School engagement is an important theoretical and practical cornerstone to the promotion of academic accomplishments. This article used a tripartite-behavioral, emotional, and cognitive-model of school engagement to assess the relationship between school engagement and academic success among high school students, and to determine whether a reciprocal relationship exists between these constructs. Data were derived from 710 youth (69% female) who took part in Waves 6 through 8 (Grades 10 through 12) of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Longitudinal confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the invariance of the tripartite model of school engagement. Results of a structural equation model showed that the components of school engagement and academic achievement were mutually predictive and that these predictions varied from grade to grade. Future possibilities for evaluating the relationship between school engagement and academic achievement, as well as the implications for educational policy and practice, are discussed.

No abstract

On the pages that follow, a broad alliance of leading scientists and scholars speaks with a unified voice about the urgency of integrating social, emotional, and academic dimensions of learning to improve student outcomes.Under the aegis of the National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, the 28-member Council of Distinguished Scientists actively collaborated on and unanimously endorses The Evidence Base for How We Learn: Supporting Students' Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. These consensus statements of evidence-drawing from brain science, medicine, economics, psychology, and education research-unite the country's leading scholars of learning in calling for the full integration of social and emotional learning with academic instruction.The Consensus Statements of Evidence affirm and explain that social, emotional, and cognitive domains are interconnected in the learning process. This powerful consensus presents a compelling case for policymakers and educators to confidently move forward in addressing social and emotional dimensions of learning as part and parcel of achieving excellent academic outcomes in K-12 education.The consensus statements and the research behind them are summarized in this brief, written by Stephanie M. Jones and Jennifer Kahn with the active participation of the entire Council of Distinguished Scientists.The Aspen Institute is grateful to the scientists who came together to align their broad expertise in the public interest. Without their thoughtful contributions, dedicated efforts, and earnest deliberations, this step forward on behalf of our nation's students and schools would not be possible.

In contemporary developmental science, relational development systems models have been used to frame the positive youth development (PYD) perspective, which posits that youth will thrive when there is alignment between their strengths and ecological resources in their context. Evidence from the 4-H Study of PYD indicates that out-of-school-time youth development programs are key ecological resources enhancing youth thriving. This chapter discusses the particular facets of youth development programs (the "Big Three"-positive and sustained adult-youth relationships, skill-building activities, and youth leadership opportunities) involved in promoting youth thriving. The importance of using theory to design and implement programs is also discussed, and challenges of reaching the diversity of American youth with effective programs are noted.

No abstract

Two theoretical perspectives have been proposed to describe, explain, and intervene in adolescent development – prevention science and positive youth development (PYD). An integrative model bridging these two perspectives posits that it is important to assess the extent to which the same, similar, or complementary mechanisms may be responsible for preventing problem behavior and promoting PYD. Therefore, using data from the 4‐H Study of PYD, the present study examines the role of assets in the family, school, and neighborhood in differentiating trajectories of goal‐optimization and delinquency in a sample of 626 youth (50.9% female) from Grades 5 to 11. The results indicated that collective activity in the family best predicted membership for the five goal‐optimization trajectories while school‐based assets differentiated the four delinquency trajectories that were identified. The findings suggest that multidimensional approaches may be most effective to promote PYD and prevent problem behaviors.

No abstract

No abstract