· Moote, Smyth, and Wodarski (1999) performed a meta-analysis of social skills training studies. The majority of the studies reviewed reported a positive correlation between social skills training and improvement of social skills.

· The Northeast Foundation for Children Study (1996-1998) found positive outcomes in classrooms teaching social skills: decrease in behavior problems; increase in positive behaviors; and students with more developed social skills had significantly greater academic growth as measured by the Iowa-Test of Basic Skills.

· Dryfoos (1990) The Perry Michigan Preschool study stated teaching social skills to 3 & 4 year olds resulted in higher educational attainment, and more positive behavior when students moved to elementary school.

· Erwin (1994) found that Social Skills Training produced three important improvements for children who had social skills deficits: higher level of social interaction, higher level of acceptance by peers, and higher level of ability to solve problems.

· Kress (2004) states that being academically smart does not guarantee future success in life, referring to the need for social skills in addition to cognitive abilities.

· Mena (2001) showed statistically significant improvement in school and home functioning in students in a Houston elementary school receiving Project CLASS social skills training.

· Jensen (2000) concluded that some of the most effective strategies working with ADD, hyperactivity, oppositional and conduct disorders were: teaching social skills, having clear routines and expectations, using praise and positive feedback, using behavior achievement plans, being consistent, and having positive role models.

· Spence (2003) found social skills training was effective in reducing social anxiety and improving social skills, as evidenced in post treatment and follow-up evaluation. Spence also found that social skills training effectiveness could be improved by: careful selection of the skills to be taught including cultural context; sufficient length of training; booster sessions; and a variety of children's contexts.

· Ladd and Price (1987) concluded that children who were more cooperative in their play in preschool and who had positive encounters with classmates tended to be better liked by their peers and were perceived by their teachers to be more involved with new classmates. In contrast, children who spent more time engaging in aggressive play or aggressive behavior with peers were more likely to be disliked by peers and perceived as hostile by teachers.

· Bandura (1986) theory of social cognition asserts that the acquisition of social skills is a necessary and important process of learning.

· McGeehan (2001) Bodybrain Research and Experiential Learning article states that a safe and predictable emotional climate begins with positive relationships-teacher to student and student to student. Such relationships are helped where there is a common language describing the ways in which people agree to interact respectfully.

· Gresham & Elliott (1999) Several studies taken from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) review the relationship between Social Skills and Problem Behaviors. The assessment of problem behaviors, as well as social skills development, is extremely important because problem behaviors often prevent individuals from behaving in a socially competent fashion (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Cartledge & Milburn, 1986; Foster & Ritchey, 1979; Gresham & Reschly, 1988; Walker & McConnell, 1988).

· Gresham & Elliott (1991) As sited from the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS) overview, many studies have established a relationship between social skills and academic functioning (Bursuch & Asher, 1986; Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Krehbiel, 1983).

· Gresham & Elliott (1990) Untreated social skills problems are relatively persistent, are related to poor academic performance, and may result in later social adjustment problems or serious psychopathology.

· Gresham & Elliott (1990) Sharing, helping, initiating relationships, requesting help, giving compliments, and saying "please" and "thank you" are examples of social skills. Developing such skills is necessary for successful relationships and is one of the most important accomplishments of childhood.

· Woodfin & Cusack site the next studies in a Social Emotional Learning Research Overview prepared for the Houston Independent School District.

· According to Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence and Working with Emotional Intelligence, social and emotional abilities were four times more important than IQ in determining professional success and prestige.

· According to a study conducted by the Board on Children, Youth, and Families in the Institute of Medicine, young children who act in anti-social ways participate less in classroom activities and are less likely to be accepted by classmates and teachers.

· Wang (1977) Social and emotional variables are integral rather than incidental to learning and these variables are not just relevant to academic achievement, they are central to it.

· Wilson (2001) This study of school based prevention activities revealed that social and emotional learning programs decreased rates of non-attendance and drop-out, two factors important for school success.

The New York Times August 16, 2005
No Emotion Left Behind
By TIMOTHY P. SHRIVER and ROGER P. WEISSBERG

The debate over education reform has tended to divide children's learning along two axes, the emotional and the academic. Either we can address children's academic performance, the conventional thinking holds, or we can address their emotional and social needs. Before No Child Left Behind comes up for reauthorization in 2007, we'd like to deliver some important news: The two kinds of learning are intimately connected. That means that promoting students' social and emotional skills plays a critical role in improving their academic performance.

Social and emotional learning is the process through which children learn to recognize and manage emotions. It allows them to understand and interact with others, to make good decisions and to behave ethically and responsibly. The best social and emotional learning programs engage not only children, but also their teachers, administrators and parents in providing children with the information and skills that help them make ethical and sensible decisions - to avoid bullying, for instance, or to resist pressures to engage in destructive or risky behavior, such as substance abuse. When they are well designed and executed, such programs have consistently achieved these goals, turning out students who are good citizens committed to serving their communities and cooperating with others.

Recent studies, however, have revealed something even more exciting about these programs. Along with Joseph Durlak, a Loyola University psychologist, one of us (Roger Weissberg) recently conducted the largest-ever quantitative analysis, encompassing more than 300 research studies on this subject. The results, which will be presented later this week for the first time, show that social and emotional learning programs significantly improve students' academic performance. The review shows, for example, that an average student enrolled in a social and emotional learning program ranks at least 10 percentile points higher on achievement tests than students who do not participate in such programs. Moreover, compared with their counterparts outside of these programs, social and emotional learning students have significantly better attendance records; their classroom behavior is more constructive and less often disruptive; they like school more; and they have better grade point averages. They are also less likely to be suspended or otherwise disciplined.

The numbers vindicate what has long been common sense among many teachers and parents: that children who are given clear behavioral standards and social skills, allowing them to feel safe, valued, confident and challenged, will exhibit better school behavior and learn more to boot.

This simple observation is of monumental importance as we attempt to improve our country's public schools. We don't have to choose between academic achievement and the development of character. Rather, we should concentrate on both. No Child Left Behind has created greater accountability in American education, but it is inadequately financed, it fails to effectively address the needs of special education students, and its assessment standards for all children are far too narrow. A truly effective new law should include benchmarks for social and civic learning.

One state, Illinois, has blazed a path in this regard. There is a social and emotional learning component to the Illinois State Learning Standards, and the state's school districts now incorporate such programs into their curriculums. Federal legislation should follow that lead. The new law should also include provisions for conducting systematic classroom assessments of children's social and emotional growth.

What we now understand about the role of social and emotional learning in academic learning should lead us to dramatic action, but it builds on common wisdom. Good teachers know that they can't sacrifice one part of a child for another. Now they have the figures to prove it. The time has come for policy makers to help restore balance to our nation's classrooms and, in so doing, to help American children achieve their fullest potential.

Timothy P. Shriver is the chairman of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning and of the Special Olympics. Roger P. Weissberg is a professor of psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and president of the collaborative.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company