Systemwide Social and Emotional Learning in Action: Insights from a Research-Practice Partnership with Leaders, Educators, and Students

Abstract

Systemwide Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) promotes a host of academic and behavioral benefits for K-12 students. Yet, many schools face barriers to SEL implementation. Through a research–practice partnership, this study provides insights into facilitators of and challenges to systemwide SEL implementation. We collected 652 field notes of SEL in action across twelve schools in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States between December 2022 and May 2024. All field notes were analyzed with Dedoose using thematic inductive coding. Key facilitators of systemwide SEL include prioritization/support from leadership, professional development for educators, integration into students’ daily experiences, and engagement with parents/caregivers and the community. Key challenges to systemwide SEL involve leadership ambiguity, educator burnout, and student disengagement. Implications for optimizing SEL implementation in educational practice and policy are discussed.

1. Introduction

The imperative to support the positive development of children and adolescents invites schools to undergo continuous educational adaptation and innovation. Sustainable educational change requires the convergence of theory and practice; however, their segregation often limits lasting impact. Research–Practice Partnerships (RPPs) represent a long-term collaborative approach where researchers and practitioners co-investigate questions essential for educational innovation and continuously refine practical models (Coburn et al., 2013; Coburn & Penuel, 2016). This study features a three-year RPP between education researchers from a research university and education practitioners from two community-based school support organizations that use and produce rigorous research to tackle problems of practice in advancing social and emotional learning across twelve schools in California, New Jersey, and New York. By maintaining scientific rigor while ensuring flexible adaptability to the field, the RPP approach contributes to educational change that is both sustainable and feasible in school settings (Farrell et al., 2022; Tiippana et al., 2025). In this study, we shed light on a collaborative endeavor between researchers and practitioners through an RPP lens to support students’ positive social and emotional learning development.

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) consists of school-based programs designed to support children and adolescents in classrooms by fostering core social-emotional competencies, the skills necessary for supportive relationships, and responsible decision-making (CASEL, n.d.; Cipriano et al., 2023). Despite the wealth of valuable research in the SEL field, the primary literature has focused predominately on student outcomes rather than program implementation itself. Consequently, empirical insights into the facilitators of, and challenges to, sustainable systemwide SEL implementation remain limited (Rush et al., 2025). Through experimental evaluations of SEL interventions, there is a robust understanding of what works for whom (Arce-Trigatti et al., 2018; Cipriano et al., 2023; Durlak et al., 2011), as well as the core components and signature practices that drive implementation outcomes (Berg et al., 2017; Greenberg, 2023). With this research base in the foreground, it is time to turn the field’s attention to how SEL is adopted and integrated into the everyday operations of the school system. In particular, detailed insights into how collaborative inquiry between researchers and practitioners drives tangible instructional improvement need to be rigorously discussed and shared within the SEL field. Ultimately, focusing on such discourse is key to enhancing a school-based program’s sustainability. This approach not only minimizes the trial and error of program iteration but also empowers the field to move forward with more meaningful and innovative research agendas.

SEL is both a process of acquiring intra- and inter-personal skills (CASEL, n.d.) and an integral ingredient in educational and developmental success. A recent meta-analysis of universal SEL programs implemented with 575,361 K-12 students across 53 countries between 2008 and 2020 provided compelling evidence of the effectiveness of SEL in significantly improving social, emotional, academic, behavioral, and health outcomes (Cipriano et al., 2023). Similar findings were reported for a subset of universal SEL programs implemented with 20,626 K-12 students in the United States (Cipriano et al., 2024). While SEL fosters meaningful change and growth in children and youth, effects can vary significantly based on how it is implemented (Cipriano et al., 2023, 2024). Therefore, a deep understanding of SEL implementation is essential for sustaining and scaling associated benefits. In particular, understanding the holistic and interconnected systems that optimize or inhibit successful SEL implementation within educational settings is critical to moving from effectiveness to sustainability (Grant et al., 2023; Mahoney et al., 2021).

SEL implementation research has centered on applying theory to practice, that is, using theoretical models and frameworks to guide and inform the process of implementing evidence-based SEL interventions and programs in real-world settings. However, such approaches may not fully capture the nuanced challenges and everyday difficulties that leadership, teachers, and students encounter in day-to-day practice. In addition, SEL intervention studies conducted in specific regions or with limited schools provide valuable findings that reflect local contexts but fail to address broader issues of implementation. In this effort to span the boundary between research and practice, this study serves a dual purpose. For SEL researchers, it seeks to convey the voices and educational directions essential to the field. In addition, for school leaders and practitioners, it provides opportunities to reflect on and improve pedagogical practices in light of theoretical findings. Therefore, grounded in a multi-year, multi-site RPP with twelve schools in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, the current study examines facilitators of and challenges to systemwide SEL implementation in real-world educational settings. The study further discusses educational practices and policies necessary to overcome those barriers.

1.1. CASEL Framework for Systemwide SEL

The conceptual model of systemwide SEL in education (see Figure 1) proposed by the Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) is the most widely used theoretical framework for school-based SEL (CASEL, n.d.; Weissberg et al., 2015). It is centered on five core social-emotional competencies—self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. Drawing from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, the model proposes combining learning theories (e.g., behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, humanism, connectivism) with practical approaches by considering educational ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). The conceptual model of systemwide SEL in education is a holistic framework that views classrooms, schools, families, and communities as interconnected and dynamic systems that influence the learning and development of children and youth (CASEL, n.d.; Weissberg, 2019). It emphasizes the need to leverage all available resources from the immediate classroom to the broader community. SEL in the classroom, for example, can be transferred systemwide through structural and policy support, enriched through collaboration with families, and expanded into wider community. Figure 1 depicts how the five core SEL competencies are embedded within a series of layered ecological systems, such as classroom, school, and family-community levels. This structural alignment demonstrates that these competencies are not merely individual skills but rather shared outcomes to facilitate consistent implementation across all levels of the educational ecosystem. (CASEL, n.d.; Weissberg et al., 2015).

