Enhancing Outcomes of an Evidence-Based Social-Emotional Program with a School Support Model: Preliminary Results and Findings

Introduction: This paper presents the Year 1 results of the randomized trial discussed in papers 1 and 2. This project is the first to test the combination of an evidence-based SEL program (PATHS) and a schoolwide support structure. We use a pair randomized trial to test the effectiveness of the combination of the School Guide with PATHS against PATHS alone. In the combined condition, we expect higher-quality PATHS implementation, more positive classroom and school climate, and improvements in student SEL and achievement.

Methods: 28 participating schools will implement the PATHS curriculum for two years; 14 schools were randomized to additionally receive the School Guide intervention. Outcomes are assessed for students who started the study in Grades 1 and 2 after each year of PATHS exposure and at one-year follow-up. This report reflects outcomes after one full school year of the project.

Fidelity of implementation of the School Guide is measured using  a whole-school staff survey administered each spring; a survey of PATHS implementation completed by PATHS teachers 2–3 times per school year; and observations of PATHS implementation conducted by PATHS trainers. For impact analyses, we will rely upon 1) teacher ratings of students’ social and emotional competence, attention, and aggression, and 2) school records for achievement, attendance, and disciplinary referrals.  Our impact models for student outcomes are 4-level hierarchical linear models with treatment at the school level (level 3) and matched school pairs as level 4 fixed effects. Group comparisons controlling for baseline scores are conducted with teacher ratings of students at both the classroom and school levels.

Results: At the end of the first year of the study, we found that implementation of PATHS was similar across both conditions according to both teacher report and independent observations. For both conditions, implementation improved from fall to spring based on teacher report measures. Whole-faculty surveys showed that School Guide school staff reported a better-articulated vision for SEL and more advanced work on understanding needs and resources. Teachers in the School Guide condition reported more principal support and feedback on their PATHS implementation. Students’ social and emotional competence as rated by teachers improved from fall to spring, but there were no differences between conditions.

Conclusions: At the end of one year, there were no significant differences in the implementation of PATHS in the PATHS-only schools vs. the School Guide schools, and there were no differences in student outcomes (these were improved from fall to spring in both conditions). Data showed that the coaching in the School Guide condition was implemented according to plan, so poor implementation is unlikely to account for the lack of effects. It may be that PATHS implementation was strong in both conditions, and only over time will those teachers without a schoolwide support network begin to show a relative advantage. It may also be the case that the coaching has an effect on the members of the school SEL team (hence teachers’ perceptions of better support) but does not have any direct effect on teachers’ implementation of PATHS.