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 des1gn excuse by a parent or guardian), those additional minutes shall be losgcd ,1:, "l;;tc."
ATTOl
Acc.;mu!aticn of Ten (10) or
204
Parent/Guardian Phone Call or Letter
Required
SST Recommended
Mor Parent;'Guardian Phone C;;!I or Letter
ATT02
Accumulation of 360 Minutes as
204
Required
SST Required
defined ;ibove
Parent Conference Required
Distr!ct Magistrate Referrai
Recommended
Secondary- Tardiness to School - /.. tardy will be considered un!awfui if a written excu5e by parent/guardian is not provided to the attendance office within three (3)
school days. Ever; tardy (except medical} counts ;;s one (1) tcv,1ard the accumulation of;; maximum of three {3j tardies per quarter. After an accumulation of three (3)
tardies (excused er unlawful) in a quarter, each additional tardy will be unlawful unless accompan:ed by a mC!ciica! excuse provided by the parent withln three {3) schooi
days.
A;i04
I 4thTardy{0-90Minuteslate)
204
, Op;:icnal
One (1i Hou: of Office Detention
Optional
ATT05
5th Tardy ( 0- 90 Minutes Late)
204
HS - Admlnistrafr,1e Discretion
HS- Option<>I
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'
2~

(Ant:M>.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)Sat
Requhitl

0

twc:c,,c----+cc,,,..-:-,--+ "'~~":~""n~c;-~';'!~"'h~c'~:'o~'7;\:"c!:y~D:7';:cc;~c;;';,':c,oo71 --t,,cc,cculrc:-:c.-
r·s,,cc:;"·•.,,,, .. +-,.,,c:,,;,.1rig.1:,;s;:;~i;,c;prCC,,cc,,7

Opt,onal

Suspension

Acwmuia;im1of)Bun!awfulor
unexrnsedabsencesor16

HS and MS-Arlmlnl.1t1ali~i< D!sm:stion whirh

llEGUl:ed

Optional

SSTRecor.,mended

mayi:1ciudeexclu51onfrnrnHomecoming,
Pr,:;rn,O~nre$,htu..C(1r1iwiarAC'Jvitie..1,

unexw~ec!t~rdies

So.>ort...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 plu> 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 infr bag$ortctesarepermitt<:d,ind
mustbelniockersatalltimc~.
Purses~hould be no larger than
6~ X3"

GEN06

GEN07

Administrative Discretion including but not
lir:1!ted to suspens:on of bus privileges. tv1u!tip1e
offenses will !f:ad to a progressive series of

ccnsequences
Administrative Discretion including bt.:t not
lirnttedtosusper:slor:ofcomputerand/cr
r:etwork;iccetsprivi!eges
immediate .Suspension from school and may
ir.dude a formal hearing with the
Superintendent and possibly the School Board.
Immediate Suspension from tchool and may
Ir.dude a formai hearing w:th the
SuperintendentandpossibiytheSchool Bocrd.
Determ!ned on a case by case basis, and may
indude, bt.:t is not limited to: ve,t,al reprimand,
written apology, detention, In-school
su~pension,orotneratternativeand iogical
con~equecncesc

GENOS

GEN09

GENlO

!

Infraction
Electronic Device ln!racticn

Optional

Required

Op;:!onal

Local Law Enforcement contacted
with the pos.s!billty of criminal
charges filed.
Local law Enforcement contacted
with the possibllity of criminal
charges filed.
Optional

nec;uired

2:!B

Mlnimum of one (1) hour of Office Detention

Hequ1red

::.ST Recommended

221

First·-Warnir:g

Optiona!