Barriers and supports for educational change have long been identified in education generally. Researchers have found that implementers must attend to aspects of school climate (i.e., shared vision, high expectations, positive trusting relationships), collaboration, and planning and preparing, including building institutional capacity throughout implementation to achieve educational change (Aldridge & McLure, 2024). Relatedly, brokerage has emerged as an important contributor in educational change (Rechsteiner et al., 2024). Brokerage involves “individuals or groups acting as intermediaries” (brokers) who engage stakeholder groups in activities (brokering) that facilitate and overcome barriers to educational change (Rechsteiner et al., 2024, p. 307).

1.2. Facilitators of Systemwide SEL

Facilitators of systemwide SEL stem from increased SEL opportunities for children and youth across classrooms, schools, families, and communities (Panorama Education, n.d.; Weissberg et al., 2015). When consistent SEL support is provided across the educational ecology, children and youth are better positioned to acquire the core social-emotional competencies in their daily lives (Domitrovich et al., 2017; Weissberg, 2019). For instance, when schools provide SEL resources to families and communities, children and youth can engage in continuous meaningful learning across various environments by applying their SEL knowledge and skills from school to social and emotional situations at home and in the community with support from family and community organizations (Osher et al., 2016; Zins & Elias, 2007).

A key facilitator of systemwide SEL is educational policy support. Educational policies can ensure a whole-school, evidence-based, systemic approach to SEL implementation, where SEL is woven into academic instruction, classroom culture, and school policies (Greenberg, 2023; Singh & Duraiappah, 2020). Educational policies can also promote equitable access to SEL resources for all students, educators, families, and communities, and foster connection and collaboration across the dynamic educational ecology (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Osher et al., 2020). This may include professional development in SEL that empowers educators (both school leaders and teachers) to enhance their own social and emotional well-being and competence, which in turn allows them to effectively model and teach SEL to their students (Melnick & Martinez, 2019).

Another critical facilitator of systemwide SEL is a culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogical approach that acknowledges, values, and integrates diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities into learning and interactions (Jagers et al., 2019; Osher et al., 2020). Children and youth have different social and emotional strengths and needs given individual differences, life experiences, and cultural influences. Systemwide SEL requires a culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogical approach to ensure relevance to and support for the diverse needs of children and youth in a particular community (Ramirez et al., 2021; Vera, 2023; Zins & Elias, 2007).

A systemwide approach is fundamental to SEL because fostering an ecological SEL-affirming environment for students is as critical as teaching core SEL competencies to students. This approach calls for collaboration among school leaders, teachers, parents/caregivers, and community organizations through a multi-layered ecological system (Barnes & McCallops, 2019), which in turn provides continuous learning opportunities for children and youth to develop social and emotional skills within and beyond school (Cipriano et al., 2025; Singh & Duraiappah, 2020). When children and youth engage in systemwide SEL that resonates with their cultural backgrounds, experiences, and identities, it enhances key social and emotional outcomes, such as increased feelings of belonging, improved school climate, and positive relationships (Cipriano et al., 2025; Cipriano & McCarthy, 2023; Ha et al., 2025).

1.3. Challenges to Systemwide SEL

Systemwide SEL necessitates broad stakeholder buy-in and effective inter-stakeholder coordination with a balance of top-down support and bottom-up autonomy (Chu & DeArmond, 2021; Yoder & Dang, 2023). A key challenge to educational change and systemwide SEL is the difficulty achieving active support and commitment to SEL from various stakeholders, like school leaders, teachers, students, parents/caregivers, and community members (Thierry et al., 2022; Vera, 2023). Stakeholders often have conceptions, values, and priorities that do not align with SEL initiatives and practices. For example, leadership may not see the relevance of SEL to learning, teachers may fear that SEL will detract from academic instruction, or parents/caregivers may be ignorant of the value of SEL for children and youth. Furthermore, mental health exacerbation (e.g., significant increase in anxiety and depression, dramatic rise in suicidal thoughts and self-harm behaviors) and academic struggles (e.g., significant declines in reading and math) in children and youth, compounded with social and political polarization, can impact leadership, teacher, and parent buy-in for SEL (Camangian & Cariaga, 2022; Lee et al., 2024; McCarthy et al., 2026).

Another critical challenge to systemwide SEL is the gap between stated intentions and enacted practices in SEL implementation. While teachers are crucial implementers of SEL, they are often not adequately equipped or supported to adopt and integrate evidence-based SEL into the everyday operations of the school system (Lee et al., 2024). This is congruent with ongoing calls to focus on adult SEL in schools, where educators, staff, and even parents/caregivers acquire knowledge, skills, and attitudes to grow and model social and emotional competencies (Jones et al., 2013; Mahoney et al., 2021; Yoder & Dang, 2023). In addition, schools need to develop cohesive and supportive structures for SEL implementation, and educators need SEL-specific content and pedagogy to systematically scaffold student SEL (Zieher et al., 2024). Yet such facets of systemwide SEL are often overlooked in curriculum-based programming that primarily involves explicit instruction through dedicated lessons. If educators provide SEL lessons but do not weave SEL into academic subjects or take advantage of teachable moments for SEL, SEL may not be integrated into student learning (Zieher et al., 2024). Similarly, if school leaders endorse SEL curricula but do not weave SEL into school culture and policies or promote SEL beyond the classroom, SEL may not be generalized to all settings at school, at home, and in the community (Slovák et al., 2016).

Given these practical challenges, exploring ways to bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners is essential for successful implementation of systemwide SEL. Even the most theoretically sound models inevitably encounter unforeseen complications during the implementation processes. There is a notable dearth of large-scale SEL research conducted through RPP. Given the distinct lack of descriptive studies that go beyond measuring SEL program effects to analyze how complex challenges are observed and navigated within collaborative processes, this study seeks to address facilitators and challenges of systemwide SEL through deep exploration of SEL implementation processes across twelve different schools.

1.4. Purpose of Study

This study featured a three-year (2022–2024) RPP between a research university and two community-based school support organizations, with the shared goal of advancing academic success and educational equity through SEL implementation. RPP is a long-term collaboration between researchers and practitioners to address problems of practice and develop evidence-based solutions for improving educational outcomes (Coburn et al., 2013). In the 2021–2022 school year, the RPP recruited SEL specialists through the two school support organizations. The recruitment process was standardized across the organizations, which included open applications, shared job descriptions, and common interview protocol. This enabled consistency in candidate evaluation across the organizations while allowing each organization to recruit SEL specialists who aligned with their respective missions and existing school partnerships. Applicants were required to possess at a minimum a bachelor’s degree in social work, education, psychology, or related discipline. Applicants were also required to demonstrate at least two years of professional experience in school-based settings, youth development, or social and emotional learning (SEL) related work. The selection process emphasized competencies viewed as critical to the role of SEL specialist, such as (a) experience supporting or facilitating SEL programming or child/youth development initiatives, (b) ability to interpret and apply data to inform programmatic decision-making, (c) strong interpersonal communication skills, (d) capacity to navigate complex school environments, (e) ability to work both independently and as part of interdisciplinary teams, and (f) alignment with equity-focused mission of the organizations and goals of the RPP. In the 2022–2023 school year, the RPP introduced full-time SEL specialists into partner schools to understand what it takes to really do SEL and co-learn from within. In the 2023–2024 school year, the RPP continued to support SEL specialists’ work in partner schools to harness opportunities and address barriers in advancing SEL implementation. The overarching goal of this study was to provide deep insights into how SEL works or does not work across schools by addressing two specific research questions:

(1)

What are the facilitators of systemwide SEL implementation at the student, educator, and leadership levels? We defined facilitators as actions or processes of SEL implementation that are helpful to and supportive of school engagement and meaningful learning.

(2)

What are the challenges to systemwide SEL implementation at the student, educator, and leadership levels? We defined challenges as actions or processes of SEL implementation that are unhelpful and disruptive to school engagement and meaningful learning.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Twelve schools across California (two elementary schools and two middle schools), New Jersey (one high school), and New York (seven high schools) participated in the RPP. For all schools, over 80% of the students were identified as Asian, Black/African American, or Hispanic/Latine. Also, over 80% of the students lived in low-income households (e.g., eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, experienced housing insecurity). Nine SEL specialists collected a total of 652 field notes across twelve schools in the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 school years, of which 362 were observations of classes, meetings, or events, and 290 were weekly reflections of their work in schools. Each SEL specialist provided a positionality statement to note how their identities and worldviews may shape their work (see

Table 1. Positionality statements of SEL specialists.

SEL Specialist 1 identifies as a white woman born and raised in England with a master’s degree in developmental psychology. She has a strong interest in special education, working with children with developmental challenges and advocating for inclusion. SEL Specialist 1 is excited to learn how to support students through SEL.

SEL Specialist 2 identifies as an Indian/Pakistani woman who grew up in New Jersey. She holds a master’s degree in educational leadership and has experience teaching math in high school. SEL Specialist 2 is excited to collaborate with students to help them achieve their potential.

SEL Specialist 3 identifies as a Hispanic man who grew up in a middle-class family in urban New York. He holds a bachelor’s degree in cognitive neuroscience and has experience in mentoring, tutoring, and coaching students. SEL Specialist 3 also has working experience as a mental health counselor in a community crisis stabilization unit.

SEL Specialist 4 identifies as a daughter of Haitian immigrants who grew up in a Caribbean enclave in New York. She holds a master’s degree in education. SEL Specialist 4 strongly believes that SEL is paramount to educational excellence and equity.

SEL Specialist 5 identifies as a Black woman who grew up with her pastoral father in Louisiana after the loss of her mother at an early age. She holds a master’s degree in social work and is a licensed social worker. SEL Specialist 5 enjoys working with children and strives for social inclusion and understanding in the school and community, particularly for students of color.

SEL Specialist 6 identifies as a White/Chinese introverted woman who grew up in a middle-class family in Canada. She holds a master’s degree in education. SEL Specialist 6 supports student learning within and beyond the classroom through her lived experiences interacting and working with racially, ethnically, and economically diverse populations.

SEL Specialist 7 identifies as a Hispanic woman who grew up in New Jersey. She is pursuing a master’s degree in business administration and has experience teaching math and design in high school. SEL Specialist 7 strongly believes in the importance of SEL in educational excellence, particularly for adolescents.

SEL Specialist 8 identifies as a white woman who grew up in a middle-class family in the suburbs of New York. She holds a master’s degree in social work and is a licensed social worker. SEL Specialist 8 believes that it is important to center equity in education and support the social-emotional wellness of individuals.

SEL Specialist 9 identifies as a Black cisgender woman who grew up in the suburbs of California. She holds a bachelor’s degree in women, gender, and sexuality studies, and has a teaching credential. Drawing from her background as a minority, SEL Specialist 9 supports SEL work with emphasis on minority groups.

). The institutional review boards of the first author’s institution (IRB #2000032282) and the New York City Public Schools approved the study (IRB #4446).

The structured training process for SEL specialists combined foundational professional development workshops with ongoing collaborative learning. Professional development topics included (a) schoolwide SEL implementation, (b) diversity, equity, and inclusion, (c) research methods (e.g., observation and reflection protocols), (d) SEL data literacy, and (e) positive deviance. Ongoing collaborative learning involved weekly virtual community-of-practice meetings throughout the school year. The meetings served as collaborative spaces where all the SEL specialists came together, reflected on implementation challenges, shared strategies across schools, and received guidance from both school-support organizations and the research university. SEL specialists were supervised by the school support organization who hired them. They do not report to school administrators. This was intentionally designed to position SEL specialists as embedded collaborators with organizational independence, enabling them to advance SEL implementation without constraints by school administrative hierarchies.

2.2. Protocol Measures

Observation protocol. Observations were framed as curiosity about, rather than judgment on, SEL work. Each observation was a snapshot of SEL in action, with multiple observations forming a comprehensive picture of systemwide SEL. Each SEL specialist completed an observation protocol when they visited a classroom or attended a school meeting/event. The protocol consisted of two sections: (1) the objective and detailed record of SEL in action at school, and (2) the subjective interpretation and reflection of SEL in action at school. Main guiding questions for the objective record were (1) what is happening or being discussed? (2) what is the staff doing? and (3) what are the students doing? Main probing questions for the subjective reflection were (1) how do you (i.e., SEL specialist) feel? (2) how do you think the staff or students felt? (3) what are your biggest takeaways? and (4) what lingering thoughts or questions do you have? Contextual information, such as date, time, activity, and stakeholders involved, was also collected in the protocol for each observation. See Supplementary Materials for the observation protocol.

Reflection protocol. Reflections were framed as time to think about opportunities and barriers encountered in SEL work with leadership, educators, and/or students over the past week. SEL specialists completed the reflection protocol weekly, mostly on Fridays. Main probing questions included (1) what was accomplished this week? Think about how it was facilitated, (2) what was not achieved this week? Think about why it did not happen, (3) what questions do you (i.e., SEL specialist) have and what support do you (i.e., SEL specialist) need for next week? See Supplementary Materials for the reflection protocol.

2.3. Analysis

All field notes were uploaded to Dedoose for qualitative analysis. Two coders analyzed each field note independently, and a third coder reconciled them. Disagreements were resolved through weekly team discussions. Cumulatively, a total of ten coders engaged in the qualitative analysis. Each coder provided a positionality statement to note how their identities and worldviews may shape their interpretation of the data (see

Table 2. Positionality statements of coders.

Coder 1 identifies as an Asian immigrant cisgender woman with a doctorate in school psychology. She grew up in Singapore and has lived in the Northeastern and Southern regions of the United States for over ten years. Coder 1 is an associate research scientist on the project. She is also a licensed child psychologist and a certified school psychologist. She interprets this work through the lens of her minority identities and by leveraging her experiences as a research, clinician, and educator.

Coder 2 identifies as a bilingual Latina, daughter of immigrants, with a doctorate in applied developmental and educational psychology. Her own experiences illuminate the marginalization, heterogeneity, and resilience of cultural and linguistic minority students and educators. Coder 2 is a postdoctoral associate on the project. She interprets this work through a critical and asset-based lens.

Coder 3 identifies as a Black woman with a bachelor’s degree in psychology. She grew up in a middle-class family in Texas. Coder 3 is a postgraduate associate on the project. She believes in the importance of advancing SEL implementation to benefit students of color, their educators, and the wider school community.

Coder 4 identifies as a white cisgender man with a bachelor’s degree in psychology. He grew up in a middle-class family with a father who has a law degree. Coder 4 is a postgraduate associate on the project. He strongly believes in the importance of emotional intelligence in social, professional, and educational settings.

Coder 5 identifies as a white woman with learning disabilities. She is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in psychology. Coder 5 is a student research assistant on the project. She is excited to learn more about social and emotional learning in education.

Coder 6 identifies as an Asian American cisgender woman with a bachelor’s degree in psychology. She grew up in California and New York with her white adoptive parents. Coder 6 is a postgraduate associate on the project. She is excited to learn more about social and emotional learning, particularly in relation to adolescent development.

Coder 7 identifies as a Black cisgender woman who grew up in the suburbs of Michigan and Texas. She is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in psychology (with a concentration in mental health) and has experience as a behavior technician for children with autism spectrum disorder and a volunteer mentor for children in multiple organizations. Coder 7 is a student research assistant on the project. She is interested in the emotional development of children and adolescents, specifically those with marginalized identities.

Coder 8 identifies as a queer white woman with Ashkenazi Jewish and Pakistani ancestry. She grew up in New York and has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and education. Coder 8 is a research assistant on the project. She is passionate about educational equity with a focus on students with disabilities.

Coder 9 identifies as a primarily white female with a Black and Ashkenazi Jewish background. She grew up in Arizona and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in psychology (with a concentration in education studies). Coder 9 is a student research assistant on the project. She feels strongly about the potential that education has in the academic, social, and emotional lives of students, and wants to look at ways that schools can reach that potential.

Coder 10 identifies as a Hispanic cisgender woman born in Ecuador and immigrated to the United States with her family. She grew up in a working-class family in a small city in New Jersey and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in psychology (with a concentration in education studies). Coder 10 is a student research assistant on the project. She is passionate about educational equity across socioeconomic and cultural dimensions, with a focus on disabilities.

).

Inductive thematic analysis is a method of qualitative analysis where themes are identified from the data without pre-existing theoretical frameworks (Braun & Clarke, 2012). It is a bottom-up approach where coders immerse themselves in data to identify recurring patterns and significant insights. Coders conducted inductive coding to identify compelling concepts and generate codes, enabling them to explore and discover as they remained open to emerging themes without predetermined concepts (Williams & Moser, 2019). Coders also used in vivo coding, using participants’ words verbatim to capture their perspectives and establish open codes, thereby maintaining the authenticity and richness of participants’ expressions (Williams & Moser, 2019). Coders then conducted axial coding to identify relationships between codes and used diagrams or matrices to visualize connections, enabling them to establish linkages between concepts (Williams & Moser, 2019).

Coders developed five code sets for SEL specialists, leadership, educators, students, and schools. Most of the identified codes aligned with CASEL’s framework for systemwide SEL. If a coder had difficulty identifying or distinguishing a code, the coding team added additional details to support coding. Only codes documented for at least half of the schools (n = 6) were reported for brevity and to highlight salience across leaders, educators, and students. These most salient codes were viewed as themes or patterns in the data.

For many themes, separate codes were assigned for positive and negative information. For instance, one student could exhibit behavior reflecting positive engagement with SEL while another student could show behavior reflecting negative engagement with SEL during the same SEL advisory period. Likewise, one educator could share perceptions of adequate SEL support, while another educator could indicate a lack of SEL resources from leadership during the same meeting. Therefore, themes do not indicate consensus or prevalence of experiences or perceptions across individuals, groups, or schools. Results were developed by looking across themes (e.g., considering how themes were related to each other) and examining extant research (e.g., considering how the themes aligned with the existing research literature).

3. Results

Themes about facilitators of and challenges to systemwide SEL emerged from observations and reflections from SEL specialists across twelve schools (see Figure 2). While SEL shows promise in improving behavioral and academic outcomes for students, the key to its effectiveness lies in thoughtful, consistent, and culturally relevant systemwide implementation, which requires coordinated efforts from leaders, educators, parents/caregivers, and community organizations.

3.1. Facilitators of Systemwide SEL in Schools

Common facilitators of systemwide SEL were categorized based on levels of the school system, specifically (1) prioritization and support from leadership, (2) professional development for educators, (3) integration into students’ daily experiences, and (4) engagement with parents/caregivers and community.

3.1.1. Prioritization and Support from Leadership

Prioritization of SEL from leadership. SEL is more effective when school administrators set the tone and promote buy-in for SEL. The principal of school J highlighted responsible decision-making when addressing attendance (e.g., reach school on time) and grading (e.g., know assignment deadlines and exam dates) policies with students, “You are responsible for your attendance and grades. For example, you need to get good sleep and make it to school on time. You need to put in effort and check your grades. If you can’t meet a basic requirement, talk to your teacher, guidance counselor, or me.” The principal of school G centered on relationship skills when addressing behavior management with teachers, “Think of a student with whom you have a weaker relationship with, catch them being good, and tell their parents of the positive behavior you observed.” One teacher of school G later shared, “Not only did it feel good to see the student in a different way, but it also felt good to hear the parents’ reaction when hearing that the student was doing something positive… There were some changes in participation from the student who previously had not engaged positively.” The principal of school G also endorsed “SEL week” where students and staff celebrated SEL for a whole week, while the principals of schools C, E, F, and J approved “SEL day” where students and staff engaged in different SEL activities for a full day. If SEL is seen as an add-on rather than an integral part of schooling, it is usually sidelined or rushed, given the pressure to focus on academics.

Dedicated support for SEL from leadership. SEL is more effective when school administrators provide time and resources for educators to plan, reflect, and collaborate on SEL. The leadership of school G set up a regular time to check in with staff on SEL advisory periods. The SEL specialist at school G noted, “Teachers were in small groups with colleagues who taught the same [SEL] lessons, and they were able to have some good conversations about what is working [and not]. Even though it was not a lot of time, it was really intentional.” The principal of school E led staff meetings focused on SEL advisory periods where teachers shared successes and difficulties with SEL. For one meeting, the principal asked teachers to “share one thing that is currently giving you anxiety during [SEL] advisory.” A common challenge raised was student engagement with SEL, so the educators brainstormed ways to enhance engagement.

3.1.2. Professional Development for Educators

SEL for educators. SEL is more effective when educators recognize the value of SEL and strengthen their social and emotional competencies and capacity. This empowers them to authentically and intentionally teach and model social and emotional knowledge, skills, and behaviors to and for students. For a professional development session on self-awareness, the facilitator had teachers of school D contemplate and share their experiences with discipline growing up (“How did adults help you learn discipline when you were young?”), which elicited personal memories of positive and negative discipline that did or did not work. It brought about a thoughtful discussion on classroom discipline, such as having students understand the meaning behind specific discipline actions they enforce with students (“Why is it important for your students to not slouch in the classroom?”). The SEL specialist at school H facilitated staff wellness lunches for teachers to connect and share about topics of interest, like stress management, emotion regulation, and work–life balance.

3.1.3. Integration into Students’ Daily Experiences

Embed SEL into student learning. SEL is more effective when integrated into academics rather than as a stand-alone subject. This promotes SEL alongside other learning efforts and enhances performance in the classroom. The SEL specialist at school C observed a computer science teacher prompting self-management by telling students, who appeared very nervous about their coding presentations, to take some deep breaths. The SEL specialist at school A observed a math teacher prompting self-awareness through a feelings check-in after instruction on fractions. The SEL specialist at school E observed an ELA teacher prompting social awareness by having students take the perspectives of different characters, “How would you feel if you were harassed everyday [like the character]?” The SEL specialist at school J observed a physical education teacher promoting responsible decision-making by having students to coach peer workouts, “remember to give clear instructions, keep time well, and motivate them [peers] to participate.” The SEL specialist at school K observed a senior seminar teacher prompting relationship skills when emotions run high during a mock debate, “When you are in a debate, even in your everyday life, remember to debate the idea not the person.”

Align SEL with school culture and climate. SEL is more effective when incorporated into school culture and climate initiatives rather than operating in a vacuum. This reinforces SEL beyond the classroom. For a SEL advisory period in school H, the teacher centered social awareness by having a discussion about recent school shootings that occurred in their city with emphasis on students’ thoughts and feelings, “Do you feel safe when you come to school?” For a SEL advisory period in school G, the teacher focused on relationship skills by discussing effective communication, “Think about a time when you miscommunicated with someone you cared about. What could you have done differently?” For a SEL advisory period in school J, the teacher promoted self-awareness by having students voice their thoughts and feelings about the intramural sports loss. Principals of schools E, F, G, and J entrusted the SEL specialists to integrate and align SEL into current school systems, such as positive behavioral supports, professional learning communities, peer mentoring, and extracurricular programming.

3.1.4. Engagement with Parents/Caregivers and Community

Partnership with parents/caregivers. SEL is more effective when schools partner with parents/caregivers to engage with SEL, promoting buy-in. The principal at School G indicated, “I think about how we can empower families. Like how can we invite parents more often into the school building for more regular interactions that are more about the empowerment of the child?” School G hosted monthly parent engagement events, such as how to better manage their children’s emotions or their own stress. To increase attendance, parent meetings with school leadership were held right before parent engagement events. Likewise, the SEL specialist at school D facilitated parent workshops on adult SEL. When educators and families work together on SEL, they ensure continuity of SEL across school, home, and community for students, which in turn extends the impact of SEL.

Collaboration with community organizations. SEL is more effective when schools collaborate with local organizations (e.g., after school programs, youth leadership programs, community sports and arts) to enrich and extend SEL. This provides additional SEL resources and support for students, educators, and parents. School D worked with community youth officers who talked about youth violence, such as cyberbullying, with students. School D also partnered with a local theater group to perform plays on relatable topics (like peer pressure, sexual relationships, and anxieties about the future) for students during SEL advisory periods. School K collaborated with a school support organization to host bimonthly family affinity spaces that were designed to strengthen community bonds while bridging connections between home and school. Given budget constraints, schools can invest in SEL by leveraging resources from the community.

3.2. Challenges to Systemwide SEL in Schools

Shared challenges to systemwide SEL were also categorized based on levels of the school system, specifically (1) lack of clear direction from leadership, (2) educator burnout, and (3) student disengagement, all of which undermine the consistency and impact of SEL initiatives.

3.2.1. Lack of Clarity from Leadership

SEL is less effective when school administrators lack understanding of SEL or a vision for the future of SEL in schools. Administrators may not fully understand what SEL is, may not see the academic value of SEL, or may feel SEL promotes certain values or beliefs that they disagree with. The SEL specialist at school J indicated, “Concrete SEL goals and plans have been an issue for a long time. There is a lot of buy-in for SEL as a whole, but little communication on what and how to [teach] SEL. This does not foster SEL implementation.” By contrast, the principal of school G focused on intentionally aligning “work-based learning skills and SEL” by “focusing on ten key employability skills and helping students develop specific SEL competencies for college preparation and career readiness”. It is pivotal for school leaders to know where the school is in terms of SEL and where the school is going with SEL.

3.2.2. Educator Burnout

SEL is less effective when educators feel burned out due to heavy workloads, demanding expectations, inadequate support, low resources, and underappreciation. This leads to superficial efforts or inconsistent implementation across educators in a school. In a SEL advisory preparation meeting at school H, a school administrator mentioned, “Many teachers buy into SEL, but they feel overwhelmed with advisory. Teachers are being asked to do something they don’t know how to do.” For a SEL advisory period at school C, a teacher indicated, “The problem with advisory is that teachers don’t know the why or the how.” For a SEL advisory period at school D, the teacher shared, “It has been a tough school year, and I am feeling really tapped out. I am sorry for being unprepared; on ‘B’ days, I teach back-to-back all day. I really like the [advisory] materials, but it was not all on the slides and that made it confusing.” For another SEL advisory period at school D, the teacher commented, “This is not a core teaching lesson. I should not have to do all this.” This is consistent with reports from the SEL specialist at school J reported, “For teachers advisory planning is another thing that is put on their plate… Therefore, in certain cases, advisory becomes an afterthought… teachers lack enthusiasm or engagement in the lesson plan. This leads to a feedback loop where both students and teachers are disengaged.” Educators need purposeful and structured support and resources for SEL.

3.2.3. Student Disengagement

Community norms for students. SEL is less effective when implementation does not include community norms. Community norms (e.g., active listening, step in step up, one mic) are shared expectations and standards of how students (and staff) communicate and interact to create and maintain a safe space that promotes harmony and belonging. For a SEL advisory period in school E, the teacher identified “norm-setting and consistent structure” as facilitators of open and supportive dialogue, engaging in discussion with students on “how they want advisory to look like” and “how they want advisory to feel like”. For a SEL advisory period in school F, the teacher reflected, “consistent emotion check-ins have slowly helped students build relationships with peers and adults.” For a chemistry class in school L, the teacher stated, “Students have a tough time verbalizing their feelings (e.g., frustration with setting up experiments, disappointment with failed experiments, annoyance with working with peers). It has taken a lot of time and norming to reach a level where students are able to do so in this class. We are still working on this for another class.” Community norms are of particular importance for respectful conversations on uncomfortable but necessary SEL topics, like personal beliefs, negative emotions, and societal inequity.

Relatability to students. SEL is less effective when implementation involves a one-size-fits-all approach and does not consider the diverse identities and experiences of students. This leads to disconnection with SEL for students. For a SEL advisory period in school C, the teacher focused on social awareness by discussing pay disparity with an opening question, “Do you know a millionaire?” which had minimal student participation. There was much more engagement when the teacher asked, “Do you know the minimum wage in our city?” instead. It was more relatable to students, most of whom came from low socio-economic backgrounds. For a health class in school E, the teacher promoted social awareness of food production systems by having students review nutrition labels on common cereal boxes and discuss a documentary with relevant questions like, “How do big food companies target low-income populations?” For a SEL advisory period in school E, the teacher focused on responsible decision-making by discussing habits. The SEL specialist noted, “Students were able to connect the topic to their own lives, including phone usage and smoking. Students were engaged in dialogues with each other and their teacher about what has influence over them to start a new habit or to end an old one that is not productive for them.” Lack of relevance in real life makes SEL less engaging for students.

4. Discussion

This study strategically and systematically collected and explicated facilitators and barriers to systemwide SEL through the lens and voice of the implementors across a large sample of diverse schools. Findings corroborate the extent of education science literature, affirming common facilitators and barriers to systemwide change models in schools. Furthermore, these analyses offer in-depth and unique perspectives that extend implications to solutions for how best to overcome barriers and effectively facilitate systemwide SEL implementation. We discuss these findings and implications for practice in turn.

This study identified common facilitators of systemwide SEL across schools. Consistent prioritization and dedicated support from leadership emerged as critical. When leadership articulated the value of SEL, shared their vision of SEL, embedded SEL into school structures, and/or infused SEL into school culture, educators showed increased buy-in for SEL. This was consistent with previous literature emphasizing the pivotal role of leadership buy-in and active participation in systemwide SEL (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Chu & DeArmond, 2021). Professional development targeting SEL content and pedagogy (what and how to teach SEL) was also key for systemwide SEL. It empowered educators to authentically and effectively model and deliver SEL. Such intentional professional learning was congruent with recent research highlighting the integral role of ongoing, relevant professional development in shaping systemwide SEL (Yoder & Dang, 2023). Integrating SEL into the entire school day—rather than isolating SEL as a discrete, standalone subject—was another crucial facilitator. When SEL was seamlessly incorporated into core academic subjects and ingrained in daily routines and practices, children and youth exhibited greater SEL engagement and more meaningful SEL outcomes. This is in accordance with extant literature underscoring the efficacy of embedding SEL throughout the school day to foster deep, transferable learning (Zieher et al., 2024). Furthermore, authentic engagement with families and community organizations strengthened SEL implementation by bridging home-school-community connections to support children and youth’s social and emotional development, reflecting the broader importance of holistic approaches in systemwide SEL.

At the school level, this study also conversely uncovered common challenges across schools that limit the impact of systemwide SEL. Leadership ambiguity, characterized by unclear direction and insufficient communication about the purpose and process of SEL, undermined educator confidence and buy-in for SEL. Educator burnout presented another significant challenge, stemming primarily from overwhelming workloads, inadequate support structures, and limited resources, resulting in inconsistent SEL practices across classrooms. This is in line with prior literature demonstrating the detrimental effect of educator burnout on systemwide SEL, such as poorly modelled and delivered SEL that undermine the intended benefits of SEL (Yoder & Dang, 2023). Additionally, student disengagement with SEL lessons was linked to a lack of relevance to children and youth’ backgrounds, experiences, and identities or an absence of meaningful community norms and values. This is consistent with existing research advocating culturally responsive and inclusive approaches to SEL that authentically and effectively engage racially, ethnically, linguistically, ability, and economically diverse children and youth (Cipriano et al., 2025). For example, schools can incorporate SEL materials that reflect diverse cultures and experiences, allowing students to see themselves represented in SEL lessons. Schools can also use SEL data to identify disparities in teaching and learning and devise ways to promote educational opportunities and resources, especially for students who have been historically marginalized or underrepresented (Ng et al., 2025). Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation explains the process of how new ideas and practices spread through a social system (like schools) over time. At one end of the diffusion of innovation is innovators, or people who are willing to take risks and want to be the first to try new ideas and practices. At the other end of the diffusion of innovation is laggards, or people who resent change and continue to rely on traditional methods until they are no longer available. Understanding diffusion of innovation can help policymakers, researchers, and educators design more effective strategies to promote SEL implementation in schools.

However, to sustain new ideas and practices beyond initial adoption, Goldratt’s (1999) theory of constraints emphasizes continuous improvement, that is, identifying and addressing constraints (or bottlenecks) in time, resources, knowledge, and/or incentives to increase overall system throughput. In the context of SEL in schools: (1) time refers to the capacity of educators and students to be intentionally engaged in SEL; (2) resources pertains to the sufficiency and continuity of capital for SEL (e.g., school funding, manpower, supplies); (3) knowledge alludes to the ability of leadership and educators to access and apply instructional (e.g., teaching, learning, curriculum delivery), relational (e.g., building and maintaining strong connections), and organizational (e.g., structure, culture, policies) dimensions of school that drive SEL; and (4) incentives relates to return on investment in SEL (e.g., schoolwide improvements in academic performance or disciplinary actions).

Viewing schools as systems constrained in their time, resources, knowledge, and incentives helps pinpoint and address challenges surfaced in this study. Challenges like leadership ambiguity, educator burnout, and student disengagement are not merely barriers but specific constraints on school systems. Ambiguity in leadership frequently signals an incentive constraint, such as competing priorities or devaluation of SEL amid socio-political polarization. Educator burnout reflects both time and resource constraints with teachers lacking protected time and adequate support to integrate SEL into day-to-day operations of their work. Student disengagement often implies a knowledge constraint, such as educators lacking content and pedagogy for SEL, or school structures and policies that hinder SEL. For instance, schools can connect SEL skills to real-world issues that students care about. Educators can allow students to demonstrate SEL skills through different modes of expression (like drawing, storytelling, or writing) as not all students are comfortable with sharing aloud. Schools can also create student SEL advisory groups representing diverse identities to co-design SEL activities or lead SEL discussions.

Shifting from a deficit-focused to a strength-based approach involves rethinking challenges to systemwide SEL as constraints rather than shortcomings. Addressing a constraint often reveals another constraint, which resonates with the iterative nature of diffusion. Innovators may succeed in adopting new ideas and practices because of dispositional differences and fewer situational constraints compared to laggards. To sustain systemwide SEL, it is essential to cultivate buy-in for SEL as well as identify and address constraints on SEL. This in turn reframes challenges as not only a question of will but also a question of system design. The constraints further point to a more nuanced form of equity where specific constraints should not disproportionately burden some schools with different demographic compositions so that all children and youth can access and reap the benefits SEL promises.

4.1. Practical Implications

These findings also carry important implications for classroom practice. Across sites, SEL appeared most meaningful when educators integrated it into the daily life of teaching rather than confining it to isolated lessons or advisory periods. We documented how SEL took shape through academic instruction, classroom dialogue, and routine interactions that connected directly to students’ experiences and relationships. For example, field notes documented teachers using brief emotion check-ins, encouraging students to pause and regulate before presentations, prompting perspective-taking during literary discussion, and coaching students to debate ideas rather than attack people. These examples show how explicit SEL can become part of everyday instructional practice and reinforce the view that SEL is enacted through pedagogy as much as through curriculum. At the same time, the findings make clear that this kind of classroom enactment depends on adult capacity. When educators lacked clarity, time, or confidence, implementation often became uneven or superficial. When educators received relevant professional learning and usable supports, however, they were better able to model social and emotional competencies and respond to teachable moments in ways that supported student engagement. Professional learning opportunities that invited teachers to reflect on their own experiences, build wellness practices, and strengthen SEL-specific pedagogy appeared especially important for helping educators move from general endorsement of SEL to intentional classroom use.

The findings further suggest that sustainable systemwide SEL depends on school-level conditions that organize and support classroom practice. General leadership endorsement did not appear sufficient on its own. SEL implementation was stronger in schools where leaders articulated a clear vision, created structured opportunities for educator collaboration, and aligned SEL with existing systems such as advisory, professional learning, behavioral supports, and family engagement. For instance, some schools created time for teachers to reflect together on what was and was not working in SEL advisory periods, while others used staff meetings to identify challenges such as student disengagement and jointly consider possible responses. Our findings also highlight the importance of extending SEL beyond the classroom through family and community partnerships. Parent workshops, family engagement events, and collaboration with local community organizations provided concrete opportunities to deepen relevance and continuity across students’ environments. At the same time, the data suggests that schools must attend closely to the conditions that undermine implementation, especially educator burnout, lack of direction, and limited student relevance. The example of students responding more readily to a discussion of local minimum wage than to a generic question about millionaires illustrates how strongly engagement depends on alignment with students’ lived realities. Taken together, these patterns suggest that schools should approach SEL as both an instructional and organizational effort, one that requires clear leadership, coherent structures, adult support, and authentic connection to the students’ communities.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

This study possesses several limitations that warrant consideration. The qualitative nature of data collection through observations and reflections from SEL specialists introduces potential subjective biases. While efforts were made to ensure reliability through reflexivity (positionality statements), rigorous coding processes, and reconciliation of data interpretations, subjectivity remains a limitation. Future research should incorporate mixed methods, combining qualitative insights with quantitative assessments to enhance the validity, reliability, and generalizability of findings. It is also important to note that the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as school leaders, teachers, students, and parents/caregivers, were not directly represented, potentially omitting certain dimensions or nuances of SEL implementation. Future studies could address this by incorporating multiple stakeholder groups to complement and triangulate SEL specialists’ observations and reflections. This would offer a more comprehensive view of systemwide SEL, highlighting (dis)alignment between stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences.

In addition, though the study sampled schools across multiple geographic regions in the United States, including California, New Jersey, and New York, generalizability to other school districts with different demographic compositions (e.g., rural, suburban) is limited. Future research should broaden the scope by including diverse geographic locations and school districts to examine the variability in SEL implementation more thoroughly. Research and practice would benefit from longitudinal studies that capture the evolution and sustainability of systemwide SEL over time for students and schools.

4.3. Conclusions

SEL implementation that optimizes educational and developmental success does not happen by accident. Intentional, systemic efforts to minimize barriers to and enhance facilitators of implementation will drive the next era of sustainable, systemwide SEL. RPP invites diverse stakeholders to collaborate in the co-construction of knowledge—rather than one-way communication—and determine practical obstacles and generate viable solutions that are linked to true school effectiveness and improvement. This study highlights the thoughtful work to close the gap between empirical research and its real-world application. RPP is highly recommended in the field of SEL to make meaningful progress in academic, social, and emotional success of all children and youth.