Can social and emotional learning improve children's academic progress? Findings from a randomised controlled trial of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum

45 schools (23 PATHS, 22 control); Year 5 n = 1,705 and Year 6 n = 1,631; trial registration ISRCTN85087674

England; primary-school pupils aged 9-11.

The peer-reviewed report of the EEF PATHS trial, adding implementation-profile moderation from 127 classroom observations coded for fidelity, dosage, quality and reach. Two-level hierarchical models with intention-to-treat analysis and multiple imputation for the 35% Year 5 attrition; Year 6 school-level attrition was zero.

Null on every attainment outcome. Year 5 reading and writing beta = -0.02 (SE 0.08, p = 0.418); Year 5 maths -0.01 (SE 0.09, p = 0.484); Year 6 English -0.03 (SE 0.07, p = 0.347); Year 6 maths -0.05 (SE 0.07, p = 0.256). All trial-group by free-school-meal interactions were null. Four implementation profiles emerged, differentiated mainly by dosage, with NO class reaching very high dosage and 29 of 59 classes classified as low dosage at a mean of 35.5 lessons - and those profiles were NOT significantly associated with differential academic outcomes. The authors conclude it is not possible to recommend PATHS as an effective intervention for improving academic attainment in English primary schools.

Low. School-level randomisation.

Failed replication of the US PATHS achievement evidence, with the additional finding that the field's standard defence - that nulls reflect poor implementation - does not hold in this trial.