a Common Vision
Step 1: Establish a common language. This first step focuses on clarifying the language and terms used to describe SEL and then defining it in terms that are understood by everyone. In this step, members of the stakeholder group identify the many terms used to describe SEL, then discern which of these terms better describe programs, frameworks, skills and competencies, or any other aspect of SEL. Differentiating between the terms should include references to scientific evidence when additional clarification is needed. The group strives to define the terms in clear and precise language, avoiding any jargon or acronyms, so the terms are observable and recognizable to everyone. The group then decides which term or terms will be used by everyone to describe SEL and its skills and competencies, along with any programs, strategies, or interventions that may be used as evidenced support. The group clarifies and articulates the importance of everyone using these terms consistently in all communications between staff, students, parents, and community members. For example, if “SEL” is the term that is chosen, then all stakeholders should agree on a definition of what it is, the skills and competencies on which it will focus (list them), and how it will need to be supported by various programs, interventions, and instructional strategies, all of which will need to be discussed when developing the implementation plan. See “Case Example: Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools (TxCEDS)” for a practical application of the importance of establishing a common language.
Step 2: Establish a common perspective and understanding of the issues. This second step helps identify the key issues needing to be addressed. In developing a clear understanding of these issues, stakeholders will need to give key consideration to the core values identified by the school or district, and how (or if) they are being reflected in the school’s or district’s vision, mission, policies, procedures, and guidelines. This step involves an open discussion about issues that impact school culture and climate, as well as equitable access to education (e.g., disproportionate practices), cultural considerations, and social and civic responsibility. More detailed information on current challenges in education will be discussed further in Chapter 4.
Step 3: Establish a common, or shared, vision. Once a common perspective of the issues has been clearly defined, understood, and articulated, a vision for SEL can be developed. In this step, key considerations should be given to aligning the school’s or district’s core values with the vision and mission statements. An elaboration on the role of core values will presented in Chapter 9.
Once the three‐step process has been completed successfully, the school or district can move forward with developing a detailed, multistage SEL implementation plan that includes goals, strategies, identified needs or resources, timelines, anticipated outcomes, and methods for monitoring and measuring progress, as well as for adjusting, changing, and improving the plan.
Source: An Introduction to Social‐Emotional Wellness in Texas Schools, A Guide for Schools, Agencies, Organizations, Parents, and Communities. Nancy P. Razo, Ph.D., LSSP. Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools. © 2017, SPEDTex.
APPLICATION OF THE THREE‐STEP PROCESS: A CASE EXAMPLE
The following serves as an illustration of just how critically important it is to establish a common language as the first step in the SEL implementation process. It provides a detailed description of how one group overcame critical communication barriers and was able to develop a better understanding of the challenges and issues schools face in implementing a sustainable approach to SEL.
Case Example: Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools (TxCEDS)
The following information is based on information obtained from meeting documents, personal knowledge, and observations related to the TxCEDS project that began in 2007 and ended in 2011 (M. Cordeau, personal communication, April 7, 2020).
Background
In 2007, the Texas Education Agency began a project to address the rising mental health needs of students in Texas’s public schools. The project was led by the Region 4 Education Service Center and was known as the Texas Collaborative for Emotional Development in Schools, or TxCEDS (Texas Education Agency & Region 4 Education Service Center, 2010). A diverse group of key stakeholders representing parents, educators, mental health professionals, graduate training programs, child‐serving agencies, and other organizations in the state was assembled in Austin, Texas. The group was charged with developing a mental health model that could be used as a guide for schools in addressing the escalating mental health needs in schools throughout Texas.
Process
The initial convening of the group focused on establishing the committee’s purpose and identifying project outcomes. After researching, examining, and discussing the issues on school mental health, the committee than set out to prioritize the issues and begin the process of developing a proactive, state intervention model. As discussions evolved, the committee began to realize that the development of a school‐based model was far more complex than originally anticipated. The evolution of this process brought to light a clear recognition that there could be no one solution for the commonly shared problems that schools faced when addressing student mental health. The committee acknowledged that this was largely due to the vast differences between the school communities in Texas, but also was partly due to how committee members perceived and understood the fragmented and complex systems regulating eligibility for mental health services, how those services were funded, availability and access to the services, and the occupational requirements that governed the professionals providing those services.
Each stakeholder involved in the project held a very different perspective on the issues of school mental health, and each member’s understanding of those issues was directly influenced by how she/he perceived the eligibility determination process for services. This included how the need for services was established and how the minimum standard of care was determined and evaluated. Consequently, the varied perspectives on these issues (i.e., lack of a common perspective) resulted in members struggling with how they might arrive at a possible solution to the problem.
During the early phases of the project, a significant amount of time was devoted to increasing the committee’s understanding of school systems and public education laws, including special education laws. Several non‐school stakeholders and parents in the group expressed concern with public school processes for identifying students who might need mental health services. Several of these stakeholders felt schools were consistently denying services to children, despite many of these students being diagnosed with mental health conditions. However, when the school professionals in the group responded to this concern, they explained that schools were obligated to provide educational services, and, although some educationally related services might be considered mental health services, the eligibility criteria for those services were established by education laws, not mental health or healthcare laws. These school professionals described the special education eligibility process (using acronyms commonly used in the special education process) and the educational programs provided through special education. This helped the committee members differentiate and better understand the services provided in public schools from those provided in the private sector or through public health services.
It soon became obvious to everyone that the language used to describe educational services was very different from the language used to describe mental health services. Clearly, this was an area where misperception and misunderstanding seemed to be perpetuating the problems and, ultimately, preventing any possible solutions. The group quickly recognized that the language used
