Education Matters explores new research showing that evidence-based social and emotional learning programs measurably improve student wellbeing – if delivered with structure and intent.
Social and emotional learning (SEL) has been on the radar of educators for years, but recent challenges have sharpened its importance. Following pandemic-related disruptions, educators are reporting increased levels of anxiety, dysregulation, and peer conflict in younger students – often emerging as early as Prep and Year 1.
Data from the 2024 Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) revealed the highest rate of developmental vulnerability in children’s emotional maturity and social competence since national tracking began in 2009. More than one in five children starting school were identified as developmentally at risk in one or more domains.
According to many educators, these challenges are no longer confined to individual students – they are now whole-class issues, affecting learning, engagement, and behaviour.
“There’s no doubt students are entering school with fewer tools to manage themselves and their relationships,” said one NSW principal. “You can’t teach literacy effectively if your classroom is emotionally unsettled.”
Now, a landmark study led by researchers at QUT and UNSW offers the most comprehensive population-level evidence to date – and the results are both encouraging and cautionary.
Dr Kristin Laurens, a professor at QUT’s School of Psychology and Counselling, has been involved in the New South Wales Child Development Study (https://www.unsw.edu.au/research/nsw-cds) since its inception in 2010. The study, which links administrative records for nearly 92,000 children, recently published findings in the Journal of School Psychology (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2025.101447) that examine the impact of SEL programs on Australian Year 6 students’ social and emotional competencies.
Dr Emma Carpendale, now a postdoctoral researcher at QUT, completed the complex data analysis and statistical modelling for the study as part of her PhD studies with Dr Laurens.
“This is work that’s been over a decade in the making,” Dr Laurens says. “It’s taken years of consultation, ethics approvals, and data linkage to get to this point. But what we now have is a robust dataset that allows us to look at how SEL programs are being delivered in schools – and whether they’re actually working.”
The study surveyed 18,643 Year 6 students across 569 NSW schools, alongside 598 school leaders – mostly principals – who reported on the SEL programs being delivered in their schools. Students self-reported their competencies across five CASEL-defined domains: Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, Relationship Skills, and Responsible Decision-Making.
The findings? SEL programs were associated with improved student outcomes in four of the five domains – except Responsible Decision-Making. But critically, these effects were only observed when the programs were evidence-based and included explicit teaching and skills practice.
“Despite good intentions, if you’re not using evidence-based practice, then you’re effectively costing these kids,” Dr Laurens says. “The time that you’re spending on that, the money that you’re spending on that, is not effective, and it’s not delivering what the children need.”
The study categorised SEL programs based on ratings developed by the Australian Psychological Society for the KidsMatter initiative. Programs were rated from ‘no evidence’ to ‘high evidence’ and also assessed for the degree of explicit teaching they provided. Programs with moderate to high evidence and strong teaching components showed the most significant gains. Students in schools delivering these programs saw improvements of up to 10 percentiles in competencies like Self-Awareness and Self-Management.
“We saw that when it comes to these social and emotional learning programs, there was actually fewer than two-thirds, or about 60 per cent, of schools delivering formal teaching in this area,” Dr Laurens explains.
“And what was slightly alarming was that a third of those SEL programs had never been evaluated. So there was no evidence base to show the quality of what was being done.”
The strongest effects were observed when programs provided structured, explicit teaching of the targeted competencies. For example, students in schools delivering evidence-based programs with high teaching coverage showed a 0.25 standard deviation increase in Self-Awareness, which is equivalent to a 10-percentile gain.
The study’s observational design – rather than a controlled trial – was a deliberate choice.
“We wanted to understand what’s happening in the real world,” Dr Laurens explains. “Controlled trials are great for internal validity, but they don’t always reflect the messy, complex environments of actual schools. This study captures what’s really going on.”
One of the more nuanced findings was that SEL programs benefited students across gender and socioeconomic backgrounds, though girls tended to show higher competency scores overall. Interestingly, the impact of SEL on Social Awareness was greater for girls than boys, a finding that warrants further exploration.
“There’s a gendered pattern in the data,” Dr Laurens says. “Girls consistently reported higher levels of social-emotional functioning, and in some cases, they seemed to benefit more from the programs. That doesn’t mean boys aren’t benefiting – it just means we might need to think more carefully about how programs are designed and delivered.”
