School-based social and emotional instruction focuses on five core competency areas: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making (Corcoran 2017*). Such instruction typically includes efforts to develop skills such as recognizing and managing emotions, setting and reaching goals, appreciating others’ perspectives, establishing and maintaining relationships, and handling interpersonal situations constructively. Skills may be modeled, practiced, and then applied throughout the school day (Durlak 2011). Social and emotional learning (SEL) can also be called emotional literacy, emotional intelligence, mental health, resilience, life skills, or character education (Weare 2011).
Expected Beneficial Outcomes (Rated)
Increased academic achievement
Increased high school graduation
Improved social emotional skills
Increased school engagement
Improved mental health
Improved youth behavior
Other Potential Beneficial Outcomes
Evidence of Effectiveness
There is strong evidence that school-based social and emotional instruction increases academic achievement (Corcoran 2017*, Weare 2011), self-confidence, commitment to school (Weare 2011), social and emotional skills, and prosocial behavior among participants (Taylor 2017*, Durlak 2011). Such interventions have also been shown to reduce depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal among participating youth (Durlak 2011) and increase high school graduation rates among youth at risk of dropping out of school (CG-TFR Education). Interventions appear effective in urban and rural schools, and in schools in low income communities (CASEL-Payton 2008, Lewis 2013*, NBER-Cook 2014*, Taylor 2017*). Effects can be strongest with younger children, especially when interventions in later years reinforce earlier messages (Weare 2011).
Social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions for pre-K through grade 12 have been shown to improve math, reading, and science achievement; effects on science achievement are smaller than effects on math and reading (Corcoran 2017*). Whole class interventions and interventions that focus on children who have demonstrated social and emotional difficulties appear effective (Weare 2011, CASEL-Payton 2008). Whole class SEL interventions, especially those that include older children or cognitive behavioral interventions, also improve anger management and reduce violence, bullying, and conflict. However, interventions that focus only on children who have demonstrated violent or bullying behavior can increase problematic behavior, especially when peer-based interventions group these children together (Weare 2011, O’Conner 2017).
Studies of Second Step, a SEL program, show significant reductions in delinquent behavior, leading to reductions in bullying and aggressive behavior (Espelage 2015*, Espelage 2015a*, Espelage 2015b*). Participants who began the school year with fewer skills than their peers show substantial improvements in social emotional competence and behavior (Low 2015*). Studies also suggest that high quality implementation (defined by adherence, dosage, and competency) is associated with better program outcomes (Low 2016*, Cook 2018*).
Research suggests that SEL program benefits can be similar for students regardless of socioeconomic background, race, ethnicity, or school location (Taylor 2017*). Minority students may benefit from having early access to SEL instruction and SEL interventions may mitigate factors that put students at risk for poor social, emotional, and behavioral development (O’Conner 2017). Overall, additional research is needed to understand differential effects of SEL instruction (O’Conner 2017, Rowe 2018*).
Interventions that focus directly on social and emotional outcomes and communicate specific, well-defined guidelines, goals, and rationales are more effective than those that do not (Weare 2011). Interventions lasting nine months or more yield stronger effects on behavior, mental health, violence, and bullying than shorter interventions. Shorter interventions can improve mild difficulties with conflict, anxiety, or emotions, however, single, brief interventions do not appear effective (Weare 2011). SEL programs that use a coordinated sequence connecting activities to objectives, active learning to reinforce new skills, focus on developing personal or social skills, and explicitly address social and emotional skills—all four components of SAFE (sequenced, active, focused, and explicit) practices—achieve the broadest range of possible outcomes (Durlak 2011).
Whole class, teacher-led interventions can be more effective than specialist-led interventions, especially for academic outcomes (Durlak 2011, Weare 2011). Researchers suggest that SEL interventions involve teachers to ensure that SEL skills are incorporated into daily school life (Weare 2011). Afterschool interventions also appear effective (CASEL-Payton 2008). Implementing SEL interventions with Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) interventions can lead to significantly greater improvements in overall mental health and greater reductions in externalizing behaviors, including defiant, angry, argumentative, aggressive, or disruptive behaviors, than implementing either intervention alone (Cook 2015).
