People often say that our public schools try to do too much; that schools should not be responsible and accountable for “all of society’s problems.” However, the reality is that schools do not get to choose which issues they get to address and which are someone else’s responsibility. In every community, kids come to school hungry, tired, worried, sad, and depressed. Many children live in poverty. Too many are abused, and some are bullied both outside and inside their school. Too many Black and brown children are treated as if they are less capable, less important, or worse. When our children come to school, regardless of what is happening outside, they must know as soon as they walk through our schoolhouse doors that they are valued and respected, that they belong, and that they are loved. Sometimes that means schools and educators will have to do a lot more.

February 14th is Valentine’s Day and the beginning of Random Acts of Kindness Week. In addition, February is Black History Month. In this month’s edition of The Equity Express, we focus on social-emotional learning (SEL) and schools’ efforts (even if not perfect) to make their spaces safer, more tolerant, more supportive, and kinder for the children and adults who live and work there each day.

This alignment is not accidental. Black History Month invites us to honor the legacy of people who built community through faith, mutual aid, collective responsibility, and courage. Random Acts of Kindness and SEL, when grounded in cultural understanding, can become more than a feel-good moment; they can be daily practices that strengthen belonging, affirm identity, and remind students that their humanity is not up for debate.

Beaty (2018) argues that social and emotional learning dates back to 380 BC and the work of Plato. However, many modern educators recognize SEL as an outgrowth of the work of Dr. James P. Comer and the Comer School Development Program (CSDP), which was developed in the 1960s. Dr. Comer is a leading child psychiatrist and educational reformer, and has been Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Yale Child Study Center since 1976. He is also an Associate Dean at the Yale School of Medicine.

The theoretical framework of the CSDP states that children need positive interactions with adults in order to develop adequately (Comer, 1996). “In 1968, Comer and his colleagues at Yale University’s Child Study Center began a program to put their ideas about supporting the ‘whole child’ into practice at two schools in New Haven. By the early 1980s, the two schools saw a decline in behavior challenges and exceeded the national average in academic performance. Building on that work, the superintendent of the New Haven Public Schools, John Dow, Jr., called for a districtwide focus on social development. From 1987-1992, a group of educators and researchers, led by Timothy Shriver, who is now on our NCEED Advisory Board, and Roger Weissberg, began the New Haven Social Development program that pioneered SEL strategies across K-12 classrooms” (CASEL, 2018).

Then, in 1994, a group of smart and caring people came together to develop a field that would address the “missing piece” in education. They believed that our schools must attend to all children’s social and emotional needs. The group emerged from their meetings with a name, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), and the term “social and emotional learning” was born (CASEL, 2018).

As the superintendent of a large urban district, I saw this work as a great opportunity to expand our efforts to meet the needs of individual students, parents, and educators. It was also a vehicle to dramatically improve the climate and culture of our schools. In 2010, CASEL and the NoVo Foundation launched the Collaborating Districts Initiative (CDI) “to advance knowledge of how school districts can make SEL an integral part of every student’s education” (Osher et al., 2014).

I am proud to say that in Austin, Texas, our district was one of the pioneering SEL districts, along with the Cleveland and Anchorage public schools, and, as a result, we funded an SEL specialist and a Cultural Proficiency and Inclusiveness (CPI) specialist for each school. The goal was to “inspire reflection and inquiry, and co-create opportunities and transformative environments for restorative, respectful, equitable, inclusive, actionable, and sustainable, culturally and linguistically responsive, social and emotional learning practices throughout the district” (AISD, n.d.).

In recent years, some educators have argued that to be fully effectual in urban schools, SEL curricula must more adequately include culturally and emotive components so that students are able to connect their own diverse personal histories and the histories of others in ways that build greater self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills which are the five CASEL core competencies. CASEL and many curriculum providers have heeded this call and developed materials that reflect cultural responsiveness.

Trying to meet the social, emotional, and academic needs of every child can feel overwhelming. But that is the challenge our teachers and administrators aspire to meet every day. As Dalrymple and Phillips (2024) note, “Education has always been a key arena wherein battles around social, civil, and political issues take place.” Over the past fifty years, schools have implemented efforts such as free and reduced-price lunches and Head Start; IDEA protections and services for children with disabilities; Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS); credit-recovery programs; restorative practices; after-school and before-school supports; and many others. Social-emotional learning is yet another effort to meet the needs of children and create the kinds of positive cultures that make children feel safe and accepted – that they belong and are loved.

As I reflect on my experience, I am reminded of what this looked like in a district from launch to maturity. One of the most important lessons I learned is that culture change is not a slogan; it is a system – deliberately built, consistently reinforced, and protected over time.

