth grade at the study school. Their ages ranged from 5 to 12 years. The overall enrollment was 628 students (Millcreek Township School District, 2020). The school where the study took place is a suburban elementary school housing grades K-5 with 44% of the student population considered to be economically disadvantaged and approximately 7% who are identified as English Language Learners (ELL). Another 13% of the student population requires Special Education services and 23 of those students are identified as needing Emotional Supp01i (ES) Services, accounting for 43% of the special education demographic. In terms ofracial ethnicity, the school comprises 76% White, 9.7% Asian, 5.4% Hispanic, 2.4% Black, and 6.5% of2 or more ethnicities. 53.5% of the student population is male and 46.5% is female (Millcreek Township School District, 2020). EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 52 Teachers- Voluntary teacher participation was solicited after an introductory presentation by the researcher. After completion of the Second Step Program, the teachers were provided with the "Research Participant Information Letter" found in Appendix F and emailed a link to complete an anonymous survey. After reading through the letter and then clicking the link, teachers consented to participate in the study. The teacher population that was solicited for voluntary participation at the study school was 42 teachers, one school counselor, one school psychologist, and two Physical Therapy/Occupational Therapy counselors. From that group, 28 teachers were homeroom teachers who are responsible for teaching all subjects excluding the "specials" classes. These homeroom teachers were the primary disseminators of the Second Step curriculum. There were additional teachers who reinforced the Second Step curriculum. They include: one Music teacher, one Ati teacher, one Physical Education teacher, two Reading Specialists, one Instructional Support Advisor, one English Language Learners instructor, three Leaming Support Special Education teachers, two Emotional Suppoti special education teachers, one Speech teacher, and one Gifted Suppoti teacher. The experience level of the teachers ranged from 1 year of experience to 35 years of experience. The average amount of experience in the district is 17 years. Human Subject Consideration and Clearance from IRB To ensure that the study was conducted in an ethical and unbiased manner, all study procedures were conducted in an educational institution with minimal to no risk to participants. The permission to conduct this research from the educational institution is included in Appendix G. The school's implementation of the program and the collection EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 53 of evidence was done in accordance with normal educational practices. This includes the collection of anonymous behavioral referral data. The anonymous ad hoc data report was performed on the school's student information service, Infinite Campus, to nominally attribute whether a student had received an ODR during the two separate school years being examined. To ensure anonymity, the students' names were not reported, rather a unique 32-digit alphanumeric character was assigned to each student in the computer software. The specific behavioral referrals, or the amount of such, were not reported rather all that was included in the ad hoc was that a referral had occurred and the grade level the student was in. To further ensure anonymity, the report was run by a third-party, the school district's Data Manager. No other personal information was attributed or analyzed. All other quantitative and qualitative information was collected through an anonymous voluntary questionnaire completed by teachers through a Google Form located in Appendix H. At the end of the program, the teachers were sent a link to the Google Form questionnaire, along with the Informational Letter found in Appendix F. The Informational Letter explained the researcher's role and provided contact information for the Slippery Rock Institutional Review Board, should questions have been raised as the researcher also served the school in a supervisory capacity. No names or other pieces of identifying information was associated with the questionnaire. The survey was completely voluntary and the teachers could opt-out of any question at any time. The data was stored on a password protected secure Google Drive that only the researcher had access to. Five years after the completion of the study, the data will be deleted from the drive and any hard copies will be shredded. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 54 Attached in Appendix I is the clearance from Slippery Rock University's Institutional Review Board. Description of Instrumentation/Measurement Procedures Each of the following three instruments and measurement procedures were utilized to answer the aforementioned research questions. Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs)-To measure the effect of Second Step on problem behaviors, a pre/post quantitative analysis of Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) was measured. At the study school, there were two levels of formal discipline: the ODR and the Minor Incident Report (MIR). A MIR is a form that is filled out for a student who does not abide by the school's PBIS behavioral expectations and engages in inappropriate behaviors on a small scale. Examples include; talking at inappropriate times, being unkind, not following school rules, etc. A full breakdown is included in Appendix D. These minor incidents are handled by the teacher on an individual basis with no official office disciplinary consequence. When three MIRs accumulate for a student, this will result in an ODR. When a student has received three Minor Incident Reports or commits a more egregious offense as outlined in the Discipline Matrix located in Appendix E, the teacher will fill out an ODR. The student will be called down to the office to speak with the Assistant Principal or Principal and receive a formal disciplinary consequence that is commensurate with the district's board approved disciplinary matrix. The ODR and consequence are then recorded in Infinite Campus. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 55 Teaching Attitudes about Social and Emotional Learning (TASEL)-Aside from the quantitative analysis of OD Rs, additional quantitative analysis was conducted using a questionnaire called the Teacher Attitudes about Social and Emotional Learning (TASEL) (Schultz et al., 2010). The TASEL was used to assess teachers' attitudes about providing instruction for social and emotional learning, as well as information regarding the implementation of the program. This was a self-administered questionnaire with 31 items. The questionnaire utilized a Likert-scale, meaning that each item has 6 ratings ranging from I-Strongly Disagree to 6-Strongly Agree. The questionnaire has strong content validity and strong inter-item reliability ranging from .87-.91 on five out of the six scales measures. Only one scale, time constraints, was found to have questionable reliability. The questionnaire was designed to take 10-15 minutes and is located in Appendix E (Schultz et al., 2010) This questionnaire was transferred to electronic Google form and a copy of the new format can be found in Appendix H. Permission for the approval of use of this questionnaire is located in Appendix J. Qualitative Inquiry-When administering the electronic Google form TASEL questionnaire, there was the additional inclusion of three open-ended questions and one demographic question (Appendix H). Incorporating the open-ended questions helped to provide both a qualitative evaluation of the program and contextual background to the empirical evidence from the first two quantitative measures (Patton, 2015; Singer & Couper, 2017). The following questions were asked: • Are you classified as a Special Education teacher or a Regular Education teacher? EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING • 56 How do you feel Second Step affected the overall behavior of the student body? • How do you feel Second Step affected the behavior of Special Education students in need of Emotional Support services? • How do you feel Second Step affected the overall climate and culture of Grandview Elementary? Research Design Mixed-Method Design-Noted psychologist and statistician, William Shadish argues that utilizing only one research methodology, whether quantitative or qualitative, is inherently biased. Therefore, he advocates for a mixed-method approach as it will holistically balance a study by providing multiple avenues of exploration (Shadish, 1993). This study employs a mixed-method design. A quasi-experimental model provides empirical evidence for a quantitative analysis while the inclusion of the qualitative questionnaire provides both a summative evaluation and contextualization of the empirical evidence. Question 1 Quantitative Analysis-The first research question asks; "What is the effectiveness of the Second Step SEL Curriculum on student behavior as evidenced by Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) when it is delivered in the regular education classroom at a universal level?" This is examined through a pre/post analysis of ODR data. Due to the COVID-19 school closure, behavior data for the 2019-2020 school year was only collected through 128 days of student attendance, roughly the first three EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 57 quarters of the school year. Therefore, the comparison of behavior data from the 20202021 school year provided behavior data over the same time frame. At the staii of the study, an anonymous ad hoc report was performed on the school district's student information services platform, Infinite Campus. This ad hoc report consisted of students in enrolled in grades K-4 during the 2019-2020 school year and nominally attributed a "Y" or "N" dependent upon whether a student had received an ODR through the first 128 days. Student names were not be repotied. Rather, a unique 32-digit alphanumeric character was assigned to each student. The specific behavioral referrals, or the amount of such, were not repotied. Instead, all that was repo1ied was that a referral had occurred and what grade level the student is in. The reason multiple incidents by a student were not identified was to mitigate the skewing of data attributed to an anomalous student. The anonymous ad hoc report was be run by the school district's Data Manager. After presentation of the independent variable (Second Step curriculum as mentioned prior) in the 2020-2021 school year, the same anonymous ad hoc repoti was run for that same population of students who were now in grades 1-5. This information was reported with the same 32 alphanumeric identifiers. Both the 2019-2020 and the 2020-2021 lists were cross-referenced and any unique identifier that was not on both lists was eliminated. This ensured that the student data reflected only those individuals who enrolled in the school both prior to implementation, as well as through the first year of implementation. This established the student behavioral data sample that was studied. After the sample was established, a repeated measures McNemar statistical analysis test was completed to detennine if there was a statistically significant difference EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 58 in OD Rs and rule out random chance. The McNemar test is completed for analyses that include repeated measures on matched pairs. Specifically, the McNemar test is used when there are dichotomous pairs, meaning that the measure is looking for statistical significance when the answers are either a nominal yes or a nominal no (Adedokun & Burgess, 2012). Since this study contained the same population both pre and posttreatment and the data provided was nominal, the McNemar test was viewed to be the most appropriate measure to determine statistical significance. This statistical analysis is non-parametric, meaning that it is not included in a normal distribution (Adedokun & Burgess, 2012). An additional McNemar statistical analysis was completed to determine the level of statistical significance of effect at the different grade levels. A comparison was then made between the grade levels. Question 2 Quantitative Analysis-The second research question asks; "After completing one year of the program, what are the attitudes and responses of both regular and special education teachers with regard to the implementation of delivering socialemotional instruction?" The question was examined through the dissemination of the TASEL. This questionnaire is included in Appendix C and its presentation in electronic form is located in Appendix H. The questionnaire was given to teachers who consented to participate in the study upon completion of the Second Step program. The questionnaire was filled out anonymously through a Google Form. The TASEL has already been established as a questionnaire with strong content validity and strong inter-item reliability (Schultz et al., 2010). From the Likert scale on the questionnaire, the ordinal data was organized through a descriptive statistical analysis to establish the frequency and mean score for each item on the questionnaire. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 59 Question 3 Qualitative Analysis-The third question asks: "What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following categories: emotional support students and their behaviors; regular education students and their behaviors; and, the school climate and culture?" To answer this inquiry, open-ended questions were added to the end of the TASEL on the Google Form in Appendix H. These answers were coded based on their responses and descriptively analyzed to provide patterns in the provided information. With the inclusion of open-ended questions, summative and contextual information were provided for evaluation of the program (Patton, 2015; Singer & Couper, 2017). Description of Procedures The Second Step Program was implemented in the 2020-2021 school year at the study school. Prior to the start of the study, the school district's Data Manager supplied the data regarding the previous school year's ODRs. Program implementation started at the opening teacher in-service, where initial professional development was provided to teachers. Following this initial professional development, the program was implemented at the study school. The implementation time line was created around the school district's calendar. This timeline is provided in Appendix A. In the school where the study occurred, the homeroom teachers provided weekly lessons to both regular and special education students in their classrooms ("Specials Schedule", 2020). Second Step has 22 weekly lesson plans for grades 1-5 and 25 weekly lessons for Kindergarten. The start and end guidelines, whole school assembly, and whole school announcement schedule are included in Appendix A EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 60 Since implementation will occur with flexibility, this variance was discussed with the program developers. An interview was conducted with the Vice President of Education and Research at Second Step on January 23, 2020. In the interview, it was confirmed that fidelity to implementation would not be adversely affected by integrating Second Step flexibly. The program was developed in this manner to allow the program to fit various school needs (Kim, 2020). At the conclusion of implementation, the TASEL and open-ended questions were disseminated to teachers via an anonymous Google Form (Appendix H) along with an Informational Letter (Appendix F). Also, at this time the school district Data Manager provided the ad hoc report on ODR data for the 2020-2021 school year. After all of this data was collected, the statistical analysis was completed. Data Analysis and Display Procedure At the completion of the Second Step program, the quantitative and qualitative data was collected. The quantitative data for the pre/post analysis of ODR data was input in the statistical analysis software, SPSS. From there, the McNemar test was completed with an cx:=.05 to determine ifthere was a statistical significance after participation in the program. The null hypothesis for the McNemar test was as follows: After treatment with the Second Step program, there will be no change in behavior as evidenced by ODRs. The independent variable in this analysis is the Second Step program and the dependent variable is the dichotomous pair of yes or no when receiving an ODR. Additional statistical analysis from the ODR data was performed on SPSS to compare the difference in ODRs between grade levels. A McNemar test was completed EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 61 with an oc=.05 to determine ifthere was a statistical significance in the difference in OD Rs grade levels. The null hypothesis for this analysis was: All grade levels will have the same amount of OD Rs after treatment with the Second Step program. The independent variable in this analysis is the Second Step program and the dependent variable is ODRs within each grade level. To account for consistency in participation, the data analyzed in these pre/post measures only included those who were present in both the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. The collection of the Likert data from the TASEL was calculated to provide the frequency and mean scores of responses for each of the 31 items. As a Likert scale is not a continuous interval or ratio scale, all findings were summarized in the forthcoming chapters using mean, median, and mode based on the ordinal data. The qualitative data retrieved from the open-ended questions was inductively analyzed to discover patterns, themes, and categories within the individual responses (Patton, 2015). This concept is called open coding and was utilized to establish the overall constructs of original participant responses and to allow answers to be classified for further analysis (Patton, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Once the major themes and categories are established in the open coding phase, axial coding was utilized to provide further analysis to create subcategories within the overall open coding categories. This process helped to provide a high level of specificity in analysis, while still relating back to the generalizable themes (Patton, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). From these themes, deductive analysis occurred and a summary presented. These open and axial coded summative findings will be presented in created charts in Chapter Four to help visualize the results. