Researchers have finally settled the debate about whether social-emotional learning, or SEL, boosts test scores. At least, that’s what recent news reports would have you believe. Outlets like EdWeek and NPR report that SEL can raise achievement by 4 to 8 percentile points, citing new data as “clear evidence” that SEL programs lead to better grades and test performance. These claims all trace back to a new meta-analysis from USC and Yale that has already shaped national coverage. But before policymakers take these estimates at face value, it’s worth looking closely at how the study was built.
The press release promoting the study asserts that “universal SEL programs are a sound investment in education systems worldwide,” that we now have “rigorous scientific evidence” that SEL improves both student well-being and academic achievement, and that SEL programs “should not be viewed as add-ons” but as essential components of schooling. Those are substantial claims. Does the underlying evidence supports them?
The authors set out to determine whether SEL programs improve academic achievement among K–12 students and whether effects differ by grade span, subject area, type of outcome measure, or program duration. To do this, they searched for studies of universal SEL interventions conducted anywhere in the world and published between 2008–2020. The operational definition they rely upon is this: “Universal school-based social and emotional learning interventions support the development of intra- and interpersonal skills to promote physical and psychological health for all students in a given school or grade, including fostering the development of emotional intelligence, healthy behavior regulation, identity formation, and the skills necessary for establishing and maintaining supportive relationships and making empathic and equitable decisions in the best interest of the school community.”
Their final sample included 40 studies of 30 different programs—ranging from mainstream SEL curricula developed and implemented in the U.S. to interventions as varied as Tai Chi, yoga, and “The Little Prince Is Depressed” (a program developed in Hong Kong to prevent depression among Chinese adolescents). Seven of the 40 studies were unpublished dissertations. Of the full set, 29 studies used randomized controlled trials, and about one-quarter of the evidence base was unpublished.
The authors say their review offers important guidance for SEL decision-making. A closer look reveals reasons to be cautious about the very confident conclusions now circulating in the media.
Meta-analysis is powerful when the studies being synthesized are truly comparable, but that assumption is strained here. The included SEL programs differ in intensity, duration, purpose, and instructional design; the achievement measures differ in how they’re scored and how much confidence we can place in those scores; and teacher training ranges from minutes to multi-day workshops with ongoing coaching. Some studies rely on random assignment, while others do not. And in one case, the review treats different analyses of the same data as if they were separate findings. These limitations make the pooled effect size the authors report hard to interpret and suggest that claims about test-score gains may be premature.
