Page 100 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Training Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 100
dents’ academic achievement. The researchers established the significant
positive impacts of these types of programmes on targeted emotional-so-
cial competencies, attitude towards self, others and school. Also relevant to
ESL prevention are positive attitudes to school (related to school connected-
ness and school engagement) and an increase in academic achievement. In
the meta-analysis, only 16% of all studies considered academic achievement
data. They reported an 11-percentile-point gain (on average) in academic
achievement. This meta-analysis is therefore considered a starting point for
many others (e.g. Schonfeld et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufmann et al., 2014) fol-
lowing this direction and focusing more specifically on the relationship be-
tween SEL and academic achievement. The studies that followed (Schonfeld
et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufmann et al., 2014) confirmed that SEL enhances stu-
dents’ connection to school, classroom behaviour and academic achieve-
ment also when controlling for cognitive abilities (Teo, Carlson, Mathieu,
Regeland, & Sroufe, 1996, in Malecki & Elliot, 2002) which is all related to
ESL prevention.
Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka (2001) similarly compared the effi-
cacy of various school SEL prevention programmes in a meta-analysis of
165 studies (ranging from individual counselling to behaviour modifica-
tion programmes). The main finding of their study was that school-based
prevention programmes (including programmes based on SEL, especially
social competency promotion) are effective in reducing ESL (among other
positive outcomes). They also established that prevention programmes (SEL
programmes included) are even more effective in high-at-risk groups com-
pared to low-at-risk groups of students (Bierman, Coie, Dodge, Lochman,
McManon, & Pinderhughes, 2010; Ellias & Haynes, 2008). This is common
finding of school-level intervention programmes (Humphrey, 2013). And
since ESL is present to a larger extent in low SES students (also minorities
and migrants) (Reys, Ellias, Parker, & Rosenblatt, 2014), this is an impor-
tant starting point for prevention and intervention. Even though the de-
crease in school connectedness is normative (40%–60% of students in up-
per secondary education have a low level of connection with school (Klem
& Connell, 2004)), it is present to a greater extent in high-risk groups –
SES and migrants (Castro-Olivo, 2014). A study by Rosenblatt and Maurice
(2008) revealed a possible solution for ESL in the form of SEL. They moni-
tored the effects of various SEL programmes on academic achievement in
the transition from lower secondary to upper secondary education and es-
tablished that, even though students are generally characterised by lower
100
positive impacts of these types of programmes on targeted emotional-so-
cial competencies, attitude towards self, others and school. Also relevant to
ESL prevention are positive attitudes to school (related to school connected-
ness and school engagement) and an increase in academic achievement. In
the meta-analysis, only 16% of all studies considered academic achievement
data. They reported an 11-percentile-point gain (on average) in academic
achievement. This meta-analysis is therefore considered a starting point for
many others (e.g. Schonfeld et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufmann et al., 2014) fol-
lowing this direction and focusing more specifically on the relationship be-
tween SEL and academic achievement. The studies that followed (Schonfeld
et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufmann et al., 2014) confirmed that SEL enhances stu-
dents’ connection to school, classroom behaviour and academic achieve-
ment also when controlling for cognitive abilities (Teo, Carlson, Mathieu,
Regeland, & Sroufe, 1996, in Malecki & Elliot, 2002) which is all related to
ESL prevention.
Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka (2001) similarly compared the effi-
cacy of various school SEL prevention programmes in a meta-analysis of
165 studies (ranging from individual counselling to behaviour modifica-
tion programmes). The main finding of their study was that school-based
prevention programmes (including programmes based on SEL, especially
social competency promotion) are effective in reducing ESL (among other
positive outcomes). They also established that prevention programmes (SEL
programmes included) are even more effective in high-at-risk groups com-
pared to low-at-risk groups of students (Bierman, Coie, Dodge, Lochman,
McManon, & Pinderhughes, 2010; Ellias & Haynes, 2008). This is common
finding of school-level intervention programmes (Humphrey, 2013). And
since ESL is present to a larger extent in low SES students (also minorities
and migrants) (Reys, Ellias, Parker, & Rosenblatt, 2014), this is an impor-
tant starting point for prevention and intervention. Even though the de-
crease in school connectedness is normative (40%–60% of students in up-
per secondary education have a low level of connection with school (Klem
& Connell, 2004)), it is present to a greater extent in high-risk groups –
SES and migrants (Castro-Olivo, 2014). A study by Rosenblatt and Maurice
(2008) revealed a possible solution for ESL in the form of SEL. They moni-
tored the effects of various SEL programmes on academic achievement in
the transition from lower secondary to upper secondary education and es-
tablished that, even though students are generally characterised by lower
100
