Given the rapid growth of the SEL movement, some challenges are to be expected, say two of the field’s leading figures. But let’s keep our eyes on the big picture. 

As longtime advocates for evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) in preschool to high school education, we’ve been delighted to see just how quickly the SEL movement has grown over the last several years. The principles and goals of SEL have been widely embraced by parents (Edge Research, 2018; PDK International, 2017); schoolteachers and administrators (Atwell & Bridgeland, 2019; Bridgeland, Bruce, & Hariharan, 2013; Hamilton, Dos, & Steiner, 2019); employers (World Economic Forum, 2018), and young people themselves (DePaoli et al., 2018).  

Eighteen states have introduced K-12 SEL standards or competencies, and 26 states have produced guidance documents or websites designed to support SEL implementation. More than 200 pieces of legislation referencing SEL (or closely related language) were introduced in 2019 alone. Hundreds of district superintendents and boards of education have expressed strong interest in developing SEL strategies for their local schools. And the Federal Commission on School Safety, chaired by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has described SEL as a key component of efforts to improve school climate and safety.   

Recently, however, a number of prominent scholars and education leaders have raised concerns related to the rapid rise in interest in SEL (e.g., Finn & Hess, 2019; Hamilton & Schwartz, 2019; Hess, 2019; McShane, 2019; National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, 2018; Starr, 2019). 

We welcome such input, and we value thoughtful debate about how best to advance quality SEL research, practice, and policy to improve educational and social outcomes for all young people. Indeed, that has been the focus of the work of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), an organization we’ve helped lead since its founding in 1994. Those of us who have been active in shaping the SEL movement over three decades have always acknowledged that it will be challenging to maintain the consistency and quality of SEL practices as they scale up. As more educators, policy makers, program developers, researchers, and others join us in this effort, we must work even harder to promote a clear, consistent, and balanced understanding of what it does — and doesn’t — mean to implement effective SEL approaches in our schools.   

To that end, we’d like to address four main areas of concern by providing background context and filling readers in on where the SEL movement has been, the strategic thinking that has guided CASEL field leaders and collaborators, and the possibilities we see for the future.  

Ambiguity 

The most frequent line of criticism related to SEL has zeroed in on, as Michael McShane (2019) puts it, “tough questions” about the term’s definition: “What does SEL mean? What is this effort all about? . . . . Do parents, teachers, and local citizens have a good idea of what SEL is, why it is important, and how it might shape instruction in their communities’ schools?” 
(p. 4). When any movement is in the process of growing, warn Chester Finn and Rick Hess (2019), it can be “temptingly easy. . . . to build momentum and win allies by offering an inclusive or generic definition of the cause being advanced, which allows others to piggyback their own pet projects” onto it, including “the raft of malarkey being peddled by consultants, vendors, education school faculty, and plenty of others in the name of SEL” (p. 4). 

We, too, have always worried that as the movement grows, SEL could, as Joshua Starr (2019) warns, “come to mean many things to many people.” Indeed, that’s why CASEL — the first organization to use the term SEL, more than 25 years ago — and its many collaborators and allies have always made it a priority to clarify what SEL entails and, just as important, to make clear that it ought to complement, not displace, the academic curriculum. However, because nobody — CASEL included — owns any one true definition of SEL, some amount of ambiguity will be inevitable. For instance, at this writing, we know of more than 100 SEL-related frameworks, each of which uses its own language to describe social and emotional competencies in children and youth (Berg et al., 2017). Just like every other widely used term in K-12 education — deeper learning, mastery learning, collaborative learning, instructional leadership, and so on — SEL will no doubt be misunderstood by some people and misused by others trying to cash in on its popularity. In that sense, the challenge facing the SEL movement is par for the course. 

It would be a big mistake to underestimate the quality of the research that the SEL movement draws upon.

That said, when it comes to definitional clarity, the SEL movement actually has a lot going for it. As far back as 1994, CASEL began to convene diverse groups of researchers, practitioners, and child advocates to introduce definitions to guide the field (Elias et al., 1997). While individual SEL frameworks may differ, leaders in the movement have come to a strong consensus on certain basic principles: Any viable SEL framework should highlight both intrapersonal and interpersonal skills and attitudes; be developmentally appropriate, culturally sensitive, and empirically grounded, and offer evidence-based practitioner resources and supports to implement and evaluate programming (Blyth et al., 2019). For its part, CASEL defines SEL as the processes through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (Weissberg et al., 2015). CASEL has further specified that the implementation of SEL requires a systemic approach, with attention to social and emotional development integrated into every part of students’ learning experience — in all classrooms, during all parts of the school day and out-of-school time, and in partnership with families and communities. As we see it, our framework, recommendations, and implementation guides are specific enough to encourage consistency among programs while still allowing local school, family, and community partners to adapt their SEL programs to fit their particular needs (CASEL, 2019a).   