Impact on Disparities
As of 2018, 14 states have social and emotional learning (SEL) standards for preschool through grade 12, and 11 other states have SEL standards established for preschool through early elementary school. All 50 states have SEL standards for preschools. Twenty-one states have web pages that provide guidance, tools, and resources to support implementation of SEL in schools (CASEL-State scan, NCSL-SEL 2018).
CASEL - Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
CGTL 2014 - American Institute for Research (AIR). Teaching the whole child: Instructional practices that support social-emotional learning. Center on Great Teachers & Leaders (CGTL). 2014.
AIR-SEL - Social and Emotional Learning. American Institutes for Research. 2018.
RWJF-SEL resources - Social and Emotional Learning. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). 2018.
Citations - Evidence
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
Corcoran 2017* - Corcoran RP, Cheung A, Kim E, Xie C. Effective universal school-based social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review. 2018;25:56-72.
Weare 2011 - Weare K, Nind M. Mental health promotion and problem prevention in schools: What does the evidence say? Health Promotion International. 2011;26(Suppl 1):i29–69.
Taylor 2017* - Taylor RD, Oberle E, Durlak JA, Weissberg RP. Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development. 2017;88(4):1156-1171.
Durlak 2011 - Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development. 2011;82(1):405–32.
CG-TFR Education - The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Task Force Recommends (TFR) Education Programs to Promote Health Equity.
CASEL-Payton 2008 - Payton J, Weissberg RP, Durlak JA, et al. The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL); 2008.
Lewis 2013* - Lewis KM, DuBois DL, Bavarian N, et al. Effects of positive action on the emotional health of urban youth: A cluster-randomized trial. The Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;53(6):706–11.
NBER-Cook 2014* - Cook PJ, Dodge K, Farkas G, et al. The (Surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth: Results from a randomized experiment in Chicago. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2014: Working Paper 19862.
O’Conner 2017 - O'Conner R, De Feyter J, Carr A, Luo L, Romm H. A review of the literature on social and emotional learning for students ages 3-8 : Outcomes for different student populations and settings ( part 4 of 4 ). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. 2017:247.
Espelage DL, Low S, Ryzin MJ Van, Polanin JR. Clinical trial of second step middle school program: Impact on bullying, cyberbullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual harassment perpetration. 2015;44(4):464-479.
Espelage 2015a* - Espelage DL, Rose CA, Polanin JR. Social-emotional learning program to reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization among middle school students with disabilities. 2015.
Espelage 2015b* - Espelage DL, Low S, Polanin JR, Brown EC. Clinical trial of Second Step middle-school program: Impact on aggression and victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2015;37:52-63.
Low 2015* - Low S, Cook CR, Smolkowski K, Buntain-Ricklefs J. Promoting social-emotional competence: An evaluation of the elementary version of Second Step. Journal of School Psychology. 2015;53(6):463-477.
Low 2016* - Low S, Smolkowski K, Cook C, Early F, Low S. What constitutes high-quality implementation of SEL programs? A latent class analysis of Second Step Implementation. Prevention Science. 2016;17(8):981-991.
Cook 2018* - Cook CR, Low S, Buntain-ricklefs J, et al. Evaluation of second step on early elementary students' academic outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. School Psychology Quarterly. 2018.
Rowe 2018* - Rowe HL, Trickett EJ. Student diversity representation and reporting in universal school-based social and emotional learning programs: Implications for generalizability. Educational Psychology Review. 2018;30(2):559-583.
Cook 2015 - Cook CR, Frye M, Slemrod T, Lyon AR, et al. An integrated approach to universal prevention: Independent and combined effects of PBIS and SEL on youths’ mental health. School Psychology Quarterly. 2015;30(2):166-183.
Citations - Implementation Examples
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
CASEL-State scan - Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). State scan scorecard project.
NCSL-SEL 2018 - Social and Emotional Learning. National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). 2018.
CB-PATHS - Channing Bete Company (CB). PATHS (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) Program: The PATHS program is grounded in social and emotional learning (SEL).
CFC-Second Step - Committee for Children (CFC). Second Step early learning through grade 8: Skills for social and academic success.
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see citations and implementation resources for this strategy, visit:
To see all strategies: