OSL programs are well-aligned to support children’s social, self-emotional, and cognitive skills. However, the national conversation about SEL is just beginning. In the past five years, we have seen a flurry of publications and funding opportunities related to SEL and a search of the Nexis database, which accesses 26,000 news and business sources, shows that mentions of SEL
movement is just starting to impact educators on the ground; states are starting to develop school curriculum standards related to SEL and recent opinion polls show educators believe these skills are important (CASEL, 2019). It is still unclear how this growing national conversation will affect directors and staff in OSL programs.
There tends to be a pattern in how educational ideas and trends play out across the learning landscape in the United States as depicted in Figure 3.3. National conversations related to education have many originations that can be both top-down or bottom-up (Grant & Gilbert, 2018). They may stem from employers’ needs (e.g., “we need to hire people that can work on teams”), current events (e.g., school shootings, elections), adults’ observations (e.g., children’s use of cell phone), among others. National conversations may also be influenced educators’ experiences with children, such as their goals for supporting the whole child, building relationships, and promoting positive development. As conversations gain popularity, they incite policy-makers, foundations, and researchers to focus attention on understanding or improving the topic of conversation. This then trickles down to executive leadership of learning institutions and programs. Leaders may have to follow new policies, seek funding tied to grant requirements, or measure different (or additional) outcomes. As executive leadership responds to the national conversation, mid-level managers (e.g., directors or principals) may need to incorporate new requirements into their schools or programs. The manner in which directors implement these new priorities and goals can have implications for staff’s direct work with children, (Aspen Institute, 2019; Allensworth & Hart, 2018).
Figure 3.3 Conceptual Depiction of the Flow of National Conversations about Education
As a part of the learning landscape, OSL programs are influenced by these national conversations. Take, for example, the STEM movement. This originated primarily in a top-down way, from a national conversation about the United States lagging behind other nations, especially in the content areas of science, technology, engineering, and math. For example, in the 1980s a seminal report, A Nation at Risk, painted a grim picture of how US children were poorly equipped to be leaders in a global society with technology on the rise. This conversation played a role in increasing standards and accountability measures as well as policies and grants at the local, state, and level. For example, from the late 1980s, education funding through the National Science Foundation steadily increased from about $110 million in 1987 (current US dollars) to $910 million in 2019 (peaking at $944 million in 2004). Some grants specifically targeted STEM learning in OSL. Executive leaders and directors of OSL programs, in need of funding, sought these grants – many citing the flexibility of OSL as a perfect opportunity to support this content
journal articles and reports about the benefits and opportunities of this partnership (e.g., Afterschool Alliance, 2013). The way that the STEM movement has played out in OSL is often related to explicit teaching and is structured like school (Fusco, 2014). For example, many OSL programs now include STEM in their daily activities and some have requirements for how often educators need to do STEM.
The SEL movement is nascent and at the top of Figure 3.2 as evidenced by the number of research studies, policies, and grants related to the topic that have emerged in the past few years. SEL may be in the national conversation for many reasons. It could be a backlash to the focus on high-stakes academic outcomes during the No Child Left Behind era. It could also be driven by skills identified by employers. For example, a World Bank report of 27 studies founds that across region, industry, and educational level, employers are placing more emphasis on SE skills than basic cognitive or technical skills (Cunningham & Villasenior, 2016). In addition, our society is becoming more diverse and collaborative, requiring more attention to SEL (Hugh & Jones, 2011). Researchers, policy makers and foundations have also pushed forward the SEL conversation. There have been a number of studies that examine outcomes related to SEL (e.g., Domitrovich et al., 2007; Durlak et al., 2011), including a study on the economic return on investment of focusing on SEL (Bellfield, Bowden, Klapp, Levin, Shand, & Zandre, 2015). Policy-makers have implemented SEL standards for early childhood programs in all 50 states (CASEL). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) incorporated SEL into the annual mandated standardized test and ten of California’s largest districts now bases a portion of its school performance scores on SEL outcomes (Brackenridge, 2018). Finally, funding streams are increasingly focusing on this topic. For example, the Wallace Foundation recently funded a multi-
million-dollar initiative to fund SEL. In addition, there have been several federally- and privately- funded grants that specifically focus on SEL (Berg et al., 2017).
The national SEL conversation is an opportunity for OSL. As mentioned, OSL is a good fit for supporting SEL given its curricular flexibility and focus on relationships. But, is the national conversation trickling down to OSL in a way that privileges competencies and requirements, as has happened with so many other national conversations (Halpern, 2006)? Or, are educators’ experiences with children informing this conversation and how it is playing out in OSL?