Option of the student choos:ng to
chani;eintcapproprfatedoti":ing

Second-OfficeDat,:mtion

Third · Administrative Discretion

Millcreel< Township School District
Code

Recommended in

the case of
mult!pleoffer:ses

Policy
237

Fnil:.:rc of Disordcriy Penon!i to
Oispe-rse Upon Off:ch,I Order

218

i'ablfyiugl11formc.tiun

218

Immediate Dls.pos.lt!on

Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix
Referrals

f'arnntalContilct

First Offense
1. Confiscation of the electronic device

2. One(l)Saturdnydctcntion (ckrnentary
equivalent)
3. Electroni:.:deviceretumeddirectlytothe
stt,dcntattheendofth1::sr.hoo!dily
Secont!Offense
1. Confiscation of the electror.ic device
2. one(l}Saturdsydetention
3. Electronic. devke rett.:med to pcrent /
guardian
Third Offense
1. Conflscationoftheelectronicdevlce
2, One (1) day of In-School Suspension
3. E!ectronicdevicereturnedtoparent/
guardian
Fourth .-:ml Subsequent Offenses
1. Confiscation of the electronic device
2. Thrne{3)daysof!SSorOSS
3. Electron!cdevlcereturr.edtop,mmt/
guardian
!mm1:diate Susper,s:on from school and m;:;y
indudeafocrna!hearingwlrhthe
Superintendent and possibly the School Board.
Minimum of one (.1) hour of Office Detention

Required with
eachOffensE

Optional

Required with

Optional

each Offense

Required

Required

(!ndudlng, but not ilmitc::i to
altei:neorforeinetE-ach€r
passes, !ibraryslips, paren~al
e~cusesor rnaklngfalsephone

localLawEnforcementcontacted
with the po~sibiHty of crimlna!
charges filed.
Recommended SST
Posslblelegal

c.1lls,thear±ng,ett.l

GHH1

filisifyine .-4c;idernic Information
(!nciud1n~. but not limited to
altNingorforgingother
studen.swcrkandrepresentlng
a~ nnP.'s own, Piagiari~m,
cheatin11:o,1atest,etc.)

218

Minirr,tim of onf' (1) hour of Office Dftention
(including fallure for the assignment) with a
score of 55% for c summative assignment

Reriuired

. Optional

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

Millcreek Township School District
Code

GEN14

121

Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix

Infraction

P;irentalContact

Immediate Disposition

Policy

Parking Violation

218

Referra~

Oot1onal

;;;;;;~~;,;;,;'°''""of v,h'de

~::-:~;:;;',,, ____

~;,:::;:;;;'::;~;'""''
GHllS

Rioting

•D<>neliec,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
lmmed ,ndude a formai heari:ig with thr.
.~.l!.fl'-!'ir-te11dent .:ind po:=~ib\' th!l School Board.

i213

Minirnumof.::nfc(l)hourofoff:~erietf.e:t1on

withthepos~ibiht-;ofcr,rnir:2!
charr,es:7:ed.
Locallaw!::r.forcern,mtccritacted
'N:tht:1epos:;lbiliWofcr;mincil
charges filed

Locallaw£nfurct:mcntcontacred
wit!",thepossibi!lt','Ofcrir<1!na1

chargcsfi!ed.

ReqL1ired

U.:;callawtnforcerner,tcontaued

i Required

~ll=ROC-~IA~"°'~~----+'~"~'=.,1~~~!~:~:~~~!~:~:~:~~~:~F;~,~~°'The_s~,o-oo~l-6o_"_'+c''_'~~ir-,d7,--+-'~~~1~:~:~:~~~~~~~~:~~Ja~cs~h,~ll----j
FlRQ2
Fa:se ~ire fa.l.:rm
218.2
lmmed:;,;t~ 5uspe:1siO"I from schooi pr-nd;ng il
R('qc1ired
for:11<':!hearingwiththt:Superintenderetand
Localla1vF.nforci'err-rntn>nlacted
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
property,onpropertybelng
uscC byt;.,csc.hool, at any
schoolfunctionoractili!t'{,at
any school event h,:d(i av.~)'

Parental C~:mtacct

Referrals

O,sof
ONA Counselor Referral

>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 • M;ir.::fr,ted$50fireccdefee;

Required

SSTReco:nmended

c!garettes, ~•apes, 1,qul::ls
conta\ningnfcct;ne,foodltems
ccntainingnicot;ne,matchesor
lighters)onschoolprcperty

• Ccnfis.:.;:;tionofparaph,1rrrnlia:.mtilthe;.m:;iof
the school year;

indudlngbusesoratanyevent

• 1-3daysofSuspen~i1m

TobaccoEdulationPmgrammay
be :isses~ed.

