SEL

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.

• In their review of 46 meta-analyses and narrativereviews involvinghundredsof studies and more than a half million students, Weare and Nind (2011) indicated that school-based universal promotion programs produced positive impact immediately following intervention but that the long-term effects of such interventions were in need of further study.
• The main purpose of this study was to fill this gap in research by conducting a meta-analysis of the follow-up effects of school-based universal SEL interventions... The interventions included in this review vary considerably in duration, location, participants, and other features, but they all collected follow-up assessments at 6 months or more postintervention.
• 82 interventions involving a total of 97,406 students
• Mean ESs ranged from .13 to .33, with SEL program participants benefiting significantly more than controls across all of the social and emotional assets and positive and negative indicators of well-being. The mean follow-up period varied from 56 to 195 weeks depending on the particular outcome category... Students in school-based SEL interventions continued to demonstrate significant, positive benefits in seven outcomes collected, on average, from 56 weeks and up to 195 weeks (i.e., 3.75 years) following program participation. These results are impressive; although at first glance, the follow-up mean ES may seem quite modest. However, Cohen’s (1988) suggestions for judging the magnitude of effects as small (.20), medium (.50), or large (.80) are not applicable for universal promotion or prevention studies nor are they relevant for interpreting follow-up data. [Huh?? Why?? See See: It's the Effect Size, Stupid and Null hypothesis testing and effect sizes] [ES: SEL Skills, .23; Attitudes, .13; Positive Social Behavior, .13; Academic Performance, .33; Conduct Problems, .14; Emotional Distress, .16; Drug Use, .16] 
• [F]or school-based SEL to be an effective approach to fostering PYD [positive youth development], educators need support to implement and appropriately adapt interventions such as those in the current meta-analysis. Without quality implementation, the potential positive impact of SEL programming is reduced (Durlak et al., 2011). 

Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social‐emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child development, 88(2), 408-416.

• This article reviews this research and what is known about effective intervention approaches. Based on that, an intervention model is proposed for how schools should enhance the social and emotional learning of students in order to promote resilience. Suggestions are also offered for how to support implementation of this intervention model at scale. 
• It can be helpful to frame the broad construct of social-emotional competence into two domains, that of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies... [I]ntrapersonal skills (e.g., realistic goal setting, positive mindsets, self-control, emotion regulation, and coping strategies) are those that are needed for globally effective functioning as an individual, whereas interpersonal skills (e.g., listening, communication, perspective taking, negotiation, and social problem solving) are those that are needed to interact successfully with others.
• There is considerable evidence indicating that both intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies enhance the ability of youth to behave appropriately, avoid risk behaviors, develop healthy relationships with adults and peers, and achieve academic success. 
• Longitudinal studies document that social-emotional deficits are predictive of problem behaviors including aggression, delinquency, and substance use. 
• Intervention studies that examine mediation are limited, but one review identified nine studies conducted in school-based elementary settings in which variables responsible for the positive effects on overt aggression were identified (Dymnicki, Weissberg, & Henry, 2011). 
• Korpershoek et al. (2016) used meta-analysis to assess the relative influence of major components present in school-based interventions on different categories of student outcomes. These authors examined four components consisting of (a) attempts to improve teachers’ classroom management strategies, (b) efforts at improving the quality of teacher–student relationships,(c) efforts to change student behaviors through positive or negative contingencies, and finally, (d) approaches that explicitly focused on enhancing students’ social and emotional development. Analyses suggested that the presence of these components was associated with small but significant and comparable improvement (mean effect using Hedge’s g) in students’ behavior (from .21 to .25) and academic performance (from .17 to .24). However, a focus on students’ social and emotional development was the only component associated with a significant improvement (.14) in students’ academic motivation, and their commitment to and engagement with school. 
• In a meta-analysis of 28 studies of school-based interventions with elementary-aged students designed to promote social-emotional competence, studies were coded as to whether programs used active (e.g., role play) or passive (e.g., lecture) intervention methods and demonstrated that this was an important distinction that moderated effects (January et al., 2011). Programs that used passive approaches had an overall effect of .12, whereas those that used active approaches had an overall effect of .37. This finding is consistent with the “active” component of the SAFE framework. 
• Until more detailed coding of subdomains of competence (e.g., self-management vs. social awareness) is conducted, we suggest that schools use programs that provide coordinated coverage of both the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains 
• During adolescence when students are more susceptible to the influence of peers, the intervention delivery structure is extremely important, and small group formats may make low-risk students vulnerable to deviance training (Dodge, Lansford, & Dishion, 2006). 
• In one longitudinal study of an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of middle school students with deficits in intrapersonal competence (i.e., low self-efficacy and high levels of self-criticism), students’ perceptions of a positive school climate reduced the negative effects these characteristics had on their levels of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Kuperminc, Lead-beater, & Blatt, 2001). These findings suggest interventions that combine skills instruction and strategies to improve school climate may be more effective. 
• [M]eta-analyses have indicated that these programs achieve similar (Barnes, Smith, & Miller, 2014) or better (Durlak et al., 2011) outcomes when they are conducted by school faculty and staff compared to those from outside the school system.
• High-quality program implementation is essential for maximizing the effects of evidence-based interventions.
• [A]dditional research is needed to discern the active ingredients of these interventions so that they can be streamlined and tailored to the needs of different schools and communities.

Dray, J et al. (2017) Systematic Review of Universal Resilience-Focused Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56 (10), 813-824.

• The review concludes that CBT-based programmes are the most effective universal resilience-focused programmes for children and adolescents, at least for short-term reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms. 
• [T]he long term effects of these programmes seems to be limited.
• [T]his review has consolidated my realisation that there are too many interacting variables within a school context for anyone to confidently say that an intervention that works in one school will generalise to other schools and contexts. Gender, age, delivery quality, parental support and understanding, school ethos and culture (including faith), teacher support, socio-economic grouping, Ofsted ratings, school behavioural policy are possibly a fraction of the considerations that may affect whether or not such interventions work.

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‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child development, 82(1), 405-432.

• Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger (2011) conducted a meta-analysis on "213 school-based, universal social and emotional learning (SEL) programs involving 270,034 kindergarten through high school students." All of the studies had control groups, but only 46 percent of the studies had been randomized. The researchers found that "SEL programs yielded significant positive effects on targeted social-emotional competencies and attitudes about self, others, and school. They also enhanced students’ behavioral adjustment in the form of increased prosocial behaviors and reduced conduct and internalizing problems, and improved academic performance on achievement tests and grades." Although only 16 percent of studies tracked academic performance, those studies found an "11-percentile gain in academic performance." Other findings. (1) Classroom teachers can effectively conduct SEL programs. (2) Positive student outcomes were moderated by SAFE practices and implementation problems, "suggesting that beneficial programs must be both well-designed and well-conducted." SAFE practices: "[T]here is broad agreement that programs are likely to be effective if they use a sequenced step-by-step training approach (S), use active forms of learning (A), focus sufficient time on skill development (F), and have explicit learning goals (E)."