SEL Case Study Project

1. SEL Case Study Project Presented at the IGPA Family Impact Seminar - March 1, 2010 Institute of Government & Public Affairs Center for Prevention Research & Development University of Illinois Research and Evaluation Team Peter Mulhall, Ph.D. Angela Farnham, Ph.D. David Green, PhD Scott Hays, PhD Janine Toth, MSSW 1 Explain CPRD’s role: contracted by IL Children’s MH Partnership, Voices for IL Children & ISBE worked closely with MH, Voices, ISBE, & CASEL to plan & design the study In some ways, not our typical research approach at CPRD (we more often do large scale surveying), but everyone on our research team is very much enjoying working on this project & how it allows us to really delve into the process the SEL teams are engaging in. Explain CPRD’s role: contracted by IL Children’s MH Partnership, Voices for IL Children & ISBE worked closely with MH, Voices, ISBE, & CASEL to plan & design the study In some ways, not our typical research approach at CPRD (we more often do large scale surveying), but everyone on our research team is very much enjoying working on this project & how it allows us to really delve into the process the SEL teams are engaging in.

2. Purpose of the SEL Case Study Project To explore the planning and early implementation phases of SEL implementation Identify major accomplishments in the planning phase To identify obstacles & barriers to successful planning & implementation To provide teams with an opportunity to reflect upon & share their experiences To provide feedback to state funders 2 Distinguish between outcome and process: The purpose of our study was NOT to look at the effect of SEL programming on staff, students, families, or schools (though we did touch on these areas a bit in our discussions with SEL team members). 3rd bullet: point out that the act of stopping to reflect on successes is a very important step in any collaborative process, but very often teams feel it is a luxury they do not have time for. Encourage your teams to take the time! Evaluation Questions: Background characteristics that define schools with the biggest buy-in Characteristics of sites with the most positive attitudes toward SEL Characteristics of sites who are the furthest along with SEL implementation Characteristics of sites with the highest sustainability ratings Distinguish between outcome and process: The purpose of our study was NOT to look at the effect of SEL programming on staff, students, families, or schools (though we did touch on these areas a bit in our discussions with SEL team members). 3rd bullet: point out that the act of stopping to reflect on successes is a very important step in any collaborative process, but very often teams feel it is a luxury they do not have time for. Encourage your teams to take the time! Evaluation Questions: Background characteristics that define schools with the biggest buy-in Characteristics of sites with the most positive attitudes toward SEL Characteristics of sites who are the furthest along with SEL implementation Characteristics of sites with the highest sustainability ratings

3. Why did schools apply for SEL funding? To address new SEL standards Create a more supportive school environment Improve classroom management and school discipline Increase student interpersonal skills in a variety of areas- address bullying Address School Improvement Plan Address critical family and community problems – poverty, alcohol and drug problems in the high school 3

4. How did SEL Teams function? Nearly all teams met monthly Grant requirements for team representation were generally followed Team Roles – Leaders, secretary, liaison to teachers, public relations (school/district/community, school climate expert, consultant, project leader) “I am part of a very strong committed team. Each of us brings different strengths.” “Team work is slow – it seems like we have these great ideas and then a month later would go by and we come back and say last month we had this great idea and nothing ever really happened. Keeping momentum is a major challenge.” 4