undcrtheju.isdictioncfMiSD
TOB03

Pcssess!cn/useofsmokeless
d,;>•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.;uthori
substances.

toca!lawEnforcemcntcont.ictcd
wlththepossibllitvof;:rim!r.a!
&.arnesfllec!

f 248
58002

Indecent Exposure

: 248

~'22.~. _9.r,;m lrwclr.ess
SBQ04

! 240

Obscene and other sexual
materials

! 248

ln11o!unt.1ry De~iatf: Sexual
lntt:rcourie
St.ltutorySexuaiAssault
St::,,.ualAssau!l

!"'

i

r,cc,occoccs-ER~a~,=------!r,~48~--j
Sll006
S8007
SBOG8

Immediate Su~pension from school per.cii:1g a
formaihearingwiththe.Superif'ten.::!er,tam:!
possibiy theSd,ool Soard.

Reqilited

tocallawEnforcerner.tccntacted
•.-::ththepcsc.lbiln:yofcr,min.;I
chargesfiieci

!248
i243
i 248

10

Millcreek Township School District

I

Code

Infraction

Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix

!

Policy

!

Immediate Disposition

Suicide
SU101
I Suic:de - Attempted
SU!OZ
I Suicide-Committed

!

Parental Contact

I

Referrals

! Required

I

i

DISCIPLINE F9R SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS.!!EP or 50/lj

IDEA Procedural Due Process~ Written Prier Notice to the parents of the child i.s required whenever the local education agency:
1.
2.

Proposes to Initiate or Change a Student's Placemen.
Refuses to Initiate or Change a Student's Placement

Disciplinary Action !!!.1'!'i constitute a Change In Placement. Parents may Invoke due process when they disagree with a recommendation.

General Rule§:

A.

The following infractions of the Student DisdpEne Matrix will be dealt with as fo!!owfne: for special education stud er.ts:
1)

1-'or attendance, punctuality, and uniav.ful absences- treated as non-disabled peers.

2)

For minar offenses, with short suspension• treat as non-disabled peers (except for students with !D- see more details below). Discuss with special
edulcotion teacher (and Supervisor if necessar}') to determine appropriate consequence ind!vidualiz.ed for the studem. This may also require the
review of the lEP, revision of current PBSP, or ;m FBA.

3)

Suspen5ions- You can suspend an e>cccptional 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
b)

which occurs in a school setting, which shall mean in the school, on school grounds, tn schooi vehicles, at a designated bus stop or at
any activity, sponsored, supervised, or sanctioned hy the school, and

c)

inflicts or attempts to inflict dlscomfort upon anoth2r through a real or perceived imbalanre of power and

d)

that has the effe:ct of doing any of the following:
substantially interfering with a student's education;
creating a threatening environment or
substantially disrupting the disorderly operalion of the school

12

Millcreek Township School District

Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix

"Bullying" indudes bot>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 acts with reckless indifference to the health and safot)• of the stlldent.
"Organizatlonol hazing" occurs when a School Dimkt organization, and lts member, intentiona!ly, knowingly, or reck!essl•( promotes or
facilitateshazingoraggravatecihazlng.
17) Illegal Possession, Sale, and/or Use of Unauthorizt!d Sub.~tanr.e.~-the possession, sa!e, and/or use of ;m un;n,thorli,cd substance, the
possession of an unaud'lOrized substance with the lrm,r.t to deliver, the misrepresentation ofan unauthorized substance, and the possession of
paraphernalia by students on School District property, at School Dtstrictspori!ored events and on School Dl$\rk.t tr,m~;,ottdtlot!.
18) Indecent Assault• committing a ~exu.:! a:::t with or in the presence of a child under the age of sixteen (16i years, by a person ofat !east age
sixteen (16) and at !east five (5) years older than the child, for sexual gratification, regardless of the use of force or consent. This definition
includes exposure of the genitals, sbow',ng a minor pornographic 'images or videos, or co,:ertly photograph"mg another's genitals.
19) Minor Altercation- an inc:dent invalvlng a single cffender who commits a minor physic3! act against another individual and the vict;m does not

