Serious issues regarding health and social life in the United States stem from behavior learned during youth and adolescence (Ross, Powell & Elias, 2002). Among these are drug, alcohol and tobacco use, and sexual behaviors that put one at risk for disease and teen pregnancy.  Studies suggest that 50 percent or more of U.S. youths are at risk from the consequences of these behaviors (Ross, Powell & Elias, 2002; Zins & Wagner, 1997).  Long-term problems stemming from these behaviors contribute to unnecessary care and drive up its costs (Kolbe, Collins & Cortese 1997).  These problems also produce a school environment that is not conducive to learning, and therefore contributes to higher drop out rates and a worse education for those who do graduate (Kolbe, Collins & Cortese).  Intervention during the formative years of children could lead to prevention in these areas.

There are also evident disparities between race concerning these issues, with African Americans and Latinos being afflicted more so than Americans of European decent (Hartman, 2006).   American schools, by and large, do not graduate minority high school students who are ready to face the challenge of college or graduate school (Hartman).  Only half of the country’s 1.8 million Hispanic and African American students graduate from high school with a diploma (Hartman).

Since the 1960s, the United States Government has focused on creating public education programs that attempt to foster learning and thereby shrink poverty and its accompanying ills (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).  Most of these programs, such as Project Head Start, are aimed at boosting cognitive scores in impoverished children in pre-school so that they are at the level of children from middle class or high socioeconomic status (SES) by the time they enter first grade (Phillips & Styfco). These programs have had varying degrees of success.

Both psychologists and educators have hailed SEL as a way to fulfill the promise of education for the underserved.  It is defined as:

…the process through which children enhance their capacity to recognize and manage their emotions, appreciate their capacity to recognize and mange their emotions, appreciate the perspectives of others, establish pro-social goals,  and solve problems, and use a variety of interpersonal skills to effectively and ethically handle developmentally relevant tasks (Elias, Bruene-Butler, Blum & Schuyler, 2000, p. 254).

Studies suggest that social atmosphere improves when SEL is implemented in classrooms, (Kress & Elias, 2006).  A by-product of this is improved academic achievement and scores on standardized tests (Kress & Elias).  Some have called it SEL the missing piece of the academic puzzle (Elias, 2002).

This paper will briefly explore the foundations of developmental psychology in the United States, and how it has been intertwined with social programs that address poverty.  It will also critically discuss the literature regarding two major programs, Project Head Start and SEL. 

Review of Historical and Contemporary Scientific Literature

Origins of the Effort to Prevent Poverty

The origins of the prevention of poverty in the United States are intertwined with the origin of developmental psychology and its early research (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).  At the turn of the 19^th to the 20^th century, the social reform movement, led by individuals such as Jane Adams, sought to address problems afflicting children, especially for the poor and immigrant populations (Phillips & Styfco).

Applied research was born amidst the study of child labor, delinquency, and child and maternal health (Phillips & Styfco).  By 1912, the Children’s Bureau was created to “Collect and apply systematic evidence about the conditions of children at the highest levels of the federal government” (Phillips & Styfco, p. 12).  Psychologists involved in the child study movement interfaced with caseworkers, pediatricians and educators for social advocacy (Phillips & Styfco).  Initiatives included child guidance for juveniles, an early intervention similar to those instigated by Alfred Adler and carried further by his student Rudolf Dreikurs (Millren, Evans, & Newbauer, 2003).

The 1920s saw the move from a reform orientation, to experimental, empirical studies, and the furtherance of quantitative, statistical analysis (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).  Developmental psychology was considered a domain apart from public policy, and reform was in essence regarded as a separate domain (Phillips & Styfco).

The Second World War ushered in the use of scientists for the war effort (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).  Unlike other wars, however, when armistice was called, the government continued to enlist the assistance of psychologists during peacetime (Phillips & Styfco).  Continued competition with the Soviet Union during the cold war led to government funding of scientific research far surpassing that of private endowments (Phillips & Styfco). The 1960s saw the War on Poverty initiative of the Johnson administration and the creation of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Phillips & Styfco).

The War on Poverty was originally focused on adults (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).   However, its focus shifted to impoverished children in order to help them perform better in school.  Developmental scientists, like Urie Bronfrenbrenner, later gaining recognition for his Ecological Systems theory, and Edward Zigler, were invited to Washington to found what eventually became the longest running educational program in U.S. history, Project Head Start (Zigler & Muenchow, 1992; Phillips & Styfco).

Head Start

Head Start was founded in 1965 (Zigler & Styfco, 2001).  Since its inception, Project Head Start has served over 15 million children and their families (Zigler & Styfco). Head Start is still in use and gives impoverished children access to preschool education (Zigler & Styfco). Its main goal is to “prepare children for school, and enhance their social competence,” and to holistically approach the nurturance of the child (Zigler and Styfco, p. 238).

Each Head Start program offers a variety of services, including health screening and referral, nutrition education and hot meals, mental health services, preschool education, social services for the child and family, and parental involvement. (Zigler & Styfco, 2001, p. 238)  A Head Start program is individually tailored to the community it serves (Zigler & Styfco).

Leadership in Project Head Start insisted that rigorous data collection and analysis for evidence-based feedback be involved from its onset (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).  Though it was aligned with Johnson’s Great Society initiative, and the resurrection of science in the service of social reform, it was not merely to be just social program, but also to be steeped in empiricism (Phillips and Styfco).  Numerous studies discuss the benefits of incorporating Head Start programs into communities (Zigler & Styfco, 2001).  A large body of evidence relates that children in Head Start preschool programs test higher on cognitive functioning than poor children who are not enrolled (Zigler & Trickett, 1978; Malakoff, Underhill & Zigler, 1998; Zigler and Styfco, 2001).

Other benefits of Head Start programming include healthcare access to poor families comparable to middle-class families, better relationships between parents and children, and securing employment for parents and caretakers of the children (Zigler & Styfco, 2001).  In short, Project Head Start attempted to transform all aspects of the lives of impoverished families.

Project Head Start has been the main preventative measure in early childhood education to the present.  Its popularity has waxed and waned through the years, and it was initially bounced from one Washington agency to another (Kuntz, 1998).   It still holds considerable support from both Republican and Democratic presidents and lawmakers (Phillips & Styfco, 2007).

Social & Emotional Learning (SEL)

SEL developed in the era of evidence-based practice tested through rigorous data (Greenberg, Weissberg, Utne O’Brien, Zins, Fredericks, Resnik & Elias, 2003). It aims to work from the ground level, to shift the nature of curricula to include emotional and developmental issues, in order to eliminate behavior problems throughout the course of a child’s education (Deham & Weissberg, 2004).  Thus, SEL affords students a safe, friendly environment in which to learn (Deham & Weissberg).  Studies point not only to the emotional and developmental benefits, but also to SEL assisting in better grades for children (Kress & Elias, 2006).

SEL was developed from the concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI) developed by Salovey and Mayer in 1990.  It is described as a “combination of the interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences put forth in Howard Gardner’s model of multiple intelligences,” and as a more streamlined version of the older Guilford and Hoepfner models of intelligences (Elias, 2002, p. 44). These intellectual domains are musical, linguistic, body/kinesthetic, and personal intelligences (Salovey & Sluyter, 1997).  Gardner argued that brain structures interact with social purposes or behaviors to create intelligences (Salovey & Sluyter). Daniel Goleman later enhanced and polpularized Salovey and Mayer’s original concept.  Goleman described specific skills related to emotional competence, including coping with frustration, monitoring and controlling affect and behavior, social problem solving, effective communication on verbal and non-verbal levels, controlling impulses, and initiating and maintaining friendships (referenced in Elias, 2002).

SEL consists of factors of self-management, self-awareness, responsible decision-making, and relationship management (Denham & Weissberg, 2004).  Theses factors are implemented based on normative models of child development (Denham & Weissberg).  As a child develops neurologically, higher cortical functioning is engaged; emotional development precedes cognitive development (Denham & Weissberg).  As they grow, children can better process their emotions through reason (Denham & Weissberg).  Therefore, SEL for the first grader is not the same for the second or twelfth grader; it is adjusted to meet the developmental needs of each grade. (Denham & Weissberg).  A child learns first through imitation and play (Bandura & Walters, 1963).  SEL lesson plans in the lower grades involve story telling and play that nurture social and emotional values (Pasi, 2001). Older children explore these areas in more complex and abstract ways (Pasi, 2001).

SEL is integrated into the life of a school.  Teachers incorporate SEL into the lesson plan at the preschool and kindergarten level, and adapt it through the changing grades.  Administrators adapt SEL into their disciplinary interventions and programming (Zins & Elias, 2006).  It is also incorporated into administrative and faculty interaction (Zins & Elias).