Sure, some people will always be tempted to “peddle malarkey,” as Finn and Hess put it, under the banner of SEL. But anyone who wishes to ground their SEL programs in the expert consensus of the field can find the resources they need at CASEL and elsewhere. To the extent that Americans remain unclear as to what SEL is, why it’s important, and what it means for instruction, it’s not for any lack of effort by SEL researchers and practitioners to answer those questions. 

Hype 

Critics also warn that SEL has been overhyped and treated as a panacea for problems as varied as the achievement gap, low standardized test scores, racism, the school to prison pipeline, collapsing national values, violence, depression, anxiety, and more. Further, because there is only limited agreement in the field as to how best to assess and monitor the value and impact of SEL programs, it is difficult for educators to know whether they are effective in combating these problems. “I’ve no problem with advocates flagging studies showing benefits of certain approaches used thoughtfully,” writes Rick Hess (2017). “But that’s a long way from saying that research ‘proves’ that social and emotional learning ‘works.’ ” 

Here, too, we think the warning is apt. It pains us to see educators and policy makers make overblown claims about SEL writ large or about the efficacy of their favored programs. We know full well that when education research findings look too good to be true, they should be treated with skepticism. Historically, only a very small percentage of classroom interventions and school or district initiatives have been shown, over multiple studies and many years, to have significant, positive effects on students. At the same time, though, we think it would be a big mistake to underestimate the quality of the research that the SEL movement draws upon.  

In reality, the evidence supporting SEL doesn’t come from a single set of studies but from the coming together of many strands of rigorous research, including numerous program evaluations, conducted in the United States and around the world (Humphrey, 2013; Mahoney, Durlak, & Weissberg, 2018). This research demonstrates that well-implemented, universal SEL programming, both in and out of school, promotes a broad range of short- and long-term academic and behavioral benefits for K-12 students (Durlak et al., 2011; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010; Sklad et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017; Wiglesworth et al., 2016).  

The relevant knowledge base also includes numerous studies into the emotional and behavioral problems children commonly face, as well as related research into teaching strategies that can help them manage and navigate their social environments. It includes research showing the negative effects of school practices and policies that rely on blame and punitive discipline to control children’s behavior, as well as research into practices that promote healthy child development and reduce inequities. And it includes research into social bonding among children, moral development, motivation, self-regulation, mental and physical health, and on and on. From the beginning, the SEL movement has drawn on the extraordinary wealth of findings generated from recent advances in psychology, the learning sciences, and a number of other fields. 

Concerns about equity have motivated the SEL movement from the start.

Several years ago, the National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development convened a 28-member Council of Distinguished Scientists to summarize relevant evidence from a range of disciplines. Altogether, the council found, the evidence shows conclusively that social and emotional competencies are essential to learning, positive development, and success in school, careers, and life (Jones & Kahn, 2017). Their Consensus Statements of Evidence move us beyond the debate about whether schools should address students’ social and emotional development to how we can integrate effective SEL programming into the mission and daily work of all schools.  

However, while literature reviews and meta-analyses strongly support specific strategies and the SEL movement in general, it is important to acknowledge that, as critics point out, not all SEL programs are created equal. Some have proven to be successful in one setting but to have varying effects in other contexts. Some programs emphasize explicit skills instruction while others try to integrate SEL with academic curriculum areas, teacher instructional practices, and/or climate-enhancement strategies. And programs vary widely in the kinds of training, technical assistance, and implementation support they provide. 

Again, though, if the SEL movement struggles to rein in hype and ensure the consistency and quality of the many kinds of programs enacted in its name, the same can be said of every part of K-12 education. And in this area, too, the SEL movement has in fact done much to address these challenges. Most important, CASEL (2013, 2015) has developed guides that rate programs on a number of dimensions to help educators choose models that are appropriate for them (CASEL, 2019a; Elias et al., 2015). 