In the first year of this kind of work, you often begin by naming what is true and building the infrastructure for trust. You set a clear strategy, align key partners, and ensure the district has the people, plans, and routines to sustain implementation. For example, in one district’s Positive Behavior Strategies (PBS) work:

• The SEL/PBS strategy was presented to the Board to establish shared understanding, transparency, and public accountability.
• The district partnered with CASEL and secured internal and external private funding to launch and sustain a durable, districtwide approach.
• Leaders presented SEL training to school and district leadership to ensure expectations and language were consistent from the start.
• The district built a three-year plan for PBS to move beyond isolated programs into coherent implementation.
• A research-informed, developmentally aligned SEL curriculum was adopted.
• The district established capacity by creating an SEL department and hiring an SEL coordinator and SEL coaches.

That is the character of year one work: setting direction, building capacity, and establishing the conditions where adults can lead differently, and students can experience school differently.

By year five, the work looks and feels different – because it has moved from initiative to practice, and from practice to culture. The strategy is no longer something “added”; it becomes how the district operates.

Here are examples of what deepening and sustaining SEL and culture change looks like over time:

SEL implementation was strengthened through collaborative action planning with school leadership teams and the teams that drive daily practice, including culture and climate teams, behavior support teams, and instructional planning teams.

• The district expanded adult learning by conducting professional learning sessions for site-based leadership teams, instructional coaches, and curriculum and professional learning coordinators, helping SEL connect to instruction—not compete with it.
• Leaders recognized that the “whole child” requires the whole adult, and delivered adult SEL trainings focused on self-care, self-awareness, and self-management for staff across schools and district departments.
• The district scaled relational approaches to discipline and repair by facilitating school- and district-level Restorative Practices (RP) trainings, with over 200 new staff members becoming IIRP-certified and multiple schools participating in school-level RP training.
• The system invested in sustained coherence by completing the first year of a new middle school SEL curriculum implementation, funded through a five-year DFAC grant, reinforcing that culture work requires a long runway.
• Schools received consistent support and routines—such as monthly SEL themes and competency focuses—so SEL became visible and predictable in school daily life.
• The district operationalized onboarding and support by training new schools in PBIS implementation rather than leaving them to figure it out on their own.
• SEL was continuously strengthened by integrating it into revised units of study, reinforcing that SEL and rigorous instruction can – and should – work together.

Importantly, the district understood that SEL does not stand alone. Many districts pair SEL with wraparound supports because students’ lives do not arrive neatly separated into categories. Examples of wraparound strategy included: partnering to provide screenings, eye exams, and glasses; launching tele-health initiatives; expanding partnerships for behavioral and mental health supports; implementing trauma-informed training and mental health first aid; and developing targeted plans to reduce suspensions and strengthen supports for vulnerable student populations.

This is what year five can look like when the work is protected: the strategy matures, adult practice changes, students experience greater stability, and culture becomes something the system sustains—not something it hopes for.

Random Acts of Kindness Week is a beautiful bright spot in Black History Month. We can reinforce the message that young people understand that kindness is not simply politeness; it is a community responsibility. It is the courage to include the isolated student. It is the willingness to restore rather than discard. It is the choice to see each other fully. Black history is filled with examples of people building systems of care when systems of support were denied. When we connect SEL to that legacy, we give students a deeper frame: You are part of a story that values dignity, resilience, and collective thriving.

At NCEED, we continue to advance research, practice, and policy that strengthen whole-child development and educational justice. In this month’s Numbers That Matter article, NCEED staff writer Bill Caritj tackles the issues of test bias and test anxiety in preparation of impending spring testing. In his article, Bryant Best, Assistant Professor of Urban Education and NCEED research faculty, makes a case for curricula that are more interesting, engaging, relevant, and personal for all children, particularly those most at risk, by integrating culture into the curriculum. As we honor Black History Month and practice intentional kindness, let us recommit to SEL that is culturally grounded, relationally strong, and sustained long enough to become real.

References

AISD, n.d. https://www.austinisd.org/sel-cpi/implementation.

Beaty, J., 2018. History of social and emotional learning. International Arab Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 1(1), 67-72.

CASEL. (2018). History. Retrieved from CASEL: https://casel.org/about-us/our-history/

Comer, J. P. (Ed.). (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education. Teachers College Press.

Dalrymple, K. A., & Phillips, J. M. (2024). The Complicated Rise of Social Emotional Learning in the United States: Implications for Contemporary Policy and Practice. Harvard Educational Review, 94(3), 337-361.

Osher, D., Friedman, L. B., Kendziora, K., Hoogstra, L., Tanyu, M., Garibaldi, M., & Olivia, M. (2014). CASEL/NoVo Collaborating Districts Initiative: 2014 cross-district implementation summary. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Cross-District-Implementation-Social-Emotional-Learning-Report-2014.pdf

Todd, C., Smothers, M., & Colson, T. (2022). Implementing SEL in the classroom: A practitioner perspective. The Clearing house: a Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 95(1).