5. Key Findings SEL Teams All SEL teams report awareness of ISBE’s SEL Standards “We’re already doing this kind of work” Most focused on a single school Issues with grant requirements Some schools lacked “readiness” Training was perceived by nearly all as beneficial 5 Bullet 2: this attitude sometimes served as a barrier; sometimes served as a facilitator Bullet 3: didn’t always start out as focused on a single school but in most cases, district-wide teams were ultimately disbanded due to time / resource constraints, differing levels of development, or differing approaches being taken by different schools; some districts proposed strategies that the grant was not intended to fund & then the school team had to “fix it” Bullet 4: many team members & coaches noted that the timing of grant requirements often conflicted with the “typical” school calendar; also, grant requiremtns often overlapped with the requirements of other similar initiatives. Bullet 5: some did not even know about the SEL grant until after the district had been awarded the grant; readiness includes administrator support & buy-in (both at the district & building levels), that there be a clear need at the school which SEL addresses, includes team functioning and the ability to engage in the collaborative SEL process, not being prepared for the amount of work and amount of time required (in part goes back to district vs. school funding) Bullet 6: materials, tool kit, & staff from CASEL were described very very favorably; still suggestions for improvement were offered: development of training tracks (based on SEL level of developments or stage, based on school type, based on approach / curriculum selected); team members also say they want more networking opportunitiesBullet 2: this attitude sometimes served as a barrier; sometimes served as a facilitator Bullet 3: didn’t always start out as focused on a single school but in most cases, district-wide teams were ultimately disbanded due to time / resource constraints, differing levels of development, or differing approaches being taken by different schools; some districts proposed strategies that the grant was not intended to fund & then the school team had to “fix it” Bullet 4: many team members & coaches noted that the timing of grant requirements often conflicted with the “typical” school calendar; also, grant requiremtns often overlapped with the requirements of other similar initiatives. Bullet 5: some did not even know about the SEL grant until after the district had been awarded the grant; readiness includes administrator support & buy-in (both at the district & building levels), that there be a clear need at the school which SEL addresses, includes team functioning and the ability to engage in the collaborative SEL process, not being prepared for the amount of work and amount of time required (in part goes back to district vs. school funding) Bullet 6: materials, tool kit, & staff from CASEL were described very very favorably; still suggestions for improvement were offered: development of training tracks (based on SEL level of developments or stage, based on school type, based on approach / curriculum selected); team members also say they want more networking opportunities

6. Key Findings (cont.) SEL team structure and effectiveness varies from site to site (based on experience, demands, student issues) Administrative support is crucial Teacher buy-in is also crucial Many teams struggled with curriculum adoption versus school-wide approaches Wide range & variety of SEL activities planned & implemented Integrating multiple initiatives is a challenge for schools 6 Bullet 1: nearly all teams meet regularly, most often once / month; team composition followed RFP requirements (principal, teacher, parent) though parent involvement was tough; need to enhance understanding of roles to be played by various groups; turnover in membership did not seem to be an issue but still it’s important to establish transition plan (more about this when we present recommendations) Role clarity & clearly defined roles matters. Roles assigned in some of the teams we visited: team leader, secretary, liaison to teachers or groups of teachers, public relations, coordinator of specific program component, climate expert, new teacher guidance. Having such clear roles helps with team member recruitment, helps maintain excitement, improves implementation. “It seems like we have these great ideas and then a month would go by and we come back and we say ‘last month we had this great idea’, you know, and nothing ever really happened.” Need team leader with strong leadership skills, regular meeting time, someone to take minutes and record task assignments, prepare & distribute agendas before each meeting. Also key: explicit delineation of a school-wide communication system (example on p.17 of report) Bullet 2: Administrative support can take many forms: district goals, School Improvement Plans, SEL on school-wide meeting agendas, principal active on SEL team, principal attending SEL training, pay increases for teachers, sabbatical given to teacher, highly developed systems of professional development & support related to SEL. Most administrators see themselves as highly involved, attending team meetings on a regular basis and having frequent contact with the SEL coach; they also see themselves as highly supportive of SEL – more supportive than the team members see them. Again the transition issue is important for administrators & this did come into play at a number of sites that we visited. Bullet 3: lack of time & low levels of teacher buy-in were viewed as the primary obstacles to successful implementation by both administrators and team members. 57% of administrators & 62% of team members say these areas represent an obstacle to SEL implementation. Bullet 4: SEL as an umbrella or overarching framework VS. selection of a specific curriculum. Often there was resistance to selecting a curriculum due to process required for district approval, finding a curriculum that “fits” the school, general anxiety among staff about implementing yet another program. Bullet 6: solutions used by teams we visited include using the same team for multiple initiatives, have representatives from each group attend other group’s meetings, merging grant requirements, having only a single program name. Problems arise when the initiatives are at odds philosophically. Some team members said they sensed some anxiety at the state level regarding this issue. State must be explicit about how these various initiatives fit together and what is unique about each. Bullet 1: nearly all teams meet regularly, most often once / month; team composition followed RFP requirements (principal, teacher, parent) though parent involvement was tough; need to enhance understanding of roles to be played by various groups; turnover in membership did not seem to be an issue but still it’s important to establish transition plan (more about this when we present recommendations) Role clarity & clearly defined roles matters. Roles assigned in some of the teams we visited: team leader, secretary, liaison to teachers or groups of teachers, public relations, coordinator of specific program component, climate expert, new teacher guidance. Having such clear roles helps with team member recruitment, helps maintain excitement, improves implementation. “It seems like we have these great ideas and then a month would go by and we come back and we say ‘last month we had this great idea’, you know, and nothing ever really happened.” Need team leader with strong leadership skills, regular meeting time, someone to take minutes and record task assignments, prepare & distribute agendas before each meeting. Also key: explicit delineation of a school-wide communication system (example on p.17 of report) Bullet 2: Administrative support can take many forms: district goals, School Improvement Plans, SEL on school-wide meeting agendas, principal active on SEL team, principal attending SEL training, pay increases for teachers, sabbatical given to teacher, highly developed systems of professional development & support related to SEL. Most administrators see themselves as highly involved, attending team meetings on a regular basis and having frequent contact with the SEL coach; they also see themselves as highly supportive of SEL – more supportive than the team members see them. Again the transition issue is important for administrators & this did come into play at a number of sites that we visited. Bullet 3: lack of time & low levels of teacher buy-in were viewed as the primary obstacles to successful implementation by both administrators and team members. 57% of administrators & 62% of team members say these areas represent an obstacle to SEL implementation. Bullet 4: SEL as an umbrella or overarching framework VS. selection of a specific curriculum. Often there was resistance to selecting a curriculum due to process required for district approval, finding a curriculum that “fits” the school, general anxiety among staff about implementing yet another program. Bullet 6: solutions used by teams we visited include using the same team for multiple initiatives, have representatives from each group attend other group’s meetings, merging grant requirements, having only a single program name. Problems arise when the initiatives are at odds philosophically. Some team members said they sensed some anxiety at the state level regarding this issue. State must be explicit about how these various initiatives fit together and what is unique about each.