The study also found that students from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower competency scores overall, but SEL programs appeared to work equally well across socioeconomic groups.
“That’s a really important finding,” Dr Laurens notes. “It suggests that these programs can help level the playing field – if they’re implemented well.”
While the study didn’t evaluate individual programs, it did highlight some commonly used ones. Bounce Back! was the most frequently reported program (used in 147 schools), followed by You Can Do It! (86 schools). Both were rated as evidence-based and provided explicit teaching across all five competencies. In contrast, Rock and Water, used in 55 schools, had a low evidence rating and minimal teaching coverage.
Dr Laurens stresses that schools need to be discerning: “It’s not just about having a program – it’s about having the right program, delivered well. There’s a lot of goodwill in schools, but sometimes that goodwill isn’t matched by access to the right information.”
The Australian context adds another layer of complexity. Unlike the United States, where funding often hinges on evidence-based criteria, Australian schools have more flexibility in program selection. This has led to wide variability in the quality and effectiveness of SEL programs being implemented.
The national curriculum does mandate SEL under the Personal and Social Capability domain, but implementation is governed by state and territory departments. Responsible Decision-Making, for example, is not treated as a standalone competency in the Australian Curriculum, which may partly explain why it showed no significant gains in the study.
“In the CASEL framework, Responsible Decision-Making is a core competency,” Dr Laurens explains. “But in the Australian Curriculum, it’s subsumed under Social Management. That could be affecting how it’s taught – and how it’s measured.”
She adds: “It may also be that our questionnaire wasn’t assessing that competency as robustly as the others. We were surveying 27,000 children, so we had to use a short-form tool. There are multiple possible reasons, but I do find it interesting that the one competency not emphasised as a standalone in the curriculum is the one we didn’t see an effect on.”
The study also found that under-evidenced programs – those with no or low-quality research backing – had no significant impact on student outcomes.
“This is a wake-up call,” Dr Laurens says. “We can’t afford to waste time and resources on programs that don’t work, especially when we know that effective programs are out there.”
The study’s authors also noted that the observed effects, while statistically significant, were modest in size. This is not unexpected in large-scale, real-world evaluations.
“We’re talking about gains of seven to 10 percentiles,” Dr Laurens says. “That might sound small, but across a whole population, that’s meaningful. And these programs are being delivered alongside other wellbeing initiatives, often with limited resources. So the fact that we’re seeing consistent, positive effects is actually quite encouraging.”
The study’s limitations are also worth noting. It relied on self-report data from students and principals, which can be subject to bias. It also couldn’t account for program fidelity, dosage, or delivery quality – factors known to influence outcomes. Nonetheless, the sample was large and representative, and the findings provide a valuable snapshot of SEL implementation in Australian primary schools.
The study’s findings come at a time of growing national interest in student wellbeing. The Productivity Commission’s Review of the National School Reform Agreement and the National Children’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy both call for SEL to be prioritised alongside academic learning.
“There’s momentum,” Dr Laurens says. “We’re seeing more recognition that social and emotional skills are foundational – not just for wellbeing, but for learning, relationships, and life.”
But she’s also realistic about the work ahead. “We need more local evaluations. We need to understand what’s working in Australian schools, for Australian kids. And we need to support principals and teachers to make informed choices.”
She points to resources like the Be You Programs Directory and new Wellbeing Programs Guide developed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) as valuable starting points. Education departments in some states have also started compiling menus of evidenced programs. “There’s a lot out there,” she says. “But it’s not always easy to navigate. That’s why curated directories and guidance from trusted bodies are so important.”
For school leaders, the message is clear: SEL works, but only when it’s done right. That means choosing programs with a strong evidence base, ensuring they include structured teaching and practice, and embedding them into whole-school approaches.
“This research is about getting evidence into the hands of the people at the coalface,” Dr Laurens says. “Principals and teachers are doing incredible work, often under pressure. If we can help them make better decisions about SEL, then we’re helping kids thrive.”
She adds: “We’re not saying every school has to do the same thing. But we are saying: let’s make sure what we’re doing is grounded in evidence. Let’s make sure it’s actually helping kids.”
