Educational Leader Reports: Structures and Routines of Systemic and Transformative SEL Implementation

• In Event: Shifting Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Toward Equity: Integrating Systemic SEL, Transformative SEL, and Implementation Science

Abstract

Background: Social and emotional learning (SEL) involves the use of evidence-based programs and practices to develop social and emotional competence, academic success, and behavioral health in students and adults (Durlak et al., 2011). Systemic SEL seeks to ensure system-level support for integrating, delivering, and sustaining SEL within a complex educational system (Elias et al., 1997). Mahoney and colleagues (2021) conceptualize systemic SEL implementation to include an SEL Leadership Team, a shared vision, written plans and goals, SEL integration into routines and structures, use of evidence-based programs, and data collection for continuous improvement. Transformative SEL (tSEL) builds upon systemic SEL and embraces a concerted focus on equity (Jagers et al., 2019). Research is necessary to explore the mechanisms of continuous improvement that current educators take up in practice in their implementation of systemic and transformative SEL. In partnership between a large County Office of Education (COE) and research university, we explored leadership assessments of various components of systemic and transformative SEL implementation.

Data & Methods:In a seven district study of SEL leadership, including educational leaders at the district (n=8; 18%) and school (n=37; 82%) levels, completed an assessment of social and emotional learning (Blinded for Review), which assesses systemic SEL implementation through educational leader self-report. 11 (24%) of the respondents were newer to their roles (i.e., working 0-1 years in the role) and 34 (76%) had worked in their roles for at least 2 years. The respondents identified primarily as Hispanic/Latinx (N=21, 47%) women (N=37, 82%). We explored the frequency with which these leaders reported systemic and transformative SEL implementation to be occurring.

Results: We found that the positional leaders at districts and schools reported that components of systemic and transformative SEL implementation are occurring. For example, nearly 60% reported they had an SEL Leadership Team at their district or school. Of those who have a leadership team, 44% felt that their team was effective at supporting SEL implementation. Leaders also reported having a shared vision that guides their SEL implementation (56%). In regard to tSEL, they reported that their shared vision guided their SEL Leadership Team toward fairness and inclusion in their implementation (60%), but less often (42%) that they were provided guidance for reflecting on root causes when interpreting SEL data. Additional results will be shared about a variety of indicators of systemic and transformative SEL implementation.

Significance: Findings from this survey are among the first to measure aspects of both systemic and transformative SEL. Our results provide an opportunity for researchers and practitioners to better understand the realities of SEL implementation “on the ground” in schools and districts–as reported by the leaders who are tasked with supporting SEL implementation. We will discuss how this knowledge can be used as a feedback loop to build capacity and support systems (e.g., goal setting, planning, monitoring progress) for COE office leaders to partner with districts and school sites for the continuous improvement of systemic and transformative SEL implementation.

Authors

• Ashley Metzger, University of California - Berkeley

• Tiffany M. Jones, Colorado State University

• Christobelle Tan, San Diego County Office of Education

• B. Elizabeth Kim, University of California - Los Angeles

• CalHOPE Research Committee, University of California - Berkeley

• Valerie Shapiro, University of California - Berkeley