The War Over Social-Emotional Learning
The War Over Social-Emotional Learning
What SEL is, what it isn't, and why it's controversial.
Before I jump into today’s topic, a quick announcement: We can now chat on Substack! Many of you have expressed interest in discussing issues with other like-minded parents, so I’m hopeful that chat will build even more connection and community here. At this point, chatting is only open to my paid subscribers, and right now, we’re talking about kid sleep woes. If you want to join, download the Substack app on iOS (Android coming soon) and tap the button below.
Now onto today’s newsletter. If we can all agree on one Covid-related thing, it’s that the pandemic has left many kids struggling emotionally. Research has shown that children and adolescents have been experiencing increased rates of anxiety, depression and stress — we know that they need as much mental health and emotional support right now as possible.
The current situation helps to explain why so many U.S. schools have recently been investing more in what is called “social-emotional learning,” or SEL, which is essentially the process by which kids learn to manage emotions, feel and show empathy, make good decisions and maintain healthy relationships. Schools are teaching SEL skills through special programs woven into their curricula, and some after-school programs aim to do the same.
But there’s been increasing backlash from the right in response to social-emotional learning. One example: This fall, Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District, northwest of the twin cities, announced plans to incorporate CharacterStrong into its curriculum — an SEL program that teaches students “themes such as respect, empathy, gratitude, kindness, honesty, courage, cooperation, perseverance and responsibility.” Soon after announcing it, the district was attacked. Among other things, the right-wing Minnesota Child Protection League argued that SEL programs are “vehicles to promote an authoritarian agenda” and a “Leftist effort to destroy families and religion.” In some states, legislators have even introduced bills that would ban teaching social-emotional skills in schools.
Why is SEL such a hot-button issue? Is there merit to the right’s concerns? Here are the key things I learned after digging into the research.
Social-emotional learning is nothing new, and it’s been supported by people on both sides of the political aisle.
Although the recent controversy might suggest that SEL is borne out of today’s political climate, it’s not. The term “social-emotional learning” was coined around 1997, when the book Promoting Social-Emotional Learning — Guidelines for Educators was published. (The book was inspired by Dan Goleman’s bestselling 1995 book Emotional Intelligence.) SEL focuses on five core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision-making.
The ideas behind SEL were around long before 1997, though — just under different names, like “social competence” or “social cognitive development.”
“You can go back decades, and you'll find that there were almost always programs designed to help kids be better kids,” said Rutgers University psychologist Maurice Elias, who has spent decades studying the impacts of social-emotional learning programs on kids (in fact, he’s a co-author of the 1997 book).
Until recently, SEL was supported by politicians on both the left and the right. In 2018, for instance, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that she prioritized developing skills “that prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, and productive individuals and citizens.” That’s social-emotional learning.
Social-emotional learning is an integral part of education.
One of the current arguments against SEL is that social-emotional skills should be taught at home, rather than at school. I’d argue they should be taught at home too, but there’s no question that social-emotional skills are crucial for academic learning and should be nurtured at school.
If you think about it, most academic struggles, Elias said, are rooted in emotions: If a kid is having trouble with a math problem, their first reaction is going to be emotional — and they will need to tap into their emotional skills to manage their frustration, problem-solve, and try the problem again. This means that overcoming academic challenges relies as much on emotional intelligence as on academic knowledge. As Elias explained to me:
When people talk about taking SEL out of education, or out of schools — to my perspective, that makes about as much sense as taking oxygen out of air. You really can't take oxygen out of the air and have any air left. And you really can't take emotion regulation, problem solving, perspective taking, and working effectively with other people out of schools and have much education left.
Although we need more and better research, many studies suggest that SEL programs boost academic performance and overall competence. A 2011 meta-analysis of 213 SEL programs found that students who attended schools with SEL programs scored 11 percentile points higher on academic achievement tests than students who attended schools without SEL programs. Students who were taught social-emotional skills were also better able to manage stress and depression, behaved better in the classroom, and had better attitudes about themselves and others.
A 2019 randomized controlled clinical trial reported that the after-school SEL program WINGS for Kids increased reading and executive functioning skills by 20 to 35 percentile points after two years. It showed that students who are taught social-emotional skills “behave better, do better in the classroom, and do better academically,” WINGS for Kids CEO Bridget Laird told me.
Social-emotional skills shape success beyond school, too: In my book I discussed a 2015 study that found that kindergarten boys with stronger social-emotional skills were more likely than other boys to graduate from college and hold stable jobs as adults.