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 62 Summary This study answers the three research questions through the utilization of a mixedmethod methodology. The quantitative analysis of questions one and two ensures that empirical evidence is provided to either reject or accept the null hypothesis statements in regard to the effect of Second Step. The inclusion of an open-ended qualitative measure to answer question three not only provides a summative evaluation of the program but also a contextual background to the evidence. This context will be important in understanding the ramifications of the empirical data. The results of this research design are presented in the fourth chapter. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 63 Chapter IV - Findings To detennine the efficacy of the Second Step SEL program, two quantitative and one qualitative measure were conducted and analyzed in order to answer this study's research questions. Figure 5 illustrates the hierarchal relationship between these research questions and their subsequent forms of measurement and analysis. Figure 5 Hierarchal Relationship of Research Questions and Analysis Efficacy of Second Step SELProgram Topic ■ Research Questions What is the effectiveness of the Second Step SEL curriculum on student behavior as evidenced by Office Disciplinary Referrals when it is delivered in the regular education classroom? I Analysis McNernar statistical analysis of ODRS ■ I After completing one year of the program, what are the attitudes and responses of both regular and special education teachers with regard to the implementation of delivering social emotional instmction? What are the perct!ptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one vear of the Second Step program as-to the following categories: emotional support students and their behaviors; regular education students and their behaviors; an, the school climate and culture? ' Teaching Attitudes about Social and Emotional Learning (TASEL) Likert scale survey Coded openended responses .. Following this chapter's presentation of data and analysis, the implications, ramifications, and considerations of the metrics, and how they relate and/or contribute to the body of research surrounding Second Step and SEL, will be discussed in the chapter 5. The first data metric examined is Office Disciplinary Referrals. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 64 Quantitative ODR Results-Effect on Overall Student Behavior To analyze the effect of Second Step on student behavior, a pre/post analysis of Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) data was conducted. This analysis was conducted to answer the first research question: What is the effectiveness of the Second Step SEL curriculum on student behavior as evidenced by Office Disciplinary Referrals when it is delivered in the regular classroom at a universal level. To retrieve this information, two ad hoc reports were created. The first ad hoc report generated a list of students enrolled in grades Kindergarten through 4th grade during the 2019-2020 school year at the study school. The repo1i gave each student a unique 32-digit alphanumeric character and nominally attributed a "Y" or "N" to each student dependent on whether the student received an ODR during the first 128 days of the 2019-2020 school year. Multiple incidents conducted by a single student were not included to prevent the skewing of data attributed to anomalous individuals. The time period of 128 days was used as the defined range because that was the length of time the study school was in session prior to the COVID-19 shutdown in 2019-2020. The second ad hoc report was generated after the presentation of the independent variable, Second Step, in the 2020-2021 school year. The second report provided the same information as the first, over the same range of 128 days. The report included students in grades 1-5, as these students were in the cohort from the prior year and matriculated to the next grade. After both the 2019-2020 and the 2020-2021 reports were created, they were cross-referenced and any student that was not on both lists was excluded from the sample set because they were not present both pre/post-treatment. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 65 Student Sample-The total number of students in the sample data who met the above criterion from the study school was 505. The students in the sample data came from the following cohorts: • 107 students from Kindergarten (19-20) to pt Grade (20-21) • 102 students from pt Grade (19-20) to 2 nd Grade (20-21) • 105 students from 2nd Grade (19-20) to 3rd Grade (20-21) • 95 students from 3rd Grade (19-20) to 4 th Grade (20-21) • 96 students from 4 th Grade (19-20) to 5th Grade (20-21) ODR Data and Analysis-Table 1 illustrates the total amount of individuals who received ODRs in each cohort during the two school years. Overall, there was a 35.37% decrease in the total amount of ODRs for the student sample data. Kindergarten/I st had the largest decrease with 88% less than the previous year, followed by 4th /5 th with 26.67%, yd/4 th with 18.19%, and 1st/2 nd with 11.12%. The cohort with the largest total amount of OD Rs in 19-20 was 4 th/5 th with 30. This was followed by Kindergarten/ pt with 25. In 20-21, the largest total number of OD Rs was 4 th /5 th with a total of 22, with the next highest being 2nd/Yd with 11. Four out of five cohorts experienced a decrease in the amount of OD Rs. The exception was the 2 nd /Yd cohort. That cohort experienced an increase of OD Rs by 36.36%. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 66 Table 1 ODR Totals by Cohort Cohort Students 1920 2021 %+/-* Kindergarten/1st 107 25 3 -88% 1st/2nd 102 9 8 -11.12% 2nd/3rd 105 7 11 +36.36% 3rd/4th 95 11 9 -18.19% 4th/5th 96 30 22 -26.67% 505 82 53 -35.37% Total Note. *Percent increase or decrease, year over year. Statistical Significance- To determine the statistical significance of these increases/decreases in ODRs, a repeated measures McNemar statistical analysis test was completed. The McNemar test was completed with an a= .05 to determine statistical significance. The null hypothesis posited that after treatment with the Second Step program, there will be no change in behavior as evidenced by ODRs. The independent variable was the Second Step program and the dependent variable was the number of OD Rs. The occurrence of behavioral incidents is delineated by a "Y" in Table 2, where an "N" indicated that there was no behavioral incident. Results of the crosstabulation statistical comparison are included in Table 2 and the p-value, representing statistical significance is located in Table 3. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 67 Table 2 McNemar Crosstabulation of Overall ODRs Before Second Step N Count After Second Step y N 396 27 y Count 56 26 82 Count 452 53 505 Total Total 423 Table 3 McNemar Stahstical Significance of Overall ODRs Value Exact Sig. 2-sided McNemar Test N of Valid Cases Note. a. 505 Binomial distribution used. As Table 3 illustrates, the p-value of .002 represents a significant statistical significance and subsequently a rejection of the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis that behavioral incidents were not equal to those prior to the Second Step program would be accepted. An additional McNemar statistical analysis was completed to determine if there was a level of statistical significance that was different at other grade levels. This analysis was completed with an a= .05 to determine statistical significance and the results of the crosstabulation are included in Table 4. The p-values used to quantify the amount of statistical significance are included in Table 5. 68 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Table 4 McNemar Crosstabulation of Individual Grade Level ODRs Grade Level After Second Step y N Before Second Step Kindergarten/I st N 81 1 82 y 23 2 25 104 3 107 N 88 5 93 y 6 3 9 94 8 102 N 87 11 98 y 7 0 7 94 11 105 N 78 6 84 y 8 3 11 86 9 95 N 62 4 66 y 12 18 30 N 74 396 22 27 96 423 56 452 26 82 505 Total 1s1;2nd Total 2nct13rct Total 3rct;41h Total 4111;5111 Total Total y Total Total 53 As shown in Table 5, there is a discrepancy in the p-values for the individual grade levels. Whereas the original null hypothesis can be rejected in the Kindergaiten/1 st and 4 th /5 th cohort, the null hypothesis in the 1st/2 nd , 2nd/3 rd , and Yd-4 th cohorts remains, as the p-values were not statistically significant for these grade-level cohorts. Of particular note is that the p-value is so significant in the Kindergarten/I st and 4th /5 th cohorts that it EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 69 offsets the p-values of the three other cohorts in the statistical comparison of the whole school. Table 5 McNemar Statistical Significance of Individual Grade Levels Grade Level Value McNemar Test Kindergarten/I st N of Valid Cases 107 1st;2nd McNemar Test N of Valid Cases 102 1.000 a McNemar Test 2nct13rd N of Valid Cases 105 3rd/4th McNemar Test N of Valid Cases 95 4th/5th McNemar Test N of Valid Cases 96 McNemar Test Total N of Valid Cases Note. a. Exact Sig. (2-sided) <.001 a .481 a .791 a .002a 505 Binomial distribution used. Summary- The data from this objective quantitative analysis suggests that the Second Step program had a statistically significant positive impact on lowering the occun-ences of negative student behavior as evidenced by a decrease in the number of students having ODRs. To provide additional data points regarding the program's efficacy and answer the remaining research questions, two more measures were collected to present additional objective and contextual evidence. The data is examined in the following sections. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 70 Quantitative Likert-scale Results-Program Effects and Teacher Instructional Competence Likert-Scale Responses- After completion of the Second Step program in the 20- 21 school year, teachers completed the Teaching Attitudes about Social Emotional Learning (TASEL) questionnaire with 22 Likert-scale items. The purpose of this questionnaire was to answer the second question of the study: After completing one year of the program, what are the attitudes and responses of both regular and special education teachers with regard to the implementation of delivering social emotional instruction? Each item in the questionnaire had six rating selections: • I-Strongly Disagree • 2-Disagree • 3-Somewhat Disagree • 4-Somewhat Agree • 5-Agree • 6-Strongly Agree The 22 question items fit into five different domains to assess the program and the staff experiences. The domains examined were: 1) the effect on social emotional competencies and behaviors; 2) teacher instructional competence; 3) amount of time spent on instruction; 4) training; and 5) administrative support. The questionnaire was sent out to all of the teaching staff within the building and had a response rate of 48%. The means of the domain responses are illustrated in Figure 6. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 71 Figure 6 TASEL Domain Response Means 6 5 4 ........... 3 ............ ........... ............ ••••••••••••••••••••••• ........... ............ ........... ............ ............. ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ........... ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ............ ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... --------···· 2 1 0 TASEL Domain Mean Scores II Social, Emotional, Behavioral Effect 13 Instructional Feedback □ Time and Implementation □ Training El Administrative Support Teacher Sample-Overall 22 teachers participated in the survey. The average amount of self-identified overall teaching experience was 24 years with 16 years within the study school. 91 % of the participants were regular education teachers and the remaining 9% of the participants were special education teachers. This represented 48% of the total teacher population at the study school. All of the survey responses indicated that the past year was their first experience in delivering Second Step lessons. Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Effect-In analyzing the responses regarding the social, emotional, and behavioral effect on students, 90.9% of respondents agreed that SEL programs such as Second Step help children learn social and emotional skills with 40.9% strongly agreeing with the sentiment and a mean score of 5.05. 81.3% of the respondents felt that the program helped the students improve their social and emotional EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 72 skills and 77.6% of the respondents felt that the program could benefit all students regardless of their temperament. Instructional Feedback-In terms of SEL instruction, 95.5% of the respondents agreed that they delivered the Second Step lessons effectively. Only 1 response somewhat disagreed with the statement. 90.9% felt competent at teaching Second Step lessons. 100% of the respondents understood the goals of Second Step and 90.9% felt that they had a thorough knowledge of the Second Step lessons. Time and Implementation-There was an almost equal distribution in the number of responses that both agreed and disagreed with the statement that they do not have enough time in the day/week to deliver Second Step lessons. 59.1 % felt as though they had enough time whereas 40.9% did not feel they had enough time. The majority of the responses were spread equally over the 6 scale options as illustrated in Figure 5. Conversely, where there was a discrepancy with time to deliver the lessons, 72.7% still felt they had enough time to prepare for Second Step lessons. Regarding taking time away from academics, 57 .1 % agreed that Second Step did not take away from academics with a mean score response in the middle at 3.23. The majority ofresponses indicated a consistent implementation across the·school with only 13.6% of teachers indicating they felt other teachers in the building did not implement the curriculum consistently. Training-In regard to training, the responses indicated 95.5% of teachers felt that the administrative staff arranged training for Second Step with a mean score of 5.27. From this training, 90.9% of staff felt that it was a sufficient level with a mean score of 4.95. Only 2 teachers felt that the training did not provide sufficient knowledge on the EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 73 specific program content, accounting for 9 .1 % of respondents. Most felt that the training itself was hands-on with a mean score of 4.45. Administrative Support-When asked about administrative support, 100% of respondents indicated that the Principal was an active supporter of Second Step with 90.9% of them marking Strongly Agree for a mean score of 5.91. 100% ofrespondents said that the Principal discussed Second Step at staff meetings with 95.5% marking 6strongly agree and a mean score of 5.95. 95.4% felt that the Principal scheduled specific times for delivery of Second Step lessons with a mean score of 5. 73. A mean score of 3.86 indicated a higher level of variance across the responses from teachers when asked if the Principal watched them deliver Second Step lessons. 91 % felt that the Principal acknowledged teachers who do a good job delivering Second Step with a mean score of 4.86. In response to the statement regarding academic importance over that of SEL, 63.6% said that was not the case for the Principal with a mean score of 2.82 delineating a disagreement with the statement. Appendix K provides a breakdown of the frequency of all Likert-scale responses for each of the 22 items in a table format. Appendix L provides the responses in a stacked bar chart to illustrate the response distribution for each survey question and their corresponding responses. In addition, the means of all the Likert-scale responses are included in Appendix M in table format with a bar graph presentation illustrated in AppendixN. Indications from the quantitative Likert-scale survey supp01i the findings from the quantitative analysis of OD Rs. The questionnaire provides teacher feedback stating that student behavior is positively affected by participating in the SEL program, with the EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 74 majority stating that it was effective regardless of individual temperament. The questionnaire also provides feedback related to the training of the program, as the majority of teachers felt well-trained and prepared to deliver the instruction of the SEL content. Respondents indicated administrative support throughout the program. There was a discrepancy related to the amount of time it takes to prepare and deliver the lesson across the sample groups. A further discussion of the implications and significance of these findings will be discussed in the following chapter. As two quantitative data pieces have been utilized to provide objective measures of efficacy, a third qualitative measure was administered and was analyzed in the following section to provide contextual evidence as to the effectiveness of the program. Qualitative Results-Effects on Emotional Support, Regular Education Students, and School Climate Following the completion of the TASEL scale, teachers were asked to respond to three open-ended questions in the questionnaire. These open-ended questions were developed to address the three components of the last research question: What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following categories: emotional support students and their behaviors; regular education students and their behaviors,· and, the school climate and culture? Coding-The results of these prompts were first read and then summarized by the researcher. Codes were then developed from these summaries to categorize the main ideas that were in each response. Then, from each of these codes, themes were established based upon the broad idea of the identified codes from the responses. This EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 75 provided an axial connection or overarching theme. Since the questions were open-ended, many responses were coded into multiple different categories, as the length and content of the responses sometimes garnered multiple or overlapping codes. The codes for the responses can be found in Tables 6, 7, and 8. Question 1-The first question prompted was; How do you feel Second Step affected the overall behavior of the student body? There were 20 total responses to this prompt. Those responses were coded into the following six categories: 1) positive due to common strategies/language, 2) positive impact on behaviors, 3) positive impact for some students, 4) taught expected behaviors, 5) hard to make a judgment on one year of implementation, and 6) unsure of one's instructional aptitude. Being that the prompt was open-ended, some of the responses were assigned multiple codes, providing a total number of 25 coded responses. 80% of the coded responses expressed an impact connected axially to the theme of "Positive". The other theme was "Unsure" with the remaining 20% of response codes attributed to it. These response codes and amounts can be found in Table 6. 76 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Table 6 Question 1 Qualitative Coded Responses How do You Feel Second Step Affected the Overall Behavior of the Student Body?* Codes Themes Positive due to common strategies/language (7) Positive impact on behaviors (7) Positive (20) Positive impact for some students (3) Taught expected behaviors (3) Hard to make a judgment on one year of implementation (4) Unsure (5) Unsure of one's instructional aptitude (1) Note. Amount of attributed codes located within ( ). *Adapted from the Research Question: What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following category: regular education students and their behaviors Of the main thematic "Positive" category, seven responses were coded as "positive due to common strategies/language," another seven as "positive impact on behaviors," three as "taught expected behaviors," and an additional three as "positive result for some students." One particular quote encompassed many of the responses: "I believe Second Step is a much-needed addition to our curriculum. In our current society, children are exposed to far greater social stressors than they are capable of understanding and/or dealing with. Family dynamics have changed and exposure to social media has negatively impacted our EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 77 children. Children need to understand their feelings as well as how to deal effectively with those feelings (good or bad). Schools need to educate since many families do not". The responses were mostly in support of the positive effects that Second Step had on the student body and those responses that fell under the theme of "Unsure" were not dismissive of the program and its potential effects. Rather, their hesitance was largely attributed to their desire to see evidence over a longer period. There were no comments to suggest a negative impact on student behavior. Some comments suggested that Second Step was useful but did not go far enough. "I believe there is a majority of students which benefit from Second Step lessons. However, I do feel there is a percentage of students who demonstrate delinquent behaviors which would require much more than Second Step to reprogram their thinking and behaviors". This quote leads to the next question of the qualitative survey. Question 2-The second question How do you feel Second Step affected the behavior of Special Education students in need of Emotional Support services? was only answered by 64% of the survey participants. The responses were coded into four different codes; 1) responding well/using strategies taught, 2) to an extent/partially, 3) did not effect, and 4) were unsure at this time. The responses contained some overlap in codes for a total of 16 coded responses and axial coding was used to further distribute these codes into three themes; "Positive Effect," "Unsure," and "No Effect." Eight coded responses fell into the "Positive Effect" category, with four codes in the "responding EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 78 well/using strategies taught" and four coded as "to an extent/partially." These codes and their corresponding amounts are illustrated in Table 7. Table 7 Question 2 Qualitative Coded Responses How do you feel Second Step affected the behavior of Special Education students in need of Emotional Support services?* Codes Themes Responding well/using strategies taught (4) Effective (8) To an extent/partially (4) Did not affect (5) Unsure at this time (3) No Effect (5) Unsure (3) Note. Amount of attributed codes located within ( ). *Adapted from the Research Question What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following category: emotional support students and their behaviors Many of the positive coded responses referenced the specific Second Step strategies that were utilized to positively affect the behavior of the emotional support students. For example, "The calming techniques and problem-solving skills are valuable tools to diffuse an emotionally driven situation and provide a sense of calmness and focus to move forward in a positive manner" Some respondents felt this question was difficult to answer either because they did not have direct involvement with those students or because this was the first year of implementation and therefore, it was hard to judge its effects. One teacher wrote, EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 79 "I believe Second Step is a great addition to the Emotional Support program and gives a long needed curriculum to the program. However, I do feel there is a percentage of students which are not reached and their behavior is not being shaped by Second Step." Three comments fell under the theme of "Unsure" with all three receiving the same code. The responses under this theme did not attribute a specific positive or negative connotation, but an overlap of both. For example, "I do not think Second Step is an end all be all for the Special Education students, but I do think it is good instruction for them to be included within the whole group lessons. These students need more oneon-one instruction in specific areas". Five responses fell under the theme of "No Effect" with all five having the same code of "Did Not Affect." It must be disclosed that one response came from someone who did not have experience with the Emotional Support students, rather they stated they were giving their "outsider's" opinion. The responses in this category were varied in length and substance. Some teachers merely stated "not very" while others went into greater detail explaining, for example, "Special Education students have very little ambition to correct their behavior when they have very few consequences. When the other students are fearful of a specific student and are not seeing corrective actions to the issues it makes it hard to see this in a positive manner." The responses to this qualitative inquiry solicited an even split between the responses coded for positive effect and the responses coded and the responses identified as "No Effect" or "Unsure." More discussion about the implications and contextualization of these responses will be included in the following chapter. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 80 With the first question receiving substantial positive feedback regarding the effect on student behavior and the second question receiving 50% of responses with positive feedback on the effect of emotional support students' behavior, further contextual evidence was gathered by the third question regarding climate and culture. Question 3-The third open-ended question was How do you feel Second Step affected the overall climate and culture of the study school? Much like the first openended response, this question was met with overwhelmingly positive responses from the 20 individuals who answered the question. Upon review of the responses, six codes emerged: 1) positive effect, 2) positive and excited about the future with the program, 3) positive effect but questioning other staff buy-in, 4) positive with added stress, 5) unsure, and 6) should have been taught by the guidance counselor. Due to the open-ended nature of the question, some answers received multiple codes for a total of 26 coded responses. 14 responses were coded as positive, three as positive and excited about the future, one as positive but questioning other staff buy-in, five as positive but with added stress, one as unsure, and two as should have been taught by the guidance counselor. The breakdown of these response codes and their amounts can be found in Table 8. 81 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Table 8 Question 3 Qualitative Coded Responses How do you feel Second Step affected the overall climate and culture of the school?* Themes Codes Positive effect ( 14) Positive and excited about the future with the program (3) Positive Effect ( 18) Positive effect but questioning other staff buy-in (1) Positive with added stress (5) Unsure (1) Questioning Timing (8) Should have been taught by the guidance counselor (2) Note. Amount of attributed codes located within ( ). *Adapted from the Research Question What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following category: school climate and culture The two main themes that the coded responses fell into were "Positive Effect" and "Questioning the Timing." There was significant overlap between the two categories as multiple codes were assigned to the different responses. Many of the responses that questioned the timing, did so while also recognizing the positive impact of the program. Their statements were geared towards the already stressful situation of the COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of something new. The singular response that indicated being unsure was because the individual was strictly teaching in a virtual format and therefore could not give a good assessment. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 82 The many teachers who expressed positive feelings did so because of the holistic nature of the program. To quote one response: "Second Step has been implemented as an all inclusive program to suppoti the students as well as the staff in all grade levels in person and virtually. The program has cemented a common goal for all staff and students to monitor their behaviors, feelings, emotions, and reactions as well as how to conscientiously regulate responses to trigger events being both positive and negative. With that said, the common theme has created an atmosphere of sensitivity, support, and acknowledgment of the importance of empathy in the workplace as well as the classroom. The program has created a culture where all staff can feel supported and valued!" Another teacher commented: "I believe it has helped the climate of our school which was in desperate need ofrepair. This is the first year of the program so I remain hopeful that with continued use of the program, it will help our student body to behave in a more respectful and mannerly way." The context of these responses provided a positive outlook on the entire school climate where the only negative feedback was regarding the timing of implementation. Five responses discussed the stress of learning a new curriculum at the beginning of the year while also learning to navigate the new learning environment that the COVID-l 9 pandemic created. Due to this, two of the responses indicated that it may have been better received if the guidance counselor was the primary disseminator of the curriculum. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 83 Summary Three different data measures were used to determine the efficacy of Second Step regarding student behavior, teacher instructional competence, and school climate. The descriptive statistics and further statistical analysis of the ODRs through a McNemar test, suggest that the dependent variable of behavioral infractions is positively affected by the SEL program. Further supportive evidence was provided by the additional quantitative measure, through the Like1i-scale TASEL, and the contextual qualitative questionnaire. The TASEL and qualitative inquiry also provided support that teachers felt competent delivering the program with the training provided. The results illustrate that the program contributed positively to the school climate during a stressful year due to COVID19. The implications, ramifications, and considerations of these data points as well as how this study relates and contributes to the body of research surrounding SEL will be discussed in the next chapter. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 84 Chapter V - Conclusions and Recommendations This study was conducted to examine the efficacy of a universally delivered social emotional learning (SEL) curriculum, Second Step. Evidence of efficacy was supplied through three separate data metrics. Each data metric was designed to answer one of the guiding research questions. The quantitative and qualitative data from these three metrics provided proof points to carry out a holistic evaluation of the Second Step program. This culminating chapter presents a discussion of these findings based upon the evidence collected and presented earlier in this report. The results affect current and future SEL practices and more specifically the endorsement of the Second Step curricula as an evidenced-based practice within the domain of SEL. Discussion of Study and Results Effect on School-Wide Behavior- Several studies have been conducted to provide an evidence base that supports the positive behavioral effect of students participating in various SEL programs (Durlak et al., 2011; Domitrovich et al., 2017; Eddy et al., 2003; Taylor et al., 2017). In order to quantitatively examine the behavioral effect of the Second Step program, the following research question was asked: What is the effectiveness of the Second Step SEL curriculum on student behavior as evidenced by Office Disciplinary Referrals when it is delivered in the regular education classroom at a universal level? This question was answered through the McNemar analysis which illustrated a statistically significant effect in the overall reduction of ODRs. This significant reduction, 85 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING coupled with additional qualitative feedback from an open-ended questionnaire, provided evidence to support the Second Step program in realizing positive effects and impact on overall student behavior. Effect on Grade Level Cohort Behavior- While there was a statistically significant reduction in school-wide ODRs, further cohort analysis provided a discrepancy in the reduction of OD Rs within separate grade-level cohorts. The analysis found a significant statistical reduction in ODRs in the Kindergarten/I" and 4°•/5 cohorts, 1 " however, the 1.;2. ,, 2,43,,, and 3.a/4•h cohorts did not have a statistically significant reduction. The explanation of this can be realized when examining the raw ODR data. Upon further examination, a postulation can be made that since the Kindergarten/I• and 411•/5 11• cohorts had substantially higher amounts of ODRs prior to the Second Step program, they were most likely to realize the greatest effect after participation in the program. Conversely, the other three cohorts had substantially lower amounts of ODRs pretreatment with Second Step, thereby leading to a negligible effect. These results lead to the hypothesis that because the Kindergaiien/1 • and 4 11•/5 1" cohorts had larger ODR numbers before the program, those cohorts realized the greatest effect. Indeed, this hypothesis is on par with the results of a previous study by Jones et al., which concluded that SEL programs have a greater impact on students with lower social-emotional, and behavioral pretest scores (Jones, et al., 2015). Also, research from