7. SEL Training and Technical Assistance Trainings provided strong foundation for SEL principles and concepts Two-day training was identified as the most helpful Some participant members “just want to be told what to do” Want more parent involvement and curriculum specific training “We can’t say enough about the people at CASEL, the tools and training, we can call them anytime, and we have a great relationship with them”. “They held our hand every step of the way” 7

8. SEL Coaches and Coaching Role of coach varied from site to site depending upon need. “Coaches needed to meet schools where they were at” Coach’s Role: needs to be accessible, supportive, promote team ownership maintain regularly scheduled meetings keep team focused, well connected to resources experienced in the field of education understand schools and communities consultation skills - how to lead a group through process of change is critical We found the coach’s role needs greater clarity to help define expectations. 8 Q1 – 44% excellent; 29% good Q2 – 44% excellent; 28% good Q3 – 29% excellent; 40% good Q4 – 40% excellent; 28% good Coach satisfaction is positively correlated with school-wide support for SEL, effective SEL planning Bullets 1 & 2: ability to work in different ways with different groups contributes to diversity of ways coaches work with teams; coach seen as “one of us” vs. coach who is never seen or heard from. Frequency of contact ranges from 0-30 times in past year, with an average of 5.7 contacts. Other teams see their coach regularly but perceive the fit to be a bad one. Roles played by coaches depend on the needs of the sites: helping with grant requirements, teacher training, securing administrative support, outreach in the community, advocating with state funders. See Table 8 on p.22: More contact with coach is associated with higher levels of school-wide support for SEL, more effective SEL planning, higher levels of satisfaction with the coach. More contact is also associated with lower levels of principal commitment to SEL (based on rubric ratings), and lower levels of principal efforts to engage key stakeholders (based on rubric ratings). Bullet 3: funding schools from all levels of SEL development is a good approach statewide, but it can make coaching quite difficult! Bullet 4: includes coach understanding their role, team understanding the coach role, explicit roles help define expectations. Some coaches had to address grant management issues due to the needs of the school. This role was least desirable from their perspective. Bullet 5: agreement among team members & coaches. 3 essential areas of knowledge: 1) knowledge of school systems, 2) content expertise / knowledge of SEL, and 3) consultation skills – leading a group through a process of change. Q1 – 44% excellent; 29% good Q2 – 44% excellent; 28% good Q3 – 29% excellent; 40% good Q4 – 40% excellent; 28% good Coach satisfaction is positively correlated with school-wide support for SEL, effective SEL planning Bullets 1 & 2: ability to work in different ways with different groups contributes to diversity of ways coaches work with teams; coach seen as “one of us” vs. coach who is never seen or heard from. Frequency of contact ranges from 0-30 times in past year, with an average of 5.7 contacts. Other teams see their coach regularly but perceive the fit to be a bad one. Roles played by coaches depend on the needs of the sites: helping with grant requirements, teacher training, securing administrative support, outreach in the community, advocating with state funders. See Table 8 on p.22: More contact with coach is associated with higher levels of school-wide support for SEL, more effective SEL planning, higher levels of satisfaction with the coach. More contact is also associated with lower levels of principal commitment to SEL (based on rubric ratings), and lower levels of principal efforts to engage key stakeholders (based on rubric ratings). Bullet 3: funding schools from all levels of SEL development is a good approach statewide, but it can make coaching quite difficult! Bullet 4: includes coach understanding their role, team understanding the coach role, explicit roles help define expectations. Some coaches had to address grant management issues due to the needs of the school. This role was least desirable from their perspective. Bullet 5: agreement among team members & coaches. 3 essential areas of knowledge: 1) knowledge of school systems, 2) content expertise / knowledge of SEL, and 3) consultation skills – leading a group through a process of change.