respond. Thfs does not Include Incidents that amount to assault, aggrilv.itcd ass.:;ult, and/or fighting.
20) Possession of Wcopons· the control, ownership, or custociy of any of the following items;

a)
b)
c)
d)
c}
f)

g)
h}
i)

flrearms,includinghandgunsar.dassaultrifles
Knives,razors,orbladesofa,tyk!nd
Metalknuckies
irritatingorpoisoncusgases
Poisons
Bombs, fireworks, or other incendiary devices
Bats, dubs, o~ other biudgconir.g object
Metal devices used to inflict harm or pain
Any other object designed for protection or designed to h;.:rrn others.

21) Racia!/Ethnk/Gendcr/Religlous lntlmldatlon- any other offense committed under this section that incllldes an action wit!; ma)i6ous intention
toward the actua! or perceived race, co!or, religion, national or:g!r:, ancestry, mental or phys;c11! disability, sexual orientation, gende;or gender
idenlityofanotherlndivldualcrgrnupofindlvlduals.
14

Millcreek Township School District

Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix

22) Rape• engaging in sexual intercourse with a victim through any of the following:
a)
h)
c)
d)
e}

forcible compulsion
threat of forcible compulsion that wou!d prevent rnsistance by a reasor:able person
engaging in sexual intercotirse w:1h an unconsdous person, who is unaware that sexual Intercourse is occurring
engaging in sexual intercourse wrth an individual who is substantially impaired to the po!nt whNe the victim has no ability to consent
to the sexual intercourse
engaging in sexual intercourse with an indi\·iduai with a mental disability that precludes their abi!!ty to give Informed consent.

23) Reckless Endangering- engaging in conduct that places or cause an individua! to fear being placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
24) Riot- the partidpation in disorderly conduct with two or more others in any of the following circumstances:
a)

with the intent to commit or faci!itate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor;

b)

with intent to prevent or coerce offida! action; or

c)

when the actor or any other participant to the knowledge of the 1.:ctor t:ses or plans to use a firearm or other deadly weapon.

25) Robbery- the taking er .itternpting to take, of anything of value under confrontational clrcumstances, from the custody, control, or care of
another person by force orth;eat or force or violence and/or putting the victim in fear of immediate harm.
26) Sexual Assault- an unauthorized and unwanted, intentional or forcible touching of a sex organ of another person. This includes attempted rape
and any other sexual offense. This category doe~ not include rape.
27) Sexual Harassment- discrimination against another person based en the person's submission or rejection of sexual advances and/or requests or
creating ~o uncomfortable atmosphere based en sexua! advances. This includes any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other physical or verbal communication of a sexual nature.
28) Stalking- the participation in either of the following:
a)

eng;iging in e course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including fo!\owing the person without proper
author1ty, under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause
substantial emotional distress to such other person; or

b)

engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicating to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or
communicate either an intent to p!ace such person fn reasonable fear or bodily injury orto cause substantial emotional distress to
such other person.

29) Tardiness• arriving to the Schoo! District buHding subsequent to t',e beginning of the school day.
30} Terroristic Threats- the communication, either directly or indirectly of a threat to do any of the following:
a)

Commit any crime of violence wii:h.intent to terrorize another;

b)

Cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, facility, or on public transportation; or

c)

Uthercause serious public inconvenience er pubHc terror with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

31) Theft- the act cf taking, or exercising unlawful control over movablE or lmmovab!e property of another with the intent to deprive them thereof.

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

Millcreek Township School District

126

Student Infraction and Disposition Matrix

32) Threatening or Intimidating Another- placing ::i person in fe<1r of bodily harm through verbal, written, or electronic threats without displaying a
weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack.
33) Trespass- entering or remaining In or on school property or vehicles, knowing or having reason to know that one is not permitted to enter or
remain. This includes suspended students who attempt to access school property during extra-curricular events.
34) Unlawful Absence- missing a scheduled day of school without proper reason and or notification by a parent/guardian, where app[icab!e.

35) Vandalism• the desemitlon of a building or other structure with the intent to commit damage.