Duncan et al., found that SEL programs can foster improved behavioral trajectories when administered at the universal level (Duncan et al., 2016). Further analysis of these cohorts would be recommended to see if the relative pattern of effectiveness continues EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 86 longitudinally or if the results are attributed to a specific student population in those cohorts. TASEL Likert-Scale Response to Behavior-In addition to the statistical evidence from the ODR comparison, the quantitative results from the TASEL Likertscale questionnaire also supported the positive behavioral effects of the program. A substantial number of responses indicated that there was a positive prosocial and emotional impact on students, as evidenced by 90.9% of respondents who agreed that Second Step helped children learn social-emotional skills. Also, 81.3% ofrespondents agreed that Second Step helped students improve their social and emotional skills. These results coincide with the prosocial and emotional gains realized by other studies focused on the Second Step program (Edwards et al., 2005; Frey et al., 2005; Low et al., 2015; Low et al., 2019). Qualitative Response to Behavior Impact-In addition to the two quantitative measures, the qualitative analysis provided further justification of the overall impact of Second Step on behaviors by answering the following research question: What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following category: Regular education students and their behaviors? To answer this, the qualitative survey question asked teachers: How do you feel Second Step affected the overall behavior of the student body? From the coded responses, 80% of answers were identified under the theme of "positive" with 50% of those responses coded to "positive impact on behaviors" and "positive impact for some students". These qualitative findings further support the statistical evidence from the EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 87 ODR analysis and TASEL Likert-scale questionnaire. All three findings substantiate a positive behavior effect and impact on students participating in the Second Step program. Impact on Behavior of Emotional Support Subgroup-The only differing comments gathered from the qualitative prompt on student behavior were those that questioned the effectiveness of the program on students who had higher incidences of behavioral problems, such as those being supported in the emotional support classrooms. While there is an evidentiary base in current literature to support the positive social and emotional results of Second Step, the program has not been examined in existing literature while focusing on the behavioral effect of identified special education students (Edwards et al., 2005; Frey et al., 2005; Low et al., 2015; Low, Smolkowski, et al., 2019). Specifically, those special education students who are identified as emotional support. As defined previously in this study, emotional support is a special education placement for students with disabilities in need of specially designed instruction due to the adverse effect of their emotional responses, social interpersonal interactions, and/or functional behaviors on their ability to learn (Pa Code 22, Chapter 14, 2008). The specific qualitative inquiry about the program's impact on those students who need emotional support helped to answer a component of one of the research questions in this regard: What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following category: emotional support students and their behaviors? To answer this, the qualitative survey question asked teachers: How do you feel Second Step affected the behavior of Special Education students in need of emotional support services? From this question, 50% of the survey's coded responses indicated that EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 88 teachers felt the program was "effective" with emotional support students. Conversely, 31 % believed there was "no effect" and 19% were "unsure". Importantly, some teachers who fell into the "unsure" category indicated that they did not have any experience with this subgroup. Thus, as one respondent stated, they merely provided an "outsider" perspective. This is an important caveat in evaluating the data as current research has found significant variance in the inter-teacher ratings of students who are at risk for emotional and behavioral problems (Splett, et al., 2018). As half of the qualitative responses indicated the positive impact that Second Step had on the behaviors of emotional support students, these findings contribute to the body of research by highlighting the impact on this specific subgroup. Further longitudinal analysis of this subgroup could provide a more extensive picture of the program's level of efficacy after participating in the program over a longer period of time. Impact on School Climate-As Osher and Berg state, SEL and school climate have significant overlap, as an effective SEL program will positively impact the overall school climate (Osher and Berg, 2017). They define climate as "the cultural norms, goals, values, practices, characteristics of relationships, and organizational structures" (Osher and Berg, p. 3., 2017). With SEL and school climate focused on common elements, it is imp01iant to examine Second Step's impact on climate in this regard. The qualitative question How do you feel Second Step affected the overall climate and culture of the school? was asked as a way to examine the relationship between the Second Step program and the school climate. The prompt also answered the research question: What are the perceptions of regular education teachers and special education EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 89 teachers after one year of the Second Step program as to the following category: school climate and culture. When addressing this question, 69% of coded qualitative responses indicated that Second Step had a positive impact on school climate. Many individuals were excited about the program and indicated looking to the future to see the long-term effects. As one respondent indicated: "I believe it has helped the climate of our school which was in desperate need of repair. This is the first year of the program so I remain hopeful that with continued use of the program, it will help our student body to behave in a more respectful and mannerly way." Research from Collie et.al., suggests that as SEL programs increase school climate, teacher commitment also increases (Collie et al., 2011 ). Therefore the findings of this study and the positive perceptions that teachers have on the school climate will only be further strengthened by continued participation in the program. There was also specific qualitative feedback from pat1icipants regarding the timing of program implementation. Some teachers expressed stress with the stat1 of a new curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, with 69% of coded responses falling under the theme of "positive effect", an assumption can be made that although it was stressful for some teachers to implement, it had a positive effect on the overall climate. This is further evidenced by the remaining 31 % of responses. While those responses fell under the theme of "questioning timing", 63% of those responses denoted positive impacts while also identifying the stress of implementation. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 90 These results, coupled with the reduction in behavioral incidences, substantiate that the overall positive implications on climate may outweigh some of the negative individual stress responses. A further examination beyond this study could explore if teachers still have the same stress level in delivering Second Step lessons in subsequent years as they become removed from the COVID-19 pandemic. Teacher Perceptions and Attitudes About SEL Instruction-Schultz et al. states that to establish an SEL program effectively, there must be a high-quality level of implementation (Schultz et al., 2010). The TASEL questionnaire was developed by Schultz et al. to eliminate any potential barriers to SEL program integration by assessing the readiness and attitudes of teachers, while also identifying areas that could be strengthened (Schultz et al., 2010). Thus, this questionnaire was used to provide an answer to the following research question: After completing one year of the program, what are the attitudes and responses of both regular and special education teachers with regard to the implementation of delivering social emotional instruction? The TASEL Like1i-scale questionnaire solicited positive feedback regarding teacher attitudes and implementation, as 95.5% of survey respondents felt they were effective at delivering the Second Step lessons and 90.9% felt they were provided with a sufficient level of training. These results provide specific information regarding the training that is supplied with the Second Step program. As outlined in the Implementation Timeline in Appendix A, the study school implemented the training based on the materials and structure that Second Step provided. The results of the TASEL questionnaire highlight the level of training, materials, and resources supplied by the Second Step program. These results provide evidence that Second Step has an effective EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 91 program to properly prepare teachers for the implementation of a brand-new curriculum. This is relevant as Oberle et al., state that effective professional development is one of the components for a successful and sustainable SEL program (Oberle, et al., 2016). Regarding the facilitation of the program, the TASEL results provided overwhelming evidence for the Principal as an active supporter of Second Step and SEL instruction. 100% of respondents agreed with this statement and 100% marked that Second Step was discussed at staff meetings. There were 95.4% ofresponses that indicated the Principal scheduled specific times for SEL instruction. This is important as previous studies recognized that lack of time affected implementation (Matiinez, 2016; Ee & Chang, 2013). While 72. 7% of teachers felt they had enough time to prepare for SEL lessons, there was a discrepancy in the amount of time teachers felt they had for specific program instruction. From the questionnaire responses, 59.1 % of teachers felt that they had enough time for actual instruction and 40.9% did not. This finding is commensurate with the findings of Matiinez who found that teachers report time constraints as the largest implementation obstacle to overcome (Martinez, 2016). A possible explanation for the discrepancy realized in the repo1ted amount of time for instruction, may be found in the responses from the qualitative survey question: How do you feel Second Step affected the overall climate and culture of the school?, In their responses, teachers commented that the stress of teaching a new curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic led to them feeling rushed. Thus, it is more likely that the new mitigation effmts and stress from the COVID-19 pandemic affected the teachers' ability to adequately budget time for classroom instruction rather than the Second Step EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 92 program. A second-year analysis of the program could help to prove or disprove this postulation. The ratings regarding teacher instructional competence received the secondhighest marks in the TASEL questionnaire, following those regarding administrative support. This follows the research of Low et al., stating that the fidelity of teacher implementation of SEL is integral to having a successful program (Low et al., 2016). These ratings, in conjunction with the quantitative and qualitative behavioral results, provide evidence of the study school's successful implementation of the Second Step SEL program. COVID-19 Implementation Considerations-As some qualitative comments provided feedback while referencing the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to note that the study school utilized several instructional models throughout the school year. A combination of hybrid, in-person, and virtual instructional models were utilized and thus, the Second Step curriculum was disseminated through these various modalities. Despite the potential barriers that this could have presented, the positive feedback from multiple data points supports Second Step as an effective SEL program regardless of the instructional model. In speaking with the Vice President of Education and Research at Second Step, prior to implementation, she stated that the program was designed to be flexible when being delivered. This way the program could be tailored to meet the specific needs of the school (Kim, 2020). The evidence from this study provides both quantitative and qualitative evidence to support the company's statements. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 93 The ramifications of these findings could have a significant impact on schools as they look to utilize effective curriculums that can be delivered with flexibility. The ability to be able to provide instruction across modalities is important as schools find themselves adapting to changes in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The practical results of this study and the effects of Second Step while being delivered both virtually and in-person, highlight the strength of the program. Considerations/Limitations This study was conducted during an atypical school year. In the 2020-2021 school year, the study school was operating under health and safety mitigation protocols due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the school utilized various instructional modalities. The same behavioral expectations and reporting methods that were utilized in previous school years continued, even when students were paiiicipating across the three modalities. While this could have affected some of the overall ODR numbers, the additional information provided from the TASEL Likert-scale questionnaire and openended qualitative responses, provided evidence to support the reduction of ODR numbers as a result of the Second Step program. An additional consideration is that the researcher of the study was also an administrator at the study school. Every attempt was made to solicit unbiased, anonymous, and voluntary feedback from the teachers involved in the study. The school's PBIS team, school counselor, and emotional support teachers took key roles in implementation as they filmed virtual assemblies, created posters, disseminated materials, developed skits, etc. When the survey was distributed, emphasis was placed on the anonymity of the survey. It was reiterated multiple times that the survey was both EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 94 anonymous and voluntary and there would be no repercussions with lack of participation. If at any point during the study teachers were concerned about the survey or its inquiries, they were able to opt out. Teachers were also provided with infonnation to contact the Slippery Rock University Institutional Review Board. This contact information was included in the informational letter that was sent out to all staff located in Appendix F. Significance and Research Contributions The execution of the current study has resulted in a contribution to the evidence base surrounding SEL and the efficacy of the Second Step program. The statistically significant effect on student behavior as well as the qualitative impact on school climate provides evidence for the holistic quality of the program. Added evidence through qualitative responses recognized the impact on the behavior of emotional support students. The study also highlighted the effectiveness of the Second Step teacher training and implementation program. An especially notew01ihy outcome of this study is the evidence that was realized due to the study being conducted during a global pandemic. The effect and impact that is evidenced by this study bolster the recommendations of the repo1is that came out in advocacy for SEL as a critical component to reopening schools in the 2020-2021 school year following the COVID-19 school closures during the 2019-2020 school year (CASEL, 2020; Pennsylvania Back to School Task Force, 2020). The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) released a return to school report in conjunction with 46 different education, counseling, and philanthropic organizations including; the Wallace Foundation, American School EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 95 Counselor Association, National Education Association, and the National Association of School Psychologists, among many others. In their detailed report, CASEL advocated and outlined SEL critical practices that were needed to ensure schools were attending equitably to students' academic needs, social and emotional development, physical and mental health, and the overall well-being of students (CASEL, 2020). In Pennsylvania, where the study school is located, a joint coalition of organizations formed the Pennsylvania School Reopening Task Force. Included in this task force was: Pennsylvania School Board Association, Pennsylvania State Education Association, Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators, Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials, Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units, Pennsylvania Principals Association, Pennsylvania Association of Career and Technical Administrators, and the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools. These organizations worked in conjunction with guidance from local and state health officials, the Governor's office, and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. This task force identified SEL as an integral component to reopening schools both in terms of instruction as well as student health and safety (Pennsylvania Back to School Task Force, 2020). The evidence generated in this study not only supports the recommendations of these organizations but also provides a base of evidence for their recommendations for SEL instruction as a critical component to reopening schools during a pandemic. Recommendations for Further Research The findings of this study, coupled with previous research, provide a catalyst for further exploration and examination. A great amount of infonnation would be provided if the study was examined longitudinally. Through a multi-year analysis, evidence could be EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 96 collected to determine if the different instructional modalities that were utilized due to COVID-19 had an impact on the overall ODR numbers. The longitudinal data could also be used to examine individual cohorts to determine if the relative level of difference in ODRs/effectiveness trended similarly. This data could then be analyzed through the same McNemar test to determine overall statistical significance, as well as significance on cohort subgroups. Research protocols could also be revised to determine if there are any potential cumulative effects of the rate of ODRs on the emotional support subgroup. A further longitudinal study could focus more qualitatively on identifying fmiher contextual information from teachers regarding their attitudes and perceptions about SEL, its implementation, and the Second Step program. Teachers would be able to provide qualitative feedback on several inquiries including; the quality of implementation in the second year, the level of comfo1i in instructing during the second year, the level of the behavioral effect, and if the added stress due to teaching a new curriculum during the pandemic was alleviated. An additional aspect of this study that could provide insight regarding the program would be to conduct a comparative analysis with the study school and the other elementary schools in its school district. The 2020-2021 school year was also the first year of implementation for the five other elementary schools within the district and a comparison of these schools could provide more evidence regarding the program and its effects. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to expand on the existing research surrounding SEL instruction in schools, specifically examining the Second Step program as one iteration of EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 97 this curricular approach. By answering the research questions, the study determined that the Second Step SEL program not only had a statistically significant impact on the reduction of behaviors as evidenced by the McNemar analysis, but also an impact on the climate of the entire building as evidenced through the qualitative teacher responses. Results from the study suggest that teachers identified that overall, the positive benefits of implementing the program outweighed the negative, even when considering the delivery of this new curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, results also showed a positive impact on more challenging behavioral students in the special education emotional support subgroup. The evidence that this study provided will help schools work to not only strengthen their students' social, emotional, and behavioral capacities but also help as they navigate their return to normalcy following the pandemic. As schools often function as a microcosm of their communities, programs like Second Step can be used to help encourage not only individual growth but growth as a school community as well. By using Second Step to help invest in the five core competencies of SEL; self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making, schools will help students grow in their capacities and, in turn, have a greater impact on their communities as a whole. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 98 References Act 18 of 2019: School safety package (changes to Act 44 and more). (2019, July 15). Retrieved February 21, 2020, from https://www.psba.org/2019/07/act-18-of-2019school-safety-package-changes-to-act-44-and-more/ Act 211, 42 uses§ 15801 (1990) Adedokun, O.A. & Burgess, W.D. (2012). Analysis of paired dichotomous data: A gentle introduction to the McNemar test in SPSS. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 125-131. Retrieved May 27, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/7 653 8/ American Psychological Association. (2020). Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https ://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/ Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2018). Supporting social-emotional learning with evidencebased programs. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.corn.proxysru.klnpa.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED585944&site=ehost-live Association for Positive Behavior Support. (2020). Retrieved March 19, 2020, from http://www.apbs.org/ Bear, G. G., Whitcomb, S. A., Elias, M. J., & Blank, J.C. (2015). SEL and schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. In J. A. Dudak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research and Practice. (pp. 453-467). The Guilford Press EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 99 Belfield, C., Bowden, A., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning. Journal of Bene.fit-Cost Analysis, 6(3), 508-544. doi:10.1017/bca.2015.55 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 socialemotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.103 7/a00 18607 Brunzell, T., Stokes, H. & Waters, L. (2016). Trauma-informed positive education: Using positive psychology to strengthen vulnerable students. Contemp School P:.ychol 20, 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-015-0070-x Bruhn, A. L., Lane, K. L., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). A review of tier 2 interventions conducted within multi tiered models of behavioral prevention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(3), 171-189. https://doi.org/10. l l 77%2Fl063426613476092 Burke, M. D., Davis, J. L., Hagan-Burke, S., Lee, Y.-H., & Fogarty, M. S. (2014). Using SWPBS expectations as a screening tool to predict behavioral risk in middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.l 177%2Fl098300712461147 CASEL. (2013). Effective social and emotional learning programs: preschool and elementa,y edition. CASEL. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/l 7WVff3ynFN9VwjyFR0Wxye8YyivJG_7v/view EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 100 CASEL. (2020). Reunite, renew, and thrive: social and emotional learning (SEL) roadmap for reopening school. https://casel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/SEL-ROAD MAP .pdf CASEL. (2017). Social and emotional learning competencies. CASEL. Retrieved from https ://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/ l 2/CASEL-Competencies.pdf Chapter 12 § 12.41. Student services (2006) Chi-Ming Kam, Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (2004). Sustained effects of the PATHS curriculum on the social and psychological adjustment of children in special education. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 12(2), 66-78 https://doi.org/10.1177 /10634266040120020101 Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment: The impact of school climate and social-emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools, 48(10), 1034-1048. https://doi.org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.1002/pits.20611 Cook, C.R., Frye, M., Slemrod, T., Lyon, A. R., Renshaw, T. L., & Zhang, Y. (2015). An integrated approach to universal prevention: Independent and combined effects of PBIS and SEL on youths' mental health. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.1037 /spq0000l 02 Cooper, J. 0., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2008). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall Committee for Children. (n.d.) About us. Retrieved from https ://www .cfchildren.org/about-us/historyI EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 101 Committee for Children. (2018). How the second step program got its name. Retrieved from https ://www.cfchildren.org/blog/2018/05/how-the-second-step-program-gotits-name/ Corcoran, R.P., Cheung, A.C., Kim, E, & Xie, C. (2018). Effective universal schoolbased social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review, 25(1), 56-72. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social informationprocessing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1 ), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1. 74 Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65(2), 649-665. https://doi.org/10.2307 /1131407 Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Socialemotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739 Doughty, J.E. (1997). The effect of a social skills' curriculum on student performance. (Report No. ED 412260). Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED412260 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- EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 102 analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82( I), 405432. https://doi.org/10.l l l l/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Duncan, R., Washburn, I. J., Lewis, K. M., Bavarian, N., DuBois, D. L., Acock, A. C., Flay, B. R. (2017). Can universal SEL programs benefit universally? Effects of the positive action program on multiple trajectories of social-emotional and misconduct behaviors. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of The Society for Prevention Research, 18(2), 214--224. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl 1121-0160745-1 Eddy, J.M., Reid, J.B., Stoolmiller, M., & Fetrow, R.A. (2003). Outcomes during middle school for an elementary school-based preventive intervention for conduct .problems: follow-up results from a randomized trial. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 535-552 Edwards, D., Hunt, M. H., Meyers, J., Grogg, K. R., & Jarrett, 0. (2005). Acceptability and student outcomes of a violence prevention curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 401-418. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-0002-z Ee, J., Cheng, W.L. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of students' social emotional learning and their infusion of SEL. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 59-72 Elias, M. J., Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Frey, K.S., Greenberg, M.T., Haynes, N.M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M.E., & Shriver, T.P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. ASCD Franklin, B. (1785). Advice to a young tradesman. Philadelphia: Printed by Daniel Humphreys, at the new printing-office, in Spruce-Street, near the drawbridge EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 103 Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Edstrom, L. V., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children's goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 26, 171-200 Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2017). Statistics for the behavioral sciences, JOe. Boston, MA: Cengage Greenberg, M. T. (2006). Promoting resilience in children and youth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094(1), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.013 Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J.E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466-474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.58.6-7.466 Guo, S., Wu, Q., Smokowski, P., Bacallao, M., Evans, C., & Cotter, K. (2015). A longitudinal evaluation of the positive action program in a low-income, racially diverse, rural county: effects on self-esteem, school hassles, aggression, and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 44(12), 2337-2358. https://doi.org/10.1007 /sl 0964-015-0358-1 Horner, R.H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004) EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 104 Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, I 05(11 ), 2283-2290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015 .302630 Jones, S. M., Bouffard, S. M., & Society for Research in Child Development. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social policy report. Volume 26, Number 4. In Society for Research in Child Development. Jones, S. M., Brush, K., Bailey, R., Brion-Meisels, G., McIntyre, J., Kahn, J., & Nelson, B., (2017). Navigating SEL j,wn the inside out: Looking inside & across 25 leading SEL programs: A practical resource for schools and OST providers: (Elementary school focus). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/NavigatingSocial-and-Emotional-Learning-from-the-Inside-Out.pdf Kim, Tia. (2020, January 23). Phone interview with Jablonski, J. A. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262273 Korous, K. M., Causadias, J.M., Bradley, R.H., & Luthar, S.S. (2018). Unpacking the link between socioeconomic status and behavior problems: A second-order metaanalysis. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1889-1906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001141 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 105 Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71 (1 ), 107-118 Lewis, K. M., Vuchinich, S., Ji, P., DuBois, D. L., Acock, A., Bavarian, N., Flay, B. R. (2016). Effects of the positive action program on indicators of positive youth development among urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 20(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015 .1039123 Low, S., Cook, C.R., Smolkowski, K., & Buntain-Ricklefs, J. (2015). Promoting socialemotional competence: an evaluation of the elementary version of Second Step. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.002 Low, S., Smolkowski, K., & Cook, C. (2016). What constitutes high-quality implementation of SEL programs? A latent class analysis of Second Step® implementation. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of The Society for Prevention Research, 17(8), 981-991. https://doi-org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.1007 /sl 1121-016-0670-3 Low, S., Smolkowski, K., Cook, C., & Desfosses, D. (2019). Two-year impact of a universal social-emotional learning curriculum: Group differences from developmentally sensitive trends over time. Developmental Psychology, 55(2), 415-4 3 3. https ://doi .org/ 10 .103 7/dev000062 l .supp Martinez, L. (2016). Teachers' voices on social emotional learning: Identifying the conditions that make implementation possible. International Journal of Emotional Education, 8(2), 6-24 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 106 Maslow, A.H. (1943). A themy of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370396. Retrieved March 21, 2020, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.53.2.205 Millcreek Township School District. (2020) Student demographic information. Location: Infinite Campus Student Information Services. Novak, M., Mihic, J., Basic, J., & Nix, R. L. (2017). PATHS in Croatia: A school-based randomized-controlled trial of a social and emotional learning curriculum. International Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 87-95 Oklahoma State Department of Education. (2020). Retrieved July 11, 2020, from https ://sde.ok. gov /aware-planned-programming Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: a framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277-297. https: //doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015. l 125450 Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58 Osher, D., & Berg, J. (2017). School climate and social and emotional learning: The integration of two approaches. Edna Bennet Pierce Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 107 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., Pachan, M., & Collaborative for Academic, S. and E. L. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. (Technical Rep01i). In Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Retrieved from https://www.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PDF-4-the-positive-impactof-social-and-emotional-leaming-for-kindergarten-to-eighth-grade-studentsexecutive-summary. pdf Pennsylvania Back to School Task Force. (2020). Pennsylvania School Reopening Task Force Report. https://www.pasanet.org/Files/Coronavirus/SchoolReopeningReport.pdf Pennsylvania School Code 22 Pa Code § 14.131. IEP 1, July 2008 Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2020). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://futurereadypa.org/Home/Glossary# Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2020). Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https ://www.education.pa. gov /K-12/Homebound%20Instruction/Pages/IEPs-and504-Service-Agreements.aspx Plumb, J. L., Bush, K. A., & Kersevich, S. E. (2016). Trauma-sensitive schools: An Evidence-based approach. School Social Work Journal, 40(2), 37-60 Second Step Alignment Charts. (2017). Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.secondstep.org/alignment-charts EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 108 Schultz, D., Ambike, A., Stapleton, L. M., Domitrovich, C. E., Schaeffer, C. M., & Bartels, B. (2010). Development of a questionnaire assessing teacher perceived support for and attitudes about social and emotional learning. Early Education and Development, 21(6), 865-885 Shadish, W.R. (1993), Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1993: 13-57. doi:10.1002/ev.1660 Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., De Ritter, M., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: Do they enhance students' development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology in the Schools, 49(9), 892-909. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21641 Singer, E., & Couper, M. P. (2017). Some Methodological Uses of Responses to Open Questions and Other Verbatim Comments in Quantitative Surveys. Methods, data, No 2 (2017). https://doi.org/10.12758/MDA.2017.01 Specials Schedule. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.mtsd.org/schools/grandview/main/bell-schedule Splett, J. W., Smith-Millman, M., Raborn, A., Brann, K. L., Flaspohler, P. D., & Maras, M.A. (2018). Student, teacher, and classroom predictors of between-teacher variance of students' teacher-rated behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(3), 460-468 Stoiber K., Gettinger M. (2016) Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices. In: Jimerson S., Burns M., VanDerHeyden A. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. Springer, Boston, MA EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 109 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156-1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864 United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2020). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/applying-freeand-reduced-price-school-meals United States Department of Education. (2020). Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https://www.ed.gov/k-12reforms/standards Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In R. P. Weissberg, J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. (pp. 3-19). The Guilford Press World Health Organization. Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice (Summary Report) Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004 Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press. Zins, J., Bloodwotih, M., Weissberg, R., & Walberg, H. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational & EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Psychological Consultation, 17(2/3), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/104 74410701413145 110 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 111 Appendix A Second Step Implementation Timeline SY 2020-2021 • Summer Implementation completed on an on-demand basis prior to the start of school on 8-31-20 • District introductory video to staff • Administrator 2 hr. online Second Step training ■ Administrator onboarding video conference ■ Teachers 2 hr. online Second Step training ■ Parent introduction posted with Welcome Back Letter ■ Parent introduction included in Welcome Back Video • August ■ • Teacher Inservice ■ Second Step Orientation Meeting 1 September • ■ ■ • October ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • Month 1 K-5 Weekly Lessons w/ Home Link correspondence and daily reinforcement strategies. Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Month I Kick-Off Staff Meeting Month 1 Virtual Kick-Off Assembly Weekly announcements highlighting the week's SEL focus Monthly parent SEL update posted to school website November ■ • • ■ ■ • Began 5-week Second Step COVID-19 Community Rebuilding Unit Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Faculty Meeting ■ Orientation Meeting 2 December Month 2 K-5 Weekly Lessons w/ Home Link c01Tespondence and daily reinforcement strategies. Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Month 2 Kick-Off Staff Meeting Month 2 Vi1tual Kick-Off Assembly Weekly announcements highlighting the week's SEL focus Monthly parent SEL update posted to school website EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ • ■ ■ Month 5 Kick-Off Staff Meeting Month 5 Vittual Kick-Off Assembly Month 5 K-5 Weekly Lessons w/ Home Link correspondence and daily reinforcement strategies. Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Weekly announcements highlighting the week's SEL focus Monthly parent SEL update posted to school website March • • • Month 6 Kick-Off Staff Meeting Month 6 K-5 Weekly Lessons w/ Home Link cotTespondence and daily reinforcement strategies. Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Month 6 Virtual Kick-Off Assembly Weekly announcements highlighting the week's SEL focus Monthly parent SEL update posted to school website • • Completion of Second Step Program Continue to reinforce strategies that were taught/learned ■ ■ • Month 4 K-5 Weekly Lessons w/ Home Link correspondence and daily reinforcement strategies. Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Month 4 Kick-Off Staff Meeting Month 4 Virtual Kick-Off Assembly Weekly announcements highlighting the week's SEL focus Monthly parent SEL update posted to school website February ■ • Month 3 K-5 Weekly Lessons w/ Home Link cotTespondence and daily reinforcement strategies. Weekly Staff-led PD at Team Meetings. Month 3 Kick-Off Staff Meeting Month 3 Virtual Kick-Off Assembly Weeldy announcements highlighting the week's SEL focus Monthly parent SEL update posted to school website January ■ • 112 April EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 113 Appendix B List of Open-Ended Qualitative Questions • Are you classified as a Special Education teacher or a Regular Education teacher? • How do you feel Second Step affected the overall behavior of the student body? • How do you feel Second Step affected the behavior of Special Education students in need of Emotional Support services? • How do you feel Second Step affected the overall climate and culture of Grandview Elementary? EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 114 Appendix C Social Development Lab Director: David Schultz, Ph.D., M.Div. E-mail: dschultz@umbc.edu Lab Phone: 410-455-8183 Teacher Attitudes about Social and Emotional Learning (TASEL) Purpose. The TASEL questionnaire examines teacher attitudes towards social and emotional learning programs. It serves two purposes: 1) a needs assessment tool to identify issues to address prior to program implementation, and 2) a tool to assess factors related to implementation quality. Concepts assessed. The TASEL contains six scales. Administrative support items assess teacher impressions of the support for program implementation they receive from administrative leaders in the school/center. Training items assess teacher beliefs about the quality of training they received. Teacher competence at program delivery assesses how confident teachers feel delivering program lessons. Program effectiveness items assess teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of the program implemented in their school/center. Time-related constraints items assess attitudes regarding time that teachers have for preparation and delivery of program lessons. Curriculum priority items assess how strongly teachers and administrative leaders value social and emotional learning compared to more traditional academic learning. Administration. The TASEL is a self-administered questionnaire that takes teachers about 10-12 minutes to complete. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING ID_________ 115 Center _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Teacher Attitudes about Social and Emotional Leaming (TASEL) Instructions. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by circling the appropriate response. ••• The acronym SDP (i.e.,Social Development Program) refers to the program implemented in your school/center. *** Strongly Oiugree Somewhat Dlugr&o I Olaagree lltda Agret a lltt:le Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 1. Programs such as SOP are effective in helping children learn social and emotional skills. 2 3 4 5 6 2. SOP can help all kids regardless of their temperament. 2 3 4 5 6 3. It is worth my effort to implement SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 4. SOP has helped my children to improve their social and emotional skills. 2 3 4 5 6 5. I deliver SOP lessons effectively. 2 3 4 5 6 6. I understand the goals of SOP. 2 3 4 5 6 7. I feel competent teaching SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 8. I have thorough knowledge of SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 9. I don't have lime in the day or week to deliver SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 10. I have enough lime to prepare for SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 11. Spending time on SOP lessons takes time away from academics. 2 3 4 5 6 12. The administrative staff has arranged for training in SOP. 2 3 4 5 6 13. I received sufficient training in SOP. 2 3 4 5 6 14. The training I received provided me with sufficient knowledge about the content of the program. 2 3 4 5 6 15. The training I received was a hands-on training where I could practice what I had learned. 2 3 4 5 6 16. The Principal/Director is an active supporter of SOP. 2 3 4 5 6 17. The Principal/Director has watched me deliver SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 18. The Principal/Director acknowledges teachers who do a good job delivering SOP. 2 3 4 5 6 19. Other than at orientation, the Principal/Director has discussed SOP at staff meetings. 2 3 4 5 6 20. The Principal/Director has scheduled specific times for delivery of SOP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING ID_________ 116 Center _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Teacher Attitudes about Social and Emotional Leaming (TASEL) Instructions. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by circling the appropriate response. *** The acronym SOP (i.e.,Social Development Program) refers to the program implemented in your school/center. ••• Strongly IIUle Agr.. allttie SomBWhat Olsagnie Agrae Agree 21. The Principal/Director gives more importance to learning academics than learning social and emotional skills. 2 3 4 5 6 22. Other teachers in my school/center implement SDP consistently. 2 3 4 5 6 SO-ongly Disagree Somewhat DiNgroo a If there is another administrative leader at your schoolfcenter who oversees implementation and training of the social development program chosen by your schoolfcenter, please also make use of the following items. a. The education coordinators are active supporters of SDP. 2 3 4 5 6 b. The education coordinators acknowledge teachers who do a good job delivering SDP. 2 3 4 5 6 c. The education coordinators have scheduled specific times for delivery of SDP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 d. The education coordinators have watched me deliver SDP lessons. 2 3 4 5 6 e. Other than at orientation, the education coordinators have discussed SDP at staff meetings. 2 3 4 5 6 f. The education coordinators give more importance to learning academics than learning social and emotional skills. 2 3 4 5 6 Please answer the following questions as best as you can. 23. Number of years of experience as a teacher: ______ years 24. Number of years of experience as a teacher at this particular school/center:_______,ears 25. Number of years of experience in delivering SDP lessons: _ _ _ _ __,ears EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 117 AppendixD (~ s A 0 Be Safe 6c Or.~m,icd R F,,cAcccpt:in,t; De R.cspcctful Minor and Ma' or offense Flowchart 1st Incident Verbal re-teach and role-play of expectation • Minor rncident Report Form (MIR) comple1ed • MIR to homeroom teacher the same day Incident Procedures Follow District protocol Complete ODR Fonn Send copy of ODR to Office ODR entered into TC Administrator to contact parent 2nd lncident Verbal re-teach and role-play of expeclation Possible meeting with parents and staff Alternate seating Possible referral to 1ST Possible Behavior Support Plan MIR completed MIR to homeroom teacher the same day Parent contact via phone or email 3rd Incident Verbal re-teach and role-play of expectation Altemate seating MIR completed MIR to homeroom teacher the same da}' Parent contact info1ming that the next incident will be an Office Discipline Referral (ODR) **Be sure to document each incident.** 4th Incident MIR fom1s complied Complete Office Discipline Referral (ODRJ Send ODR and copies of all MI Rs to Office for resolution ODR entered into IC Possible refetral to IST Lastupdated:8/9/19 Behavior chart Stealing Sh-aling Student is in possession of .rnmeone else's property. Student is rcplctcly in possession of someone else's property. Inappropriate Language Abusive Language Student engngcs in low-intensity instance of inapprnpriatc language. ${1l(]ent delivers verbal mesSH£C that includes swearing.. name calling, or use of words in ,m inappropriate ,,,..·ay. Disruption Fighting/Physical Aggression Towards Others Student engage:,; in low intensity, but inappropriate disruption. Student engages in actions involving seriou:,; physical contact where injury may occur. Examples may include: hitting (with or without an nhje.ct), pundnng. kicking, or scraldting. Defiance Repeated Defian(_-e Student engage.\ in brief or low intensily failure to respond lo arJult iequcsts. Student engages in refusal to follow directions. talks back and/or delivers socially rude interactions. Property Misuse Property Damage Student eng.ages in low intensity misuse of property. Srndent partkipants in an activity that results in the destruction or disfigurement uf property. Cheating/Lying Harassment/Bullying Student delivers message that is untrue and/or deliberately violates a rule. Student delivers disrespectful messages (verbal or gestures) lO another person that includes threats. intimidation, obscene gesture:,;, pictures or written 110Lcs. Disrci.;pectful messages may include negative comments on race, rcligilin, gender, age, national orcthnk origin, disabilities.or other personal matlcrs. Also includes sustained or intense verbal Other Student engages in any other minor problem behavion: that do not fall within the above categories. Olher aHacks. Lastupdated:8/9/19 Studen! engages in any other minor problem behaviors that do not fall within the above categories. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 118 Appendix E ill~ree Toft7·nship ~hool Distri.~t is~i:pline Matrix Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Millcreek Township School District Code lnftildion i Polil:)' l Immediate Disposition Referrals Parental Contact Attendance and Punctuality Elementary - Tardine~~ to Schoo! - Although the con~equenttS for tardines~ may be diffe1em than those oi secondary students, e!er:1entary students are still heid accountab!e for their punctuality to school. When a stt1dent is late by more than 5 mir.utes after the des1gnI HS/ MS - SST Recommended MS• Letter to Perent/Guardien detamr.g MS-Required consequences of further tardies. ATI05 6th Tardy { 0- 90 Minute~ Late) 204 One (1i Sdlunlay Di::tenlion Ri::qui1ed HS/MS-551 Rec.ommended i-A_TT_0_7---ir7~th_T_a<_d~y(~O---,o-,-li-nu_te_s_u,_te~)-+-2-0_4_ _,._H_S-~A~d-m-1n-ist-ra~fr-.,e-D-is_«_eti-.o-n------+···H-5- Option;;I HS/ MS-SST Recommended MS- Letter or Phone Cc.II to Pnrent/Guardian MS• Required cietaiiing consequences of further tardies. ATTOB 8 or more Tardies ( O 90 204 HS - One (1) d;;y of !SS for each additional tardy, Required HS/ M-S - SST Recommended Minutes!..ate) or use. of Focus Rocm/consequences at HS/ MS- Parent Conf. Arimini~trntive Discretion. Recommended MS- One {li day of ISS /..TT03 Any Unlawful Tardy (after first 204 block) ATT09 Tardiness to Class 204 One (1) Saturday Detention and no participation in any Extra Curricular activities that day Teacher/Administrative Discretion One (1) Hr of Office Detention after Three {3} Tardies HS/MS: 1. 10 or more tardies per quarter may include exclusion from Homecoming, Prom, Dances, Extra-Curricular Activities, Sports, Parking Prlvlleges, etc. Required Optional Optional Optional EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Milkreek Township School District 119 Student lnfr;ictlon and Disposition Matri>i Infraction Polley ! lmmediateDisposllion I:.~/i,~~~il;:,::':;~~~~;;;;g~:~~~~=:.ces, i f.,:tr,1-C1,rri;:i.:larll.ctMties,Sport~, Park;ng ?r:~i!!t~es, eu:_ {,"Ji absence~ hom sdiucl si)~II betre,1tedas~i;r,lawful"un1:i tl1eS(:hodDLrt/lctr1:::el~esa wnttt:nexci;se,;,:plainingthe ES-ParemConforencefl.equired ut:,;;encc.) 5ubjecttc-Adrr:ir.;stratweD,.;c1etronlor sa,denu undn th~ age cf e:ght (Si y.;;~n ,:,1a. Studcr.:s wH: H1u:;ye no ere!!!! forwcrl: m tesa m1,s,;dcr.cnla·_.lfulorm1eHuseC:C:a1•s. Tm.J,n. Trn~r,cy- Ul'.ccsedobsen::ecccun HS ~m:i MS- Minimum of one {1) Sahmfay whMos:udentn(JelJ:1ro/der Detenti,Jnw•tht,am:n!5tr:ati·,e0iscre1icn ES-~/.ini:numo!three(:;)CfliteDflentior,~ wit'1 A!!mini~tra:ive Discr;,;k,r. 1:n:1;,prove.tre,:m:.niil :wgqe)/e;f/r;Po/;r:-/204,f Student Infraction and Disposition Matrht j Referra15 Millcreek Township School District Code ''"'"~ hdraction Policy f'arenlidtontact. lmme!JiateOj:1pmlllor1 l.>:~vir,j;St:.'ioolWithout Pcrmi~sion 204 HS 1Jpt<;111ref.'