9. School Administrator Role  “ That is my role – to make SEL live through the school by modeling it, expecting it from everyone and celebrating each step along the way” How administrators indicated their support for SEL programming SEL language in district-wide goals SEL is included in school improvement plans SEL is included on school-wide meeting agendas Is an active member of SEL teams Attends SEL trainings and events Administrative turnover and school board changes create set backs for SEL- average about 5 years “SEL was put on the back burner” 9

10. Selecting an evidence-based program and practices Some resistance for adopting a curriculum, especially getting school-wide support. Did not view SEL as a curriculum alone. High schools are particularly challenged finding an evidence-based curriculum. Some schools adopted school-wide practices rather than a canned curriculum. Several created a student advisory program, student leadership teams, service learning programs, etc. Integrated practices into classroom and school-wide practices Some classroom teachers resisted a new subject and\or curriculum. It was anticipated that getting full teacher buy-in would be a challenge for the upcoming year. 10

11. Staff reports of impact of SEL on themselves “SEL has been a life changing experience.. my whole personality has changed” “It has changed the way I teach and plan each day. It makes my job a job I love to do and want to continue to do” “As a teacher, SEL makes your life easier.. You're going to get more done overall if you don’t have all those behavioral issues”. 11

12. Teacher Reports of Impacts on Students “They understand to communicate with each other.. It makes the day run very smoothly” “They’re more calm about things. They talk things out rather than fight them out” “Students are autonomous and self-regulating” “Fewer disciplinary problems, most notably fighting, decreased expulsions, fewer referrals on school buses, improved attendance” 12

13. Teacher Report of Impact on Climate “It has molded and shaped our school environment to be positive and welcoming” “It’s a lot calmer in the Junior High” “It’s not a scary hallway anymore” “How should we act in the office? How should we act in the hallways?” It’s not something that happens from 1 to 2; it’s all the time. 13

14. Integrating SEL across PBIS, school mental health and other initiatives  Multiple initiatives may create competing demands for some schools and are viewed as overlapping and SEL-like. Using requirements of one grant to meet requirements of another grant. Link common language across initiatives. View SEL as the universal approach to RtI Five of 21 schools had PBIS- One person stated “If children have a relationship with you, then PBIS works more effectively” Openly discuss these initiatives with the coach 14

15. Recommendations Develop a readiness assessment tool & include it as part of the RFP process Customize training to match school’s stage of implementation and/or building type (High School Factor) Develop / define / clarify roles for SEL team members and coaches Create a system or process to identify a poor fit between a school and coach Develop and require an assessment and accountability system for SEL (Make it a priority) Develop standard presentation materials and template for schools to continuously update and promote SEL to faculty, school boards, new faculty and other critical colleagues. SEL, PBIS, MH Support Grants and RtI should be reviewed for better ways to integrate initiatives 15 Bullet 2 – and also with an eye to integration of similar program initiatives Bullet 4 – what can be done in advance / what requirements can be put in place to better ensure teacher buy-in, administrator support & buy-in, etc Bullets 2 & 3 – so important given that the “ideal” coach must have so many areas of expertise! Bullet 4 – roles of team members, roles of coaches, roles of building administrators, role of the district, etc Bullet 2 – and also with an eye to integration of similar program initiatives Bullet 4 – what can be done in advance / what requirements can be put in place to better ensure teacher buy-in, administrator support & buy-in, etc Bullets 2 & 3 – so important given that the “ideal” coach must have so many areas of expertise! Bullet 4 – roles of team members, roles of coaches, roles of building administrators, role of the district, etc