Donna Lord Black - Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

For some states, policy development has been necessitated by a devastating act of school violence in the state. Unfortunately, the incidents of school violence, particularly school shootings, have been an increasing concern throughout the United States and have forced several states to take responsive action. In each instance, states have taken very different approaches to addressing the problem, although school mental health has been recognized by each state as a critical area in which intervention was needed. How each state has approached this concern, along with school climate concerns, has been markedly different and has been intertwined with the sociopolitical issue of gun control. While it is recognized that this issue has complicated school safety policy efforts, the purpose of this writing is not to examine the sociopolitical issue. Rather, it is to examine how, or if, state policy initiatives have incorporated efforts to address school mental health and the conditions that create safer, more supportive school environments. In recent years, two school shootings in two different states occurred just months apart, resulting in each state initiating policy development for school safety. Rapid Reference 2.4illustrates how Florida addressed school safety, and Rapid Reference 2.5illustrates the approach taken by Texas. These examples illustrate not just how differently each state approached the issue, but also how differently the issues were viewed.

In response to the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Senate Bill 7026 was adopted by the Florida legislature and signed into law by the governor of Florida in March 2018. Known as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act of 2018, this $400 million legislation contained provisions for mental health assistance allocations to schools, firearm safety measures, and school safety requirements. It required Florida schools to implement increased security efforts that included, among other things, hardening school properties, implementing a mobile device reporting tool, hiring school law officers, developing and implementing a behavioral threat assessment instrument, and developing and implementing a statewide threat assessment database. The legislation also authorized county sheriffs to voluntarily establish controversial guardian programs in schools. According to the Florida Department of Education (2020), guardians are “armed personnel who aid in the prevention or abatement of active assailant incidents on school premises. They are either school employees who volunteer to serve in addition to official job duties or personnel hired for the specific purpose of serving as a school guardian. Guardians must pass psychological and drug screenings, and successfully complete a minimum of 144 hours of training.”

The legislation also established the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, whose purpose was to investigate system failures in the Parkland school shooting and in previous mass violence incidents, then develop recommendations for system improvements. These recommendations were later brought to the Florida legislature in 2019 and led to the passage of Senate Bill 7030, which was designed to build on the original school safety act passed in 2018 and provide strengthening of accountability and compliance with the law. The bill included amendments to 17 sections of the original bill and expanded on the requirements for access to mental health supports in schools. It also included provisions for protecting school climate through restorative strategies and increased the involvement of school counselors in discipline policies and procedures. Other provisions in the law, however, continued to support the controversial guardian program, as well as the presence of law enforcement on campuses, further posing a risk for increased student arrests.

Following the enactment of these two school safety measures, most Florida schools complied, but some did not, prompting Florida’s governor to call for a grand jury to investigate noncompliance with the state laws. Following its investigation, it was determined there were numerous systemic issues preventing compliance, as well as funding issues. The grand jury also indicated there were some inefficiencies created by the law, specifically regarding the controversial guardian program, and recommended further clarification by the legislature. Another important recommendation was that the Florida Department of Education be authorized to monitor school districts and enforce compliance with school safety laws passed by the legislature.

Following the recommendations of the grand jury, a third school safety bill, Senate Bill 7065, was proposed to the legislature, but it failed to pass (Florida Senate, 2020).

In May 2018, just two and a half months after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, another school shooting occurred at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas. In response to this devastating act of violence, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions to investigate possible solutions for improving school safety (State of Texas, 2018). Following the roundtable discussions, the governor released a school safety action plan (Abbott, 2018) that laid the foundation for school safety legislation.

Like the Florida legislation discussed in Rapid Reference 2.4, the Texas legislation contained some similarities. For example, Texas’ schools were required to implement hardening of school properties and hiring of school law officers. However, the Texas legislation differed in several aspects. Not only did it incorporate many of the components identified in the school climate research, but also it included SEL language. It required schools to implement a systemic and coordinated multi‐tiered system that addressed school climate and the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of students. It also required schools in Texas to develop and implement threat assessment teams and to refer students for mental assessment when threat assessment indicated a need. In addition, teachers in Texas were required to receive continuing education each year in recognizing how grief and trauma affect student learning and behavior and how trauma‐informed strategies can support the academic success of students impacted by trauma or grief. The policy also required Texas’ schools to offer, as part of the physical health curriculum, instruction in mental health conditions, substance abuse, suicide prevention, and social‐emotional skills such as managing emotions, responsible decision making, and establishing and maintaining positive relationships. Lastly, the policy required schools to incorporate instruction in digital citizenship, including information regarding potential criminal consequences of cyberbullying (Texas School Safety Act, SB 11, 2019). The legislation also directed the Texas commissioner of education to develop rules for implementing many of these provisions.

In response to these school safety policies, or perhaps in preparation for the pending requirements, many schools and districts in the state subsequently created district‐level SEL leadership positions and began developing comprehensive SEL programs and supports. As a result, excitement for SEL increased, and SEL implementation efforts began emerging in schools and districts across the state. Although the Texas legislation fell short of requiring the state education agency to develop instructional standards for social and emotional learning, advocates for SEL believed the bill provided the momentum that would be needed for advancing SEL in the state.