(3)hoursoi0Hlc<"Detenfa,n MS•0M(l)Satort...PilrkingPrMleees,Etc. ~lywlthDl>pnsltions C0MC1 ffiMG2 OtMSl~e 0ff,ce Detention AcrumulationofTwelve(12) Hours,,f0!facDcten;icriduring 0ne(l)Schoo!Year hCE501ve S:;turdoy Oetent,on Am.:mu\;tionofSeven\7) S;;.turdayDete.r,tionsciur;r,g0r,1, Z18 Deterrninedonaceseb"tcasebasi,!nclud!r,g 1her,,signmcntoiSatu1d~y D!otent!onfor subseque:;tactim1sth~twou:drl'q1Jirc0f!ice f(equired DS lleterminedonac~seb1'cawbosisinclud1ng the;;.ssignmentoflnS~hoolSt,spensionfor subseque'1ti!ctionstha:\~outdrequ!re$ahmiay !ler.;u,r~d 21~,--+':'c';~~~:;~,1~:~";c;t;/~::s~:~:;~:n -=,o~M·oa~-P.~:'c;/~u~:~:~•:~:;~e~~,T~ea~,,-,er---17 eq1.rnl to doub!e f'~reritConferenceReccmmnnded Paren:Conierenci!Rtcomm~nded Requireri thct!me~is;gnedfortheorlginalTNthe1 Det;.,ntion C0M04 F~:iuretoAttE>ndOffo:e 2J8 HSiMS~Deti:-rmir,edor.ac;1P.t1•r.asebasis Detention iriclud!r.cre 1h,i ;;ssi[a11mentofone {1) Saturdiy Dehmiior. ES - D,nermined on;; use by r.ase b~si, iridudin_c reasstc:r.ment of tMe Qff;ce Detention F2i!1.:re to A;:tenci Saumfay Detention Oeterrr.ir.ed en a c;;;F. byca,~ ba,i~ lndudine Rccquirec! Optional Required 0;,tion;i plustheasslgnme'1tofan~djition3i01flce COM05 rn~s1ii;nmentcftt.eS1twd~yDettntic,np!us theas5ignrnan;:c-l,1ptotwo(2)1fay1ofln Sd1rdS~! en~lnn EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Millcreek Township School District Code NA Infraction Multiple Suspe:.sions; or a Sing!eSti5pensionforDrugs, Alcohol, Assaulr, Weapons, TerroristicThreats,Fightlr:g,or Tobacm ?olicy Violations 120 Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Policy 218 Immediate Disposition Hgibiiity for attending major school fonctions {Le. dance, prom, game, etc.) is determined by Parental Car.tact Referrals Required thefoilowingi,arameters: HS: l-2daytofwspension-mayattend; HS: 3-10 dnys of suspens!on-Adrnini;tr;;tion's discretion; ! 15: Over 10 days of suspension- not permitted; MS: 1-2 da}'S of wspension; may attend; t.•15: 3 or more•· not permi~ed to attend. ' lnannro riate Behaviors - General GENOl Inappropriate Behavior on Bus 218 C[N02 CornputeriNetwork Resource Impropriety 815 GEN03 Cr!mlnal Trespass 218 GEN04 Disorder!y Conduct 218 GENOS Disruptive and Inappropriate Behavior (lnciud!ng, but not !!mlted to: ciassroom,hall, andcafoteria mi~hP!-:,iv;nr, in;;pprnpd;;te !anguageandgestures, horseplayirotJgh housingipranks,loltering,snow throwing,etc.J Disrespectful Be!-,avior and/or lnsubardination Dress Code infrneliec,lrnclPa,;h1tPa,s ;;n:lPn,ilei;ns;l'ossfoleTow:c:gofW,lw.lr.. lmmtd,~ttc Su~penoion from s,:riool pend:ng;; formalloearingwiththeSi.,perJr.lenticntand 218 Loc.:i!L,1wEr.forcementcontai::ted Rc?q:...ircd pc;~sibly rhe Sdioo! Board. lmr.wd:ate5uspensionfrornschoolpem:!!nga GENlE Unll1vfu:Restraint '..'.18 GEN17 Vandalism 218 MinlrnumofOr,e(l)SJturdayD!2tentionplus restitutlcnfor~armges THfOl ""'"' 213 lmrned:atP.Susr,,:n;io:1froms:::hoo\pend:r.1;a for:nalh,uingwfththeSuperir.tendentand formnlhoi'aringwiththeSuperinte,dent1.mri !'.,)t::>~il>lyth~ Schoo! 3mrn.l, THF02 Rcq:;ircd ,_Required .. ilt'qulred possiblyth,2Schoo:Br.ard. !mmedJi'!tf. Su.~pen.,ior: frorr: .scho◊I p,md!ng J Robbt:ry THF03 Thdt(Pctty-!,mth.in$50.00) 218 THF04 Theft (morf. than $50.00j 7.18. R~qcJired formalhi.!arlngwiththcSL:perir.tem1entaM possiblytheSr.hon!Roard. Minimum of cne (l} trnur of office CHentlon Jn::!res~!t-,tion lmmednlacted r,;;c;c;--t,====---+==-,L'="~"ib~lv~th~,s~,hc,o"°ol.,cBocc"ccd_===-+.--=---1 w,thth~possibiHtyofcriminal Hfi03 ir,rnp;mng with Fire 210.2 hnrn!:!U;ate S:usp!msion from school pend:ng a. R,equlred charge, fil.;r, form;;!i:o2aringw!lhth~Superlritt:nd~1,tand pcssiblythe5choo1Board Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Millcreek Township School District Code I Infraction I Assault/Flghtine: AF01 ' Mfnor Altercation P.F02 Fighting Notlf,aitionof!'ire:Mushall [ Policy ! Immediate: Disposition Minlmum of one (1) hour of Office Detention · fvlinimum thretc (3) days of Suspension (ISS / C-5S at the discretior; of the i21B 212 ~ Parental Contact I Optlor,al flequired Suspension Enforc:ernentcontacredwiththe possibllfty of c:im!na! charges filed SST Re;:orr:mended HS/MS/ES: Two {2) fights in orie (1) year may re~ultinanAitemaHveEducation 2. AF03 Reckless Endangering ES- SST Recommended placement Three (3) fights in a K!i;h School (HS) careermayresu1t inanAlternative Educationoiac:?ment : 218 Simpie Assa..:lt on a Studem: ! 218 Aggr.avc!ted /-ssau!t on Student 218 Immediate Su;:per:sion from schoo! and may ,-l.t.~.f~05~+-csi~m~,1e-,-ss-,~Lllt-o-,7St~,tt=---;~,~18=-; include a formal hearing with the .t..;:{)4 j .A.FOS ~!.c"=°''---+-c:As,.,,,,ca-"va,,te,,_decA'"'""'"'"-''o"''-"St,safie_-;--';"'!:'---;! AFOB · Hara~~mer,t/Bullymg{Threats/Hazmg Bullying !including Cyber Bullying) Required Local Law Enforcement wntacteci withthepossibilityofcriminal c"h.irges fil'!d Superintendent and possibly the School Bo.a rd. I ~:~;:1/~~:::~ghter : HBTOl ! Opticnal HS- LoCTl!Law E~f;~ccment contacted with the possibility of criminalci",argesfiled-551 recornnended MS - Pos~lbit: local Law administrator) ~- Minimum one \1) day of ;n Sci",ool 1. Referrals- 249 HOT02 Thmitening School OHicia! f Studen;: 248 HST03 Terrori&t Threats (b:ciudingBombThreats) 218.2 HBT04 Bomb Thre<:ts 218.2. Administrc!tive Dlscret!on with a minimum of one {1} hour of Office Detention Immediate Suspen~mn from schocl; penc:Hng a formaihearingwithtneSupcrintendo?nttinrl possibly the Schoel Board. Immediate Suspens,on from school end a threat cssessmcnt completed pending a formal hearing with the StJperir;tendent i!nd po£sibly ' Requin-.d Required Required SST Recommended Local Law Enforcement contacted with the possibliiry of criminal charges filed Local l..;wEnforcernentcontacted with the possibility of crimlnal char3esfiled the School i3oard. l-lBTOS Sexual Harassment 248 HBTG6 Racla!/Ethnlc lntimldatlo:; 248 Immediate svspe;islon and a threat assessment rnmrleted pending School Board hearing; Possible Threat Asse~sment and/ or E)(pu;sion; Furtherar:tionsinan:crd.ancewith,'\ct2fi Required Minim;;m of Saturday Detention Mlr.lm.im of Saturday Detention Requ!rcd loca!LawEnfcrcementcontacted with the possibility of crlminc!l charges flied Reoulred SST :<:ecommended SSTRet.tirnrnendetl I EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Millcreek Township School District Code 122 Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Infraction Policy Immediate Disposition Parental Contact Referrals Required SST Recommended H:;;B;;;T0"'8---t':'"'c'"~ir,~gc-ccc-.,-----=-+··2cc478/=-24"'9-+l~,1i~ni~mo"m'-'o"-fS'-',""'"'-' d""ay_cDccetec'°ce""'-'°'-c--.,-----j -~1.,:_9uired SST Recommended AH Orh[)r Forms of HBT07 248 Harassment/Intimidation Minimum of Saturday Detention ic· HBT09 Kidnapp!ngflnterferer.ce with Custody of Child 248/249 Immediate Suspension from school pending a format nearing with the Superintendent and Rl:!qw1red Lo~al law Enforcement c,'.)ntacteC with the passibi:fy of criminal icHc;;8;;;TH:;;;0:;-1TCCH,:c_zl:::.,,:--------+,c:,cc,--+'.Sn~"':s;"'1~",:/'c';,;sc,:','·~:'-":/';'io~.,:;~~~-;:"'~~~;,-,,-,,,,i,-,;-,,,,-at,-or-c,--+~,,-q-.-,·ir-eo~,--+'7b.'.'.'.~es fi!ed Lo,;;allawE:1forcernentc->nt.ictcti discretion; may impose a $100 fine. with the pos~ibiiity of crim1r.a! charges flied When rccomrnen:iP.d, lrnmedi;,te Suspension from !chool pending a fo,ma! hearing with th~ S,Jpf!rlntendentandp::miblythcSchoolBoard; Mayimpose$2.00fine. i Weaaons l=:~~:a:: ~:: s~ ~~:~~l;~:~~~~;t:.:l~::~~;;;n0~:: yn:t~:;:~~:~k:~~~~;~:e:;~ :~~;:~~~~~t;:;iJ:~l;~:o::;~~;:z:;hb~;:esi i W£A01 i F'•:>ssession of Handgun i W[A02 1 Possession of Rifle/Shotgun ! WEA03 l Possession of Other Firearm 218.l 218.1 218.1 218.1 WEA04 Possession of Knife{~ 1/2" requ:rement) WEAOS Pmse~sion of Cutting ln~trurnent (Rawr, Box Cutter, Ett) W£A06 Possession of Explosive (E::m1b, M:ssile, etc) WCA07 l FC•S.SE~sion ol BB/Pe',let Gun WEAOS '. FossessionofOtherWeaoon Code Infraction Drugs DAOl 218.1 218.1 i lrnmediale remo'li':! from schooi property ,md il i threat assessment completed; su~pension pendmg an 'informal tiearing at tf1e buHOing levtil within three i=l days cf the inrnienl. The outcome of the informai hearing may result ir. a Supe•intendent hearing and/orSthool Board he~ring and pvssihlE> e:,:pu!sion from school for at !east (1) school year. Further actions in aLc:ordance wlth Act 26. Infraction D.11.04 D.ti.05 Po~sible referral to local Jaw enforcemf'nt SST Required {if student is not expelled as a res1,;it of a formal Board he.iring) Policy ! lmmediateDisposttJon Parental Contact Rcforrals iii.,? H'.'~~hol 227 flrst Offense - Suspension for ten (10) 5chuoi days; Sgondand SuP.s¢:;n,:emQfu:.nlli - Out of schoolsu5pension pend',nga{orma\heari:ig witf\ the School Board from the school, or while the student is coming to o;fforn school. Posse~sion and/or Under the Influence of an Unauthorized or Contro!led Substance (includ!ng prescriptionrnedit:ationsnot following District procedures) while on school property, on property being used by the school, at any school function or activity, at any school -!!\'ent heid away from the school, or wfiile the studer.t ls coming to or from s;::hool. Sale or Distribution or the Intent to Sell or Distribute an Unauthori2cd orControlied Substance while on s::hoo! property, on property being used by the school, at any school function or acti\'ity, at any school event held awav from the schooL or whiie the student is coming to or from school. r,,far~presentatlon of an Unauthorized or Controlled Substance while on school property, or; propertv being used by the school, at any schooi function or activity, at any schoo: event held away ffom the school, or while the student is com!ng to or from schooL Possesslor, of Parapherr,aiia (any too! er equipmentv.'hose function isto aid a user in consuming or selling any type of Required Possiblernfe-rraltc!or.n!law enforcement DNA Coun:;e!or Reforra! Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Millcreek Township School District DA03 Required , 218.1 i 218.1 Sale, Possession, Use, or Under t~e infh.1ent.:e of Akoho! while onschoolproperty,on property belngL:sedbytheschool,atany schoolfuncticncractlvity,.it --~'-"~y:;~ho:)l evEnt hEidaway D.11.02 noxious, irritating, or poisonous ! ! Immediate Disposition Policy 227 first Offense - Suspension for up to ten (10) schoolda)'s; Second and Subsequent Offenses- Out of school suspension pending a formal hearing with the School Beard Parentalcontact \.... Required Referrals Urn:utho1ized substance -Possible referral to local law enforcement Controlled substance - Mandated referral to Local Law Enforcement DNA Cou;;~elor Referral 227 Any Offense - Out of school suspension pending a formal h~aring with the Schoo! Soard Required Possible referra!to lo::ol law enforcement DNA Counseior Referral 227 fJrrt Offense - Suspension for up to ten {10} days; Second and Subsequent Qff~~ ~ Out of school suspension p2nding.; fo:-ma! hearing witr'l the School Board Required f>osslble referral to local iaw enforcement DNA Counselor Referral 227 First Offense - Suspension for up to ten (10) days; Required Possible referral to locai law enforcement EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Millcreek Township School District Code 123 Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Infraction ...~~!Icy Immediate D!sposltion ·drug,contro·ied:substanceor ehoo! '"'""''" pood!c.g a fo,m,I fromtheschool,orwhllethe ~tudentistomintloo:from school. i To!rncco Nicot.ineVi □ !ations TOBOl Aa;ng as a" !ook out'' for smoke~$ TOB02 Pcs.se~sion/Use of Tobacco or Nirntine?rocillct<./includinge- 222 Ont: (1) dai·of In Sdwcl or Out of School Required SSTRecormnendt:d 222 AnvOffense: • Maridatededucationprogrcmor$150fine willbe•ice.swithliquidcontairnr.g ,\nvOffeme: 222 Required 10d.wsofsuspension;$150flne;$50firecode fee;poS!cibleremova!frornali01sttictspo~s and;,ctlvlt1~s;Schoo!Boardhear\ngforreferr.;t forp_~pulsionfrcmsr.hoo!. un.;uthoricccptional student for up to 10 consecutive days or 15 cumulative days duririg the schoo! 11ear {without a series of remo11als that constitute a pattern]. This is not considered a change in placement. 4\ if an exduslon is greater than ten days or 15 cumulatl\,e, a Mar,ifestation Determination must be made before a dlscip!ir,ar,' e)(c!usion can be assigned. • 5) 1f the student's conduct is determined to be Mar:ifesta;:ion, re\•iew IEP and revise as apprcpri;.te. lf r.ot a r,,1anifestation, mEy proceed with disciplinary removal or assignmenl In situations where disciplinary consequences may result !n remov:,!s that are greater than ten days: • Conduct D!sr.ip!inary Hearing first; EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Millcreek Township School District "' B, 124 Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Conduct Manifestation Determination second Students with Intellectual Disability 11D)-Any removal is a change In placement: l} To suspend a student even one day you must complete a Manifestation Determination nnd Notify/Consult with PDE (call them}. Consider revising the FBA and PBSP, complete a Record Review, consider revising the !EP and offer the parer.ts the NOREP. 2) !f parent refuses suspension, stude:;t cannot be suspended (except of the big three - see below). 3/ School Personnel may remove a student (students wit.'1 an ID too) to an inter!r.; alternative educational setting for u to 45 days WITHOUT regard to whether the behavior is a manifestation of the disability if they comm!t an infraction under the big three: a. Carrying or possession of a WEAPON (as outlined in the Federal Criminal Code Description), Possess or USES ILLEGAL DRUGS, Inflicting SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. b. c. DESCRIPTION OF STUDENT DISCIPLINE MATRIX INFRACTIONS The following definitions are included to pro.,-ide a uniform and fundamental t:nderstanding ofa partituiar offense as it relates to the Stl!dent Discipline Matrix. 1) Assault on a Student or School Employee- lntentionaliy, knowingly or reckle5sly causing bodHy injury or seriotJS bodily harm to a School District employee or another person. By definition, the Schoo! District does not recognize attempted assaults, only completed assaults. 2) Aggravated Assault- an attempt to cause serious bodii',' Injury to another or an attack that c.luses such injury to a S.:hcol District employee or another person. Included in this definition are cttacks in which the offending attacker uses a weapon. 3) Arson• intentional damage or attempt to damage any real or person;;I property by fire or incendiary device. This category incli:des any attempt to set a fire using fireworks, firecrackers, Molotov cocktails er other similar device. !t does not include the simple use of a light or lighting of a match. 4) Bullying• means an intentfona! electronic, written, verbal or ,1hyslcal act, or a series of severe, persistent or pervasive acts: a) directed at i genders, can be direct or indirect, and can be physical and/er psychological in nature. This definition inc!udes individual and group bul!y!ng as well as cyber bullying. This definition does not include mutual confrontation between two individuals or two groups of students. 5) Burglary• un!awfu! entry into a bu!lding or other s;::ructure w1lh the intent to commit crime, with or without the use of force. This definition Includes unlawful entries where no property loss occurs. 6) Bus Infractions• all Schoo! District infractions taking place on bus transportation. Disciplinary action for these offenses will correspond with the type of infraction committed by the student. 7) Computer/Network Resource Impropriety- use of the School District's computers and internet resources that in is vto!ation of the School District's computer use Policy. 8) Disorderly Conduct- shall mean any of the following: 9) a) engaging rn fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, b} making an unreasonable amount of noise, c} using obscene language or gestures, or d) creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition through any deliberate action. Disrespectful Behavior- a lack of respect or deference shown by a student to the authority or position of a School District official, emplovee or administrator. 10} Disruptive Behavior- student behavior, including verbal, physical, and/er written actions, which is distracting, detrimental, or not conducive to the !earning environment of other students. 11) Dress Code Infraction- the wearing of clothing or other clothing accessory items that violates the student dress code promulgated by the School District. This includes situations where a student violates addlt!ona! limitations on dress or appearance established by Schoo! District officials for lndividual students. 12) Electronic Device Infraction• the use of electronic devices, including cellular phones, tablets, portable music devices, portable gaming devices, computers, cameras, electronic wrist devices, and any other electronic device, in vioii'ltion of Schoo! District Policy. 13) Fighting (Mutual altercation) - a student confrontation with another student in which the altercation is mutual between the two, the altercation requires physical restraint and/or results in persona! injury or property damages. This definition does not include minor disorderly conduct or verbal confrontations. It is wlthin a School District employee or administrator's discretion to determine whether confrontations amount to "fighting." 14) Gambling- the making of any bet or wager and/or the organization of or participation in any lottery, numbers game, cards, dice, poo!, or bookmaking for money and/or property. 