We agree with critics that the SEL movement requires a disciplined commitment to evidence-based practice and that educators and school districts should select only programs and interventions that have a proven track record. We agree also that SEL must not be defined as whatever a given teacher or administrator or scholar says it is. And we agree with those (e.g., Hamilton & Schwartz, 2019) who argue that when districts and schools adopt SEL programs, they should use well-designed assessments that help them monitor instruction, school environments, and student outcomes. We are optimistic, however, that growing numbers of education leaders are becoming wary of hype. Increasingly, we see states and districts choosing to adopt clear and achievable standards for SEL, requiring the use of evidence-based teaching and learning strategies, defining rigorous implementation guidelines, and funding high-quality assessments that support continuous improvement (Assessment Work Group, 2019; Dusenbury et al., 2019; Melnick, Cook-Harvey, & Darling-Hammond, 2017; National Practitioner Advisory Group, 2019). 

Equity and culture 

SEL researchers, practitioners, and advocates have long emphasized that all students (e.g., rich and poor; suburban, urban, and rural) can benefit from opportunities for social and emotional development (Atwell & Bridgeland, 2019; Durlak et al., 2011). However, there is always the danger that some schools will treat SEL as a separate and unequal educational track, much like the Life Adjustment curriculum of several decades ago, which gave underprivileged students instruction in topics such as “making a home” and “engaging in recreation,” rather than the academic study of history (Fallace, 2011). Further, as Joshua Starr (2019) notes, the SEL movement has, to date, “been dominated by White researchers and reformers, though much of the programming has been directed at Black and Brown students in urban districts. It’s no surprise that many critics have begun to push back on the idea that children of color need White educators to teach them to persevere and regulate their behavior.”  

Such concerns must be taken seriously. It is worth keeping in mind, though, that concerns about equity have motivated the SEL movement from the start. In the 1990s, scholars found that when educators lack a basic understanding of child development, children of color and children from marginalized communities suffer the most (Comer, 2004, 2009). Further, the absence of culturally competent developmental thinking was contributing to the failure of many White teachers to understand and connect with children from diverse cultural backgrounds (Delpit, 2006, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Indeed, early advocates of SEL argued that a lack of attention to students’ social and emotional needs was at the heart of public education’s failure to serve children from non-mainstream backgrounds.  

However, the SEL movement has never proposed that SEL is appropriate for only some children or that it should in any way substitute for academic instruction. Far from it, CASEL and other advocates have argued consistently that children from all backgrounds tend to benefit from SEL (AEI/Brookings Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity, 2015; Jones & Kahn, 2017). As Robert Jagers and colleagues (2018, 2019) explain, all young people bring to school their unique identities, strengths, values, lived experiences, and culture. Leveraging SEL to nurture all students can lead to better outcomes for all groups.   

Of course, SEL cannot do all the work necessary to achieve equitable outcomes for all students, but the pursuit of equity has always been central to SEL practices and standards. For instance, the movement has emphasized new approaches to school discipline — such as the use of restorative rather than punitive practices — that have been found to lead to higher graduation rates and reduced out-of-school suspensions (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018). And CASEL has always recommended programs designed to help students and teachers build strong, respectful relationships founded on an appreciation of similarities and differences; critically examine root causes of inequity, and develop collaborative solutions that address community and social problems (Jagers et al., 2019).   

To be sure, the SEL movement must, as Starr notes, “grapple with the complex racial politics involved in this work.” And to the extent that it does, we believe that it can help children from all backgrounds to promote understanding, examine biases, reflect on and address the impact of racism, build cross-cultural relationships, and cultivate practices that close opportunity gaps and create healthier communities.  

Impatience 

Drawing upon her experience as an advocate for the Common Core State Standards — a reform initiative that started strong but quickly lost momentum — Karen Nussle (2019) warns her counterparts in the SEL movement to “resist the allure of speed and scale” (p. 2). They should take their time, she argues, to craft their messages, create trust in the SEL “brand,” and build political coalitions. Further, adds Michael McShane (2019), calling out another of the Common Core’s shortcomings, “SEL advocates need to work with state and local education agencies to develop the capacity to implement sound SEL instruction” (p. 5).  

We appreciate the words of warning. The SEL movement requires a long-term commitment to gaining support for the work, building strong professional communities of practice, managing political pressures, and finding a healthy balance between holding schools to fixed standards and allowing flexibility to adapt programming to local contexts, needs, and values. School change is tricky and uncertain, and we can’t say for sure that the political winds will always favor SEL.  