Although SEL programs are incredibly important and useful, they are not a magic bullet. SEL programs are just one of many tools schools need to use to build an emotionally supportive school climate. “Having a good SEL program might be something you could say is necessary, but it certainly isn't sufficient,” Elias said.
Many right-wing claims about SEL are inaccurate.
Some conservative groups tout that SEL is critical race theory dressed in different clothes. But most SEL programs do not specifically address the issue of race. “When you look at the basis for those claims, they're very flimsy,” Elias said.
Here’s how developmental psychologist Tia Kim explained it in a Q&A published in September in EdSurge. (Kim is the vice president of education, research and impact at Committee for Children, the nonprofit organization that created Second Step, the most popular SEL program in the world.) Kim said:
Social-emotional learning does not teach elements of critical race theory. But to have really good, effective social-emotional learning and development, the programs do have to recognize that children come into the classroom with different strengths. They come from diverse backgrounds and have very unique needs. And part of the goal of SEL is, yes, to teach critical life skills, but also it's a way to create very inclusive, positive learning environments so that all children can thrive in a classroom and learn and have the resources to be able to do that.
For example, students may learn about being respectful and empathetic, which will help foster a culture of belonging and create a supportive environment where learning can take place. Overall, social-emotional learning programs aim to promote what is best for students’ social, emotional and academic success.
Indeed, if you look at the specific aspects of Second Step that conservative parents take issue with, you see that their complaints have little do with critical race theory — and are actually pretty ludicrous.
Take, for instance, the 25-page “review” of Second Step’s 8th grade curriculum that was recently published online by two concerned Utah mothers. Among other things, these moms were upset that Second Step taught students how to “disrupt” bullying — because the word “disrupt,” they claimed, is associated with Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They didn’t like that bullying is described as being rooted in “privilege and power,” because, according to them, “these ideas are associated with Critical Race Theory.”
Many of their concerns about Second Step, in other words, were rooted in issues of semantics rather than the actual skills and concepts being taught. (That said, the moms also did not like that Second Step encourages students to seek out other adults — not just parents — as sources of support, and that students are encouraged to share their feelings in class.)
Social-emotional learning may be controversial because it teaches skills that promote empathy and tolerance.
Elias said he suspects that what some parents don’t like about SEL is that, by encouraging kids to have empathy and respect for others, these programs indirectly promote racial equality — even if they don’t directly address issues surrounding race.
He went on to explain:
When we look at the fundamental dynamic behind the anti-SEL movement, it isn't actually an anti-SEL movement. It's more of an anti-diversity movement … Some folks understand that if their kids learn to take the perspective of others and feel both empathy and compassion toward other people, my God, that could lead to everybody being treated more equally and more kindly and more deservedly, and being given equal opportunities. And that is not something that everybody wants to get behind.
I’m a bit skeptical that parents think through the downstream racial ramifications of fostering empathy in such a deep way. But I do think it’s possible that the inclusivity promoted by social-emotional learning makes some parents feel threatened. I also wonder if some parents believe social-emotional learning “coddles” kids and blunts their resilience — even though, in fact, research suggests the opposite. Still other parents may be scared of SEL due to the ridiculous conspiracy theories claiming that these programs are “data mining and psychologically profiling their kids.” (They aren’t.)
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one other thing that has fanned the flames of the anti-SEL controversy. In 2019, the most prominent SEL advocacy group in the U.S., the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), began promoting a specific form of SEL it called “transformative SEL,” which promotes anti-racist teaching. At this point, it’s an approach rooted more in theory than in practice, because CASEL admits that as of right now there aren’t good models for implementing this kind of SEL in schools. And this is just one form of SEL that schools could one day consider using. Still, Elias said that some experts consider the decision by CASEL to promote transformative SEL a “strategic error” that has made it harder to garner bipartisan support for SEL programs. (CASEL declined to talk with me for this newsletter.)
Many parents who take issue with SEL just don’t understand what it is — and actually do believe we should teach these skills.
All this said, research suggests that many parents who claim to be anti-SEL are simply misinformed. “People are misinterpreting [SEL] and the knowledge isn't there,” said Laird, the CEO of WINGS For Kids. If parents actually understood what these programs taught, she said, parents would want them in their schools. “I want to believe that everybody wants to support kids,” she said.
Research suggests that Laird could be right. When Fordham University researchers surveyed 2,000 U.S. parents about SEL in 2020 and 2021, they found that nearly all parents, regardless of political affiliation, agreed that they want their kids to have strong social-emotional skills. Three-quarters of Republican parents even agreed that “learning life skills and social skills at school is just as important as academics.”
It appears that the problem, once again, is rooted in the wording. In the Fordham survey, parents on the right much preferred the phrase “life skills” over “social