15) Harassment~ sha!I mean any of the following: a) the striking, kicking, or otherwise subjecting a person to !ight physical contact, including attempts or threats to do the same b) unwanted following of another person EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Millcreek Township School District 125 Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix c) engaging in tmnccessary, repeated acts that make another person tee! uncomfortable d) communkatirig to or about another person in any iewd, iasd'lious, threatening, or obscene way, !nduding the use of lhreaterik:g ur olisnme words, language, drawings, or caricatures, or ej doing any of the above in an anonymous mannt:r. 16) Hazing-occur~ whr.n .i person !r.tcntionally, knowlngiy or reckles~ly, for the purpose ol initiating, admitting or affiliating c studer,t with an organizallon, or for the purpose of continuing or enhancing membership or status in an organization, causes, coerces or forces a student to do any of the fonow1ng regardless 11 ccnsent of the student was sought: a} b) cj Viclatefederalor5tatccrimina! Consumi'18 .mythlng c.iusing physii:at or emotional harm Brutality of a phys:cal, mental, sexua! nature or other actiYlty that creates iikelihood of injury "Aggravated hozing~ occurs when a person commits iveiy intrusive on the student. Dog searches shall o.ily be conducted on the individual students If the School District has reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and the dog search is necessary in scope. Students shall be gi\•en notice and the opportunity to be present prior to any locker search, including dog searches of indiVidu;:;! iockers, unless the immediate health, safety, and wellbeing of Schoo! District students, personnel, and/or buildings are at risk. v Infraction- student behavior that ls iri violation of S:.hool District po!icy, I(. In-School Suspension- the placement of a student within the school bu1lding but outside of the regular cl2ssroom setting for a continuous period of time not to exceed a regular !>Choo! day. 15 Millcreek Township School District L Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix Middle School (MS)- refers to students at J.S. 1.Vilson, Walnut Creek, and Westiake, grades 6-8 M. Office Detention- retention or a studr:nt outside of the ret:ularly scheduled school day for a period of time not to exceed one {1) hour in length and proctored by a School District administrator or their designee. N. Out of School Sus.pem,ion- the placement of a student outslde of the Schooi District building. O. Parental Contact-communication with the parent(5) or guardlan(s) by means of conference, telephone, email, and/or letter. P. Policy- !ndic<1res the School District pclicy by which the infraction and related disposition is enforceab!e. Q. Secondary- refers to students at the high schools and middle schoo!s, grades 6-12 R. Teacher Detention- retention of a student outside of the regularly scheduled school day for a period of time not to exceed one (1) hour in length and proctored by the regular classroom teacher. S. Saturday Detention- retention of a student our.side of the regularly scheduled school day (Saturday) for a period of time not to exceed three (3) hours in length and proctored by a building .idrninistrator or hl~/her de~ignee. T. Schoo! Property- is any building, facility, or property owned by the School District U. Season- is that period of time defined by School District guidelines or specific dates e~tablishcd by rhc Pennsylvania Department of Education or the PfAA that govern when an activity or sport takes place. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 127 AppendixF SlipP,etyR(?ck Un1versrty of Pennsylvania RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATIONAL LETTER Examining the Efficacy of Universally Delivered Social and Emotional Learning Curriculum, Second Step: A Mixed-Method Study of the Effects on Regular and Special Education Student Behavior and Teacher Instructional Competence Joseph A Jablonski - jaj IO 14@sru.edu Invitation to be Part of a Research Study You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be a teacher employed by the Millcreek Township School District with a placement at Grandview Elementary School. Taking part in this research project is voluntary. If you choose to patiicipate, you will click the survey link in the email you received this letter. Important Information about the Research Study Things you should know: • The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of the "Second Step" social and emotional learning curriculum. If you choose to pa1iicipate, at the end of your instruction of the curriculum, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire that includes ratings and open-ended questions. This will take approximately 15 minutes. • There should be minimal risks from this research as it is an anonymous and voluntary survey based on your own experiences. • The study will add to the research concerning the effectiveness of social and emotional learning. Specifically, it will provide information on Second Step in regard to student behavior, school climate/culture, and teacher levels of comfort while instructing. • Taking part in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to patiicipate and you can stop at any time. Please take time to read this entire f01m and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in this research project. What is the Study About and Why are We Doing it? EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 128 The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of the "Second Step" social and emotional learning curriculum as it pertains to student behavior, school climate/culture, and teacher comfort level of instruction. What Will Happen if You Take Part in This Study? If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire at the completion of teaching your Second Step curriculum. This questionnaire will be disseminated through an anonymous Google form that will be sent as a link, along with this letter, to your preferred email address. I expect this to take about 15 minutes. Examples of questions will be relative to your thoughts on the effects of student behavior, the implementation of the curriculum, and the attitudes that you have about providing social emotional instruction. The information that you provide, along with the anonymous behavior provided by the district, will be used to determine what effect, if any, the program had on student behavior, school climate/culture, and teacher attitudes about social emotional instruction. All information will remain anonymous. How Could You Benefit from This Study? You might benefit from being in this study because the feedback that you provide will help the school administration in making decisions to increase a positive teaching and learning environment that lowers student problem behaviors. What Risks Might Result from Being in This Study? We believe there to be minimal risks from participating in this research study. Paiiicipation is in the form of completing an anonymous, voluntary questionnaire about your experiences with the instruction of the Second Step curriculum and what you perceive the effects on student behavior to be. On the questionnaire, there are demographic questions that may lead your supervisor, who is also the co-investigator on this study, to have demographic information associated with your responses. If you feel uncomfortable responding, you may opt-out at any time. If you have questions or concerns related to these questions and the data collected, you may contact the Principal Investigator or the SRU IRB Board, whose contact information is listed below. Fmihermore, when data is being analyzed, it will be done as a group set, as opposed to individual responses. How Will We Protect Your Information? I plan to publish the results of this study. To protect your privacy, I will not include information that could directly identify you, as the survey will be anonymous. All survey results will be kept on a password protected Google Drive that only I have access to. What Will Happen to the Information We Collect About You After the Study is Over? EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 129 I will not keep your research data to use for future research or other purposes. Upon conclusion of the study, all raw data will be destroyed in five years. What Other Choices do I Have ifl Don't Take Part in this Study? If you choose not to participate, there will be no consequences. Your Participation in this Research is Voluntary It is totally up to you to decide to be in this research study. Participating in this study is voluntary. Even if you decide to be part of the study now, you may change your mind and stop at any time. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Contact Information for the Study Team and Questions about the Research If you have questions about this research, you may contact Eric J. Bieniek, Ph.D., BCBA-D 724. 738.4106 eric.bieniek@sru.edu Joseph Jablonski, BM, MM 814.836.6300 jaj 1014@sru.edu Contact Information for Questions about Your Rights as a Research Participant If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information, ask questions, or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the researcher(s), please contact the following: Institutional Review Board Slippery Rock University 104 Maltby, Suite 008 Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Phone: (724)738-4846 Email: irb@sru.edu Your Consent Before agreeing to be part of the research, please be sure that you understand what the study is about. We will give you a copy of this document for your records [or you can print a copy of the document for your records]. If you have any questions about the study later, you can contact the study team using the information provided above. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 130 By clicking on the survey link, I understand what the study is about and my questions so far have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 131 Appendix G Millcreek School District Ju:..;.-ph 1~~hl<1n 1~ki l~ :t Frincip,J in mlr !)b1rfcJ :Hd h:1;, h1:.'U\ gr.,nJ ...:1.i p'l.:rrni"\don EL.·mt:nLH)' S..:htit,l durin~: t!w 2:fl2ilf2{U 1 ;,;, honi r~~!L !:o c~)ndu,:.t hh ;k:iurnl EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 132 Appendix H Anonymous Google Form Anonymous Teacher QuestionnaireSecond Step Follow-up This ;5 a se-lf•admin'.st<:red, voh.1ntary, ir:c-nyrnous questicnnair.e u1W to 55'j>:>&s your arti1ude-s, perce-p'tfr;,ns, and f~tng-a after having proYid~d ";-Odal and-EkiHs, 2 3 4 Stror.gfy Agr~ 22. Other teacher.; !n my school implement Second Step consistently 5 6 Please on£wer the following questions as best as you can. EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 23, Number of years of experience es a teacher: 24. Number ot years of experience as a teacher at Grandv;ew Elementary: 25. Number ot years of experfence in deF verJng S-ecood Step le-ss•ons: 26. Are you d,ss1fied as o Special Educotion teacher or a Regular Edu~al'on teacher? Mark on/y one ovar Sp,ecial Ed•..watfon ·", Re,gvlar Eth:cation Please provide a respons" to the following open-ended questions. Please do not use any sp,;cific student names. 27. How do you feel Seoond Step attected the overall behavior ot the student body? 138 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 28, Hovt do you feel Second Step aft~cted tf°'/4 behavior ot Spedel EdvtntJon students in need of Emotiona! Support ,ervices? 29, How do you !eel Second Step affected the ov.;;raU climate and culture ot Grandview Elementary? 139 EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 140 Appendix I IRB Approval Protocol#: 2020-052-15-B Protocol Title: Examining the Efficacy of Universally Delivered Social and emotional Learning Curriculum, Second Step: A Mixed-Method Study of the Effects on Regular and Special Education Student Behavior and Teacher Instructional Competence The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Slippery Rock University received the requested modifications to the above-referenced protocol. The IRB has reviewed the modifications and approved the protocol under the EXEMPT category of review. You may begin your project as of July 17, 2020. Your protocol will automatically close on July 16, 2021 unless you request, in writing, to keep it open. Please contact the IRB Office by phone at (724)738-4846 or via email at irb@sru.edu should your protocol change in any way. Thanks, Casey Casey Hyatt Interim Director Grants Research and Sponsored Programs Slippery Rock University l Morrow Way 008 Old Main Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Grants Office Direct Line: 724-738-2045 IRB & IACUC Office Direct Line: 724-738-4846 Fax: 724-738-4857 www.sru.edu A ROCK SOLID EDUCATION EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING 141 Appendix J Joseph Ji:iblonski From: :)avid Schutt:: Sent: To: Satvrd;y, J•Jly 113, 2020 7:SO PM Jot~ph Jabfcriskl Subject: Re: TASEL p,m-,.,i,zion CAUTION: This email originated from outsioe yoor organization, Exercise cat.'tion when opening attachments or dicking links, especially from unknown senders, Hi Joseph, No prob!em.._.would l-0ve to have you use the TASEl Good luck with the project/di%ertatioo. ! would love to know what you find both in general and with the TASEL. Take care, Dave On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:23 PM Joseph Jablonsld VlfOte: Dr. Schultz, I am writing to request pem,ission to use your TASEL questionnaire for use in a proposed dissertation study. My study win be examining the efficacy of an SEL curriculum, Second Step, as implemented in a K-5 setting. There will be a particular focus on emotional support students who receive the instruction in a universal setting. Part of the study will also measure teacher attitudes and perceptions duri~ the first year of implementation. As you have already established validity and reliability with your questionnaire, ! would Hke to use it as one data point. Thank you and I appreciate your consideration. Regards, Joseph Jablonski ..,..._ !/ ''~«:·":'..:.: ;:.:·1·,,:·~·,, :::i::, tTJ (I) Strongly Agree-6 Agree•5 Somewhat Agrec4 Somewhat Disagrcc•3 Disagrce•2 Strongly Disagn.:e. J -nn >-I'j >-I'j i3C ;:s "" ► (I) Pmgrnms such as Second Step are effective In helping children lenm social and emotic,nal skills ~ (I) Second Step can help al! kids regardless of their lempernmenl >-<; ~ 0 ;:s C/) .:: (I) It is worth my effort to implement Second Step lessons. 12 Second Step h11s helped my children to improve their sociu! and emotional skills I deliver Second Step lessons effectively 10 >-I'j ~ 0 n b c;;· ;,5:. r► - tTJ .:: I understnnd the g{lals of Second Step. ~ 0 5· 15 - ;:s I feel competent tcnching Second Step lessons. II ---3 ~ 0 <::::r- 1i;"' I illl,'C thorough knowledge of Second Step lessons. I don't huve time in the day or week to deliver Second Step lessons. I have enough time to prepare for Second Step lessons. II ► >-a >-a (I) :::; ~- 0.. ~ Spending time on Second Step lessons take time away from ncademics. The administrative staff has arranged training in Second Step 10 I received sufficient traming in Second Step. 10 ~ r tTJ ► -2 z Q The training I rccciYed provided me with sufficient knowledge about U1e content of the program. The training I received was a hands--on training where I could practice what I had learned. The Principal is an active supporter of Second Step 20 The Principu\ has watched me deliver Second Step lessons. The Principal acknowledges teachers who do a good job delivering Second Step. Other th:m at orienl.atmn. the Principal has discussed Second Step at st.aff meetings. 21 The Principal has scheduled specific times for delivery of Second Step lessons 19 .j::. N The Principal gives more importance to learning academics than learning social and emotional skills Other teachers in my school implement Second Step consistently EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING Appendix L Response Frequency Distribution Graph II r,ifj lz~I lifj I t~ ll I '§1 1 1 a 143 Aver.ige ~ tTJ >Tj s::i >Tj ~ Programs such as Second Step are effective in helping children learn social and 5.05 "'"'"';,,..,,.J ~hn~ 0 :::r;;;, 0► (I) Second Step cnn help nil kids regardless of their tempernment 4.45 ~ a It is worth my effort to implement Second Step lessons. 4.77 "' Second Step h;is helped my children to improve their social and emotional skills. 4.27 I deliver Second Step lessons effectively. 4.95 ~ ~ (I) 0 >Tj b c:;· C/) 0 -~ ~ I understand the goals of Second Step 5.59 I feel competent teaching Second Step lessons. 5.05 I have thorough knowledge of Second Step lessons. 4.91 0 ~ ;: ....,_ c:;· tTJ ~ ~ 0 ~ <::)-< I don't have time in the day or week to deliver Second Step lessons. 3.23 I have enough time to prepare for Second Step lessons. 4.14 Spending time on Second Step lessons take lime away from academics. 3.24 The administrative staff has arranged training in Second Step 5.27 -z ..-J ~ 0 ► >a "'O (D ::: 0.. I received sufficient training in Second Slt:p. 4.95 ~- The training I received provided me with sufficient knowledge about the content ofthcprogram 4.95 ~ The trainmg I received was a hands-on training where I could prnctice what I had learned 4.45 The Principal is nn active supporter of Second Step 5.91 The Principal has watched me deliver Second Step lessons. 3.86 The Principal acknowledges teachers \vho do a good job delivering Second Step. 4.86 r► r tTJ ► -2 z Cl 5.95 The Principal has scheduled specific times for delivery of Second Step lessons. 5.73 The Principal gives more import?nce to len.m!~~ acaJcmics thnn learning social 2.82 Other kachcrs in my school implement Second Step consistently 4.55 ....... ..j::,. -+::>- EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING AppendixN Mean Response Distribution Graph 145