Due to the large amount of evidence for its efficacy, many U.S. school systems have begun to implement SEL in their classrooms (Zins & Elias, 2006). In 2003, Illinois was the first state to enact a law requiring SEL to be used in its public school systems (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, no date, A).  The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) was instrumental in shaping Illinois Children’s Mental Health Act (ICMHA), passed in 2003 (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning A; Zins & Elias).  Section 15 states:

(a) The Illinois State Board of Education shall develop and implement a plan to incorporate social and emotional development standards as part of the Illinois Learning Standards for the purpose of enhancing and measuring children’s school readiness and ability to achieve academic success…Every Illinois school district shall develop a policy for incorporating social and emotional development into the district’s educational program. The policy shall address teaching and assessing social and emotional skills and protocols for responding to children with social, emotional, or mental health problems, or a combination of such problems, that impact learning ability. (Illinois Children’s Mental Health Act, Public Act 93-0495, SB1951, n.d.).

This offers assurance that the benefits of SEL are available for all Illinois students.

CASEL, founded by Daniel Goleman in 1994, has been involved with implementation, dissemination, and research for SEL, and acts as a network among professional involved in SEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, n.d., A; Zins & Elias, 2006).  CASEL provides thorough assessment and consultation for schools considering an SEL curriculum, and extensive access to over 80 evidence-based programs that can be adapted to meet the needs of educators (Zins & Elais).

SEL works holistically, and attempts to include input from parents and community (Zins & Elias, 2006).  School psychologists are encouraged to be utilized in a systemic fashion rather than focusing on testing and individual interventions (Ross, Powell, & Elias, 2002).

Critical Discussion of the Literature

Head Start

Project Head Start’s strength is that it is a holistic initiative that has been shown to improve the functioning of the health and well being of low SES sectors of society (Aber, Jones & Raver, 2007). In order for Head Start to properly function, an ecological view, such as Bronfenbrenner’s (1977), must be applied to the developing child.  This was not the case (Zigler & Muenchow, 1992, p. 19).

Improved cognitive functioning and standardized test scores for Head Start children have been the main focus for scientists and pundits alike (Zigler & Trickett, 1978; Zigler & Styfco, 1994; Malakoff, Underhill & Zigler, 1998; Zigler and Styfco, 2001).  This emphasis on IQ scores has led to criticism, much if it from within the ranks of its founders (Malakoff, Underhill & Zigler; Zigler & Styfco).  Several studies point to Head Start and other early intervention programs boosting confidence and motivational levels of students, which are considered the main reason for increased standardized test scores and academic achievement (Zigler & Trickett; Malakoff, Underhill & Zigler; Phillips & Styfco).

Interpersonal rapport between students and teachers, and cultural competence are not taken into account with intellectual testing (Zigler & Trickett, 1978).  Students need to feel connected and trust in the environment in which education and testing is delivered.  There is no substantial cognitive difference between “culturally deprived” children, and middle-class children (Trickett & Zigler).  But, due to culturally biased test items, they may not respond correctly to questions on a Stanford-Binet or a Wechsler test (Zigler & Butterfield, 1968).  Cultural and motivational factors must be considered as part of assuring long-term effects of Head Start or programs like it (Malakoff, Underhill & Zigler).  Unfortunately, they are not taken into account, and are a probable reason for why Head Start programs do not have very sound evidence for long-term outcome (Zigler & Styfco).

At its onset, idealism and social policy alone drove Head Start (Ellsworth, 1998).  Scientific process was largely swept aside during the enthusiasm for social reform of the 1960s (Ellsworth, 1998).  This has occurred throughout the life of the program, making it the best funded, non-conclusive program (Ellsworth, 1998).  Perhaps if stronger emphasis were placed on science, it would have been more effective weapon in the War on Poverty.

It also has been argued that Head Start defines, or rather, pigeonholes, minorities and impoverished people in a negative light (Ellsworth, 1998).  The very essence of the program covers up the roots of poverty in power differentials in the United States (Kuntz, 1998).  The process of Head Start is to change the victim, not the system that victimizes (Kuntz, 1998).  It should be noted that there was a great deal of initial controversy and resistance to Project Head Start not from communities, but from school administrators, who felt that their power was to be absconded by un-trained, un-educated, community organizers (Kuntz, 1998).  Within a few years, Head Start as a grass-roots effort to empower communities was in many ways rendered ineffectual as an ecological intervention (Kuntz, 1998).