DESCRIPTION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

The following definitions are included to provide a uniform fundamental understanding of the infractions, dispos;rmns, and other key Hems identified in the
Student Discipline Matrix, as they relate to Schoo! District Policy and applicable !aw:
A.

Administrative Discretion- allows Schoo! District officials and administrators to examine infractions on a case-by-case basis in order to develop
the most appropriate and effective course of action with regards to particular infr.;ctions of the Student DisCip!ine Matrix.

B.

Dog Search - The School District has the right to search all property.

C.

Elementary- refers to students at Asbury, Bel!e Valley, Chestnut Hill, Grandview, and Tracy, grades K-5.

D.

Elementary School (ES)- refers to students at Asbury, Belle Valley, Chestnut Hill, Grandview, and Tracy, grades K-5,

E.

Extended Time Out- a period of time (not to exceed one consecutive hour) whereby a student is excluded from the regular ciassroorn setting.
At the elementary level, may be assigned in iieu of office detention where transportation lssues and othe; extenuating circumstances prec!ude
the assignment of office detention or in the event of student infractions that wo.Jld warrant a Saturday detention at the secondary school !eve!.

F.

Group Searches- genera!, random searches conducted on a subset of School District students, including dog searches. Can be conducted for any
reason by the School District Administration, subject to neutral guidelines adopted by the Schooi District.

G.

High School {HS) refers to students at MlHS and McDowell, grades 9-12.

H.

Immediate Disposition- description of disciplinary actions that ;;re taken by the administration as a designee of the Suoerintendent and arc
imposed as quickly as possible relative to the occurrence ofthe infraction.
·

l.

Individual Searches- searches on one particular School District student. Can be conducted if the School District has {1) reasonable grounds to
suspect that the student has violated oris v·1olating a !aw or a Schoo! District po\icy and (2i the scope of the search is reasonably related to the
objective of the search and not exces!>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-E 'S:f:
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

1.

PrC•Jrams SHch as Second Ste-pore eH~ctfve in helping chlldre11 lecrn tc:,i:3a! and
emotional skUls,

2

5

3

4

5

6

Strongly Agree-

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

3,

133

It it worth my effort to implement Second Step lessons,

2

3

4

5

6

Strongly Agr.ee-

4,

Second Step has helped my dfidren to improve their social and emotional skills,

2

5

Strongly Di'z~gri:e

S.

i de+ver Second Step lessons effectively"

3

4

5

6
Strongly Agree-

6,

I understand the goals of Second Step,

z
Strongly D11agrnE-

3

5

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

7.

134

t feel competent teaclrsg Second Step lessons.

2

Suc.ingly Agrne-

8,

i have thorough kno1;vledge c,t Secc<-nd Step tessons_

2

3

Strongly Dis.a-gr~

9.

Strongly Agree

I don·t r,ave 1ime fn tbe day or week to deliver Se'cond Step lessons,

z

10,

! hdve enough tlm6 to prepare tor Second Step ~e~scns,

2

4

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

2

3

J

6

Strongly Di-sagree

n.

Strongiy Agr<?e

The administrative staff has arranged train'ng in Second Step

2

13.

5

l redeved suftkiem training in Second Step.

2

·i 4.

135

4

6

The training l re<:efved provided me v,1lth r.uftkient knowledge about the cc-ntent ct

the program,

2

3

4

5

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

1 S.

The tra,ning I received was a hands-en trein:ng where I could practice what I had
!Bamc.s:t

2

16.

136

4

5

The Pr~nclpa! ls an actfve supporter of Second Step,

3

4

Strongly Dhagr~s

17.

The Principal ha$- \\iatc:hed me deliver Second St-ep le~s.onsv

2

3

Strongly 0[$agr*

1S.

4

Sttong?.y Agre-e

The Principal acknc,wleges teachers who do a gocd job defverir,g Secood Step.

2

3

EFFICACY OF SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

19.

137

Other than at orientation, the Pr'incipal has d'scussed Second Step at staff
meetings.

4

2

2G.

The l'rtncipal has scheduled specific t:mes !or delivery of Second Step l;;ssons.

2

2·1.

5

3

4

6

The Principal g\,,es more importance to learning academics than learning ~oc~al
and emeit;ona! (>kiHs,

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