What we can say, though, is that CASEL has worked carefully with many states, districts, and schools to implement a systemic approach to SEL, taking into account all aspects of schooling — from the guidance and supports states can provide, to how the central office is organized, to how classroom instruction is delivered (CASEL, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). We know that actions taken (or not taken) at one level affect the other levels and that federal, state, and local policy makers all play key roles in establishing the conditions for sustained, effective SEL programs and practices.   

Since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), we’ve focused special attention — through our Collaborating States Initiative (CASEL, 2019c; Dusenbury et al., 2019) — on cultivating partnerships with state-level leaders. Under ESSA, state leaders will play a key role in helping the SEL movement to grow. However, and based in part on the recommendations of the National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development (Bridgeland, Bruce, & Harihan, 2013), we believe that federal leaders will continue to have important roles to play as well. Specifically, they can introduce policies that distribute federal resources equitably and adequately, remove barriers for effective implementation of evidence-based programs and practices, and provide incentives within federal programs to blend and braid resources to allow districts and localities to serve youth more holistically. 

All for one 

CASEL has always thrived on collaboration. It was through the collective efforts of researchers, educators, policy makers, philanthropists, parents, and students themselves that the SEL movement took shape in the early 1990s, and through which it continues to grow (Elias et al., 1997; Greenberg et al., 2003; Weissberg, 2019; Weissberg & Cascarino, 2013). All along, our priority has been to bring people together to identify and address key challenges in the field — for example, we’ve sponsored SEL Exchange Conferences, the Collaborating States Initiative and State Policy Resource Center, the Collaborating Districts Initiative, the CASEL District Resource Center, the CASEL Guide to Schoolwide SEL, and more (CASEL, 2018). We’ve never sought to exert ownership over the movement but only to coax it along.  

Certainly, we share some of the concerns that have been raised about how best to define SEL, how to rein in those who oversell it, how to prevent it from becoming a separate and unequal kind of education, and how to clear the political hurdles that stand in the way of successful implementation. We also agree that the field must remain vigilant in protecting the quality of SEL programs, ensuring that SEL enhances academic teaching and learning and stays free of ideological agendas.  

However, we remain confident that the SEL movement will continue to grow and mature. We think we’re off to a great start, based on 25 years of collaboration. And we continue to invite partners with diverse perspectives to challenge us and join us in creating quality learning opportunities that educate all young people to be knowledgeable, responsible, caring, contributing members of society. Our goal should remain simple and strong: to educate both head and heart in ways that optimize the achievement and positive development of every child.              

References 

AEI/Brookings Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity. (2015). Opportunity, responsibility, and security: A consensus plan for reducing poverty and restoring the American dream. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute for Research and the Brookings Institution. 

Assessment Work Group. (2019). Student social and emotional competence: The current state of the field and a vision for its future. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. 

Atwell, M.N. & Bridgeland, J.M. (2019). Ready to lead: A 2019 update of principals’ perspectives on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and transform schools. Washington, DC: Civic with Hart Research Associates. 

Berg, J., Osher, D., Same, M.R., Nolan, E., Benson, D., & Jacobs, N. (2017). Identifying, defining, and measuring social and emotional competencies: Final report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. 

Blyth, D.A., Borowski, T., Farrington, C.A., Kyllonen, P., & Weissberg, R.P. (2019). Ten criteria for describing and selecting SEL frameworks. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. 

Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises with Peter D. Hart Research Associates. 

CASEL. (2013). 2013 CASEL Guide: Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs – Preschool and Elementary Edition. https://casel.org/preschool-and-elementary-edition-casel-guide/ 

CASEL. (2015). 2015 CASEL Guide: Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs – Middle and High School Edition. https://casel.org/middle-and-high-school-edition-casel-guide/ 

CASEL. (2018). From a movement to mainstay: CASEL’s three-year strategic plan to ensure high-quality social and emotional learning as a path to equity, engagement, and academic success. Chicago, IL: Author. 

CASEL. (2019a). The CASEL Guide to Schoolwide Social and Emotional Learning. https://schoolguide.casel.org/ 

CASEL. (2019b). CASEL’s District Resource Center. https://drc.casel.org/ 

CASEL. (2019c). Collaborating States Initiative Resources. https://casel.org/csi-resources/ 

Comer, J.P. (2004). Leave no child behind: Preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Comer, J.P. (2009). What I learned in school: Reflections on race, child development, and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Darling-Hammond, L. & Cook-Harvey, C.M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to support student success. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. 