SEL

A solid foundation of empirical evidence may be viewed as the main strength of SEL (Greenberg, Weissberg, Utne O’Brien, Zins, Fredericks, Resnik & Elias, 2003).  Greenberg, Weissberg et al catalog studies that suggest SEL is effective stimulating positive youth development, promotes mental health, is effective in reducing drug and alcohol use and truancy, and enhances academic achievement.

A meta analysis of 207 studies compared outcomes for student who were enrolled in SEL programming to those who were not (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, n.d., B).  Those who received SEL programming significantly improved in the domains of Social and emotional skills, attitudes about themselves, others and their schools, conduct issues, emotional stress, distress and depression (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, n.d., B).  These students also had standardized test scores eleven percent higher than students who were not enrolled in SEL programs.  The authors of this meta analysis rightly claim that these results qualify SEL programs for further implementation and research.

Efficacy for SEL programming may be well documented, but there are still controversies.  Some contend that the main construct underlying SEL, EI, is not altogether valid (Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2004; Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2008).  Reliability and validity of EI measurements, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, are called in to question (Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005).  Zeidner et al call for better conceptual definitions of EI, better measurement tools, and better behavior criteria (2004). Zeidner, a major skeptic of EI, states that SEL initiatives may work because other programs, such as anti-bullying interventions, are often implemented simultaneously, thus confounding efficacy results (Bennett, 2009).

SEL works as an intervention, controversies aside.  Why? It may be that SEL is the educational equivalent of empathy and rapport implemented within a school system.  In the common factors model of psychotherapy, the two main factors for successful outcome has been attributed to the client’s personal strengths (40%), followed by the empathy and rapport (30%) (Duncan, Miller & Hubble, 1997).  These are also the main elements involved in the efficacy of SEL programs.  Perhaps the way to proceed with defining operation definitions of SEL would be to study measures of empathy and rapport as a starting point.  This may help to frame SEL assessment.

Impediments:  What Was the Goal, and Where Are We?

The support for and the implementation of Head Start had an impact on educational outcomes for the impoverished (Zigler & Styfco, 2001).  But is it too grandiose to think that poverty can be reduced or eliminated through education?  The goal seems far too large, and indefinable to be properly addressed.  Debate as to whether Head Start should be based on science, or just have funding thrown at it due to the beliefs of policy makers, hindered proper study of its efficacy (Zigler & Styfco; Ellsworth, 1998; Kuntz, 1998).  In addition, lawmakers and school administration focused too heavily on cognitive test results, immediate results, rather than attaching more importance on studies and long-term planning (Zigler & Styfco; Ellsworth; Kuntz).  In order for Head Start to begin to fulfill the dream of dissolving poverty, it will likely need to be restructured to focus more on community needs.

SEL seems to be the best current possibility for reform at the local level, and for providing hope to the underprivileged.  However, in order to be effective, it will need to be implemented on a national level to ensure that each state is involved in SEL programming.  Perhaps Illinois will be the torchbearer for the rest of the country.

SEL’s benefits, supported by rigorous studies, certainly suggest the reduction of the behavioral problems among our country’s youth cited earlier (Kolbe, Collins & Cortese 1997). Longitudinal studies still need to be undertaken, and only time will tell whether this will translate into a reduction of poverty.

SEL produces better academic results and higher standardized test scores; lawmakers and educators will both find this advantageous (Kress & Elias, 2006).  Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, school systems and states must have high enough standardized test scores in order to receive Federal funding (Lagana-Riordan & Aguilar, 2009).  As in the case of Head Start (Kuntz, 1998), the possible risk for SEL implementation is that educators and administrators will fall under the spell of raised test scores, and forget its original, transformative mission.

A positive aspect of CASEL is that it is a non-profit organization, invested in finding evidence to support its goals.  SEL is not a policy controlled by government, as was Head Start, and can operate, relatively speaking, independently of politics. However, it may be blindsided, as Head Start was, by idealism, or at worst, CASEL personnel could become driven by groupthink (Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2004; Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2008).  Critiques of SEL are currently at the level of open discourse, as a dialectic working toward a synthesis of pros and cons (Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2004).  Hopefully, this will continue, and the main proponents of SEL will keep an open eye toward improvement of operational definitions of EI and SEL, and toward its implementation.  SEL is still young, and as of yet, there are no longitudinal studies to back its promise.  Most likely, CASEL will instigate such research.

Synopsis of Future Action

Head Start did not fulfill its promise, and its leading advocates within psychology suggest that this is due to lack of scientific rigor, and a focus away from ecological implementation (Ellsworth, 1998; Phillips & Styfco, 2007; Zigler & Muenchow, 1992; Zigler & Styfco, 2001).  Others (Ellsworth, 1998; Kuntz, 1998) suggest that idealism eschewed science.  Power struggles also hindered a grass-roots effort for systemic change (Kuntz, 1998).

It appears that SEL will be unhindered by such issues, at least along the lines of lack of scientific foundations and proper debate.  Yet there are often struggles within a school system when SEL is initiated.

Often educators believe that SEL curriculum will deter the delivery of academic programs in their classroom (Kress, Norris, Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigel, 2004).

In our work…we have met many school personnel who readily embrace social and emotional skills as a key component in the goals and purview of educational experience. However, it is not uncommon for even the best-intentioned educator to run up against some real challenges….How does SEL articulate with the various “standards” we are accountable for?  How will we integrate SEL into the existing curriculum? (Kress, Norris, Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigel, 2004, p.  71).

Another problem that often arises is whether an educator can find time in the already busy academic day to incorporate SEL into the lesson plan (Kress, Norris, Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigel 2004).  It is suggested that educators be reassured that SEL will give their students a long–term, academic edge (Kress, Norris, Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigel).  It can be pointed out that there is already an overlap between most SEL programs and state approved lesson plans.  Helping the educator see the correlation is the first step in easing their worries (Kress, Norris, Schoenholz, Elias, & Seigel).

Kress & Elias (2006) also recommend the use of the same tools from the SEL curriculum with the faculty of a school while doing consulting work.  This can bring about a warmer, more co-operative environment among faculty and administration (Kress & Elias). Kress & Elias created a four-step program that involves creating emotional self awareness and empathy, self reflection, continued learning, positive, assertive communication, and focusing on the importance of mentoring and support (Kress & Elias).

The next question is whether SEL will reach its goal of affecting communities as well as schools.  CASEL will need to continue with studying the affects of SEL, both long and short-term.   It would be best if these studies were not limited to the schools themselves, but to the community at large within a school district.  This current review of the literature did not find any evidence that this is being undertaken.  Indicators of economic progress, reduction in violence, and better living conditions within communities must be taken into consideration in longitudinal studies. Only in this way will we know if SEL is a panacea for poverty, and not merely as placebo to assuage the guilt of the dominant groups of American society, as Head Start has been described (Kuntz, 1998).

Lastly, Head Start may be a good pre-school foundation for SEL programming.  There is some indication that combining SEL and Head Start is efficacious (Domitrovich, Cortes,  & Greenberg 2007).  Such integration could be a means to gently introduce SEL to the larger community and school system, thus creating smoother transitions to a larger curriculum.

References

Bandura, A, & Walters, R.H. (1963).  Social learning and personality development.  New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Bennett, D, The other kind of smart: Is it time for schools to try to boost kids’ emotional intelligence? The Boston Globe, April 5, 2009.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977).  Toward an experimental ecology of human development.  American Psychologist, 32, (7), 513-531.

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (n.d). A.  About CASEL. Retrieved on October 8, 2009, from http://casel.org/about/index.php

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (n.d). B. The Benefits of School-based Social and Emotional Learning Programs: Highlights form a Forthcoming CASEL Report. Retrieved on October 10, 2009 from http://www.casel.org/downloads/metaaanalysissum.pdf

Domitrovich, C. E. Cortes, R. C.,  & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving young children’s social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of the preschool  “paths” curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, (2), 67-91.

Denham, SA. & Weissberg, R.P. (2004).  Social and emotional learning in early childhood: What we know and where to go from here.  In: E. Cheesbrough, P.King, T.P. Gullotta, & M. Bloom (Eds.), A blueprint for the promotion of prosocial behavior in early childhood. (pp. 13-50). New York: Kluwer             Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Ellsworth, J. (1998). Inspiring delusions: Reflections on head start’s enduring popularity.  In: J. Ellsworth, & L.J. Ames, (Eds.), Critical perspectives on project head start. (pp. 318-333).  New York: State University of New York.

Elias, M.J., Bruene-Butler, L., Blum, L., Schuyler, T. (2000).  Voices from the field: Identifying and overcoming roadblocks to carrying out social and emotional learning/emotional intelligence.  Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, (2), 253-272.

Elias, M.J. (2002).  New roles for school psychologists: Addressing the social and emotional learning needs of students.  School Psychology News, 33, (1), 45-52.

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., Utne O’Brien, M.,  Zins, J.E,  Fredericks, L, Resnik, H, & Elias, M.J. (2003).  Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, (6-7), 466-474.