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. 

Delpit, L. (2012). “Multiplication is for white people”: Raising expectations for other people’s children. New York, NY: The New Press. 

DePaoli, J.L., Atwell, M.N., Bridgeland, J.M., & Shriver, T.P. (2018). Respected: Perspectives of youth on high school and social and emotional learning. Washington, DC: Civic with Hart Research Associates.  

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432. 

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 294–309.  

Dusenbury, L., Yoder, N., Weissberg, R.P., & Dermody, C. (2019). An examination of K-12 learning standards in 18 states. Chicago, IL: CASEL. 

Edge Research. (2018). Developing life skills in children: A roadmap for communicating with parents. Alexandria, VA: Learning Heroes. 

Elias, M.J., Leverett, L., Duffell, J.C., Humphrey, N., Stepney, C., & Ferrito, J. (2015). Integrating SEL with related prevention and youth development approaches. In J.A. Durlak, C.E. Domitrovich, R.P. Weissberg, & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 33-49). New York, NY: Guilford. 

Elias, M.J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R.P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N.M., . . . & Shriver, T.P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Fallace, T.D. (2011). The effects of Life Adjustment Education on the U.S history curriculum, 1948-1957. The History Teacher, 44 (4), 569-589. 

Finn, C.E. & Hess, F.M. (2019, April). What social and emotional learning needs to succeed and survive. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., O’Brien, M.U., Zins, J.E., Fredricks, L., Resnick, H., & Elias, M.E. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466-474.  

Hamilton, L.S., Doss, C.J., & Steiner, E.D. (2019). Teacher and principal perspectives on social and emotional learning in America’s schools: Findings from the American Educator Panels. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Hamilton, L.S. & Schwartz, H.L. (2019, August). Get smart about social and emotional learning measurement. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 

Hess, R. (2017, December 12). Some advice for champions of social and emotional learning. EducationWeek. 

Hess, R. (2019). Foreword: What it’ll take for social and emotional learning to succeed and survive. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 

Humphrey, N. (2013). Social and emotional learning: A critical appraisal. Washington, DC: Sage. 

Jagers, R., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018). Equity & social and emotional learning: A cultural analysis. Chicago, IL: CASEL. 

Jagers, R.J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional Learning (SEL): Toward SEL in the service of equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54 (3), 162-184. 

Jones, S.M. & Kahn, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development – Consensus statements of evidence from the Council of Distinguished Scientists: National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.  

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465-491. 

Mahoney, J.L., Durlak, J.A., & Weissberg, R.P. (2018). An update on social and emotional learning outcome research. Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (4), 18-23. 

McShane, M.Q. (2019, May). What social and emotional learning advocates can learn from Common Core. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 

Melnick, H., Cook-Harvey, C.M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Encouraging social and emotional learning in the context of new accountability. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.  

National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development (2018). From a nation at risk to a nation of hope: Recommendations from the National Commission on Social, Emotional, & Academic Development. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.  

National Practitioner Advisory Group. (2019). Making SEL assessment work: Ten practitioner beliefs. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. 

Nussle, K. (2019). GPS for social and emotional learning from one who traveled the Common Core highway. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 

PDK International. (2017). The 49th annual PDK poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Arlington, VA: PDK International. 

Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., De Ritter, M., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs. Do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology and Schools, 49, 892-909.  

Starr, J.P. (2019, March 21). Can we keep SEL on course? Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (8), 70-71. 

Taylor, R., 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, 1156–1171. 

Weissberg, R.P. (2019). Promoting the social and emotional learning of millions of school children. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (1), 65-69.  

Weissberg, R.P. & Cascarino, J. (2013, October). Academic learning + social-emotional learning = national priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (2), 8-13. 

Weissberg, R.P., Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., & Gullotta, T.P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J.A. Durlak, C.E. Domitrovich, R.P. Weissberg, & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Guilford. 

Wiglesworth, M., Lendrum, A., Oldfield, J., Scott, A., ten Bokkel, I., Tate, K., & Emery, C. (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international transferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: A meta-analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46, 347-376.  

World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. Cologyny/Geneva, Switzerland: Author.