Hartman, C. (2006).  Poverty & race in america: The emerging agendas. New York: Lexington Books.

Illinois Children’s Mental Health, Public Act 93-0495 (SB 1591) (n.d.), Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.casel.org/downloads/cmh_act.pdf

Kolbe, L.J., Collins, J., Cortese, P. (1997).  Building the capacity of schools to improve the health of the nation. American Psychologist, 32, (3), 256-265.

Kress, J.S., Elias, M. (2006). Building learning communities through social and emotional learning: Navigating the rough seas of implementation. Professional School Counseling 10(1), 102-107.

Kuntz, K.R. (1998).  A lost legacy: Heads start’s origins in community action. In: J. Ellsworth & L.J. Ames (Eds.), Critical perspectives on project head start: Revisioning the hope and the challenge. (pp.1-48).  New York: State Unversity of  New York Press.

Lagana-Riordan, C.,  & Aguilar, J.P. (2009). What’s missing from no child left behind? A policy analysis from a social work perspective. Children & Schools,31, (3). 135-144.

Malkoff, M., Underhill, M., & Zigler, E. (1998).  Influence of inner-city environment and head start experience on effectance motivation.  Journal of America Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 630-638.

Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997).  What is emotional intelligence?  In: P. Salovey, & D.J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional intelligence development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. (3-32).  New York: Basic Books/Harper  Collins.

Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Hubble, M.A. (1997).  Escape from babel. New York: W.W. Norton & Company

Millren, A. P., Evans, T.D.,  & Newbauer, J.F. (2003).  Adlerian counseling and psychotherapy. In: D. Capuzzi. & D.R.Gross (ed.), Counseling and psychotherapy–theories and interventions. (pp. 91-130). Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Merril Prentice  Hall.

Palmer, B.R., Gignac. G, Manocha. R, & Stough, C. (2005).  A psychometric evaluation of the mayer-salovey-caruso-emotional intelligence test. Intelligence, 33, 285-305.

Pasi, R. (2001).  Higher expectations:Promoting social and emotional learning and academic achievement in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Phillips, D.A., & Styfco. S.J. (2007).  Child development research and public policy: Triumphs and setbacks on the way to maturity. In: Aber, J. L., Bishop-Josef, S.J., Jones, S.M., McLearn, K.T., Phillips, D.A. (Eds.), Child development and social policy: Knowledge for action. (pp. 11-27). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ross, M.R., Powel, S.R., Elias, M. (2002).  New roles for school psychologists: Addressing social and emotional learning needs of students.  School Psychology Review, 31(1), 43-52.

Stipek, D., & Hakuta, K. (2007).  Strategies to ensure that no child starts from behind. In: Aber, J. L., Bishop-Josef, S.J., Jones, S.M., McLearn, K.T., Phillips, D.A. (Eds.), Child development and social policy: Knowledge for action. (pp. 129 145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.D., & Matthews, G. (2004).  The emotional intelligence bandwagon: Too fast to live, too young to die? Psychological Inquiry, 15 (3), 239-248.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.D., & Matthews, G. (2008).  The science of emotional intelligence: Current controversies. European Psychologist, 13 (1), 64-78.

Zigler, E., & Butterfield, E.C. (1968).  Motivational aspects of changes in iq test performance of culturally deprived nursery school children. Child Development, 39 (1), 1-14.

Zigler, E. & Trickett, P.E. (1978).  Iq, social competence, and evaluation of early childhood intervention programs.  American Psychologist, 39(9), 789-798.

Zigler, E, & Muenchow, S.  (1992). Head start: the inside story of america’s most successful educational experiment. New York: Basic Books/ Harper Collins.

Zigler, E. & Styfco, S.J. (1994).  Head start: Criticisms in a constructive context.  American Psychologist, 49, (2), 127-132.

Zigler, E. & Styfco J. (2001). Can early childhood intervention prevent delinquency? A real possibility.  In: Bohart, Arthur C (Ed); Stipek, Deborah J (Ed). Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, & society. (pp. 231-248).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zins, J. E., & Wagner, D.L. (1997) Educating children and youth for psychological competence.  In: Illback, R. J., Cobb, C.T., & Joseph, H. (Eds.),  Integrated             services for children and families: Opportunities for psychological practice. (pp. 137-156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zins, J.E, & Elias, M.J. (2006).  Social and emotional learning; Promoting the development of all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17 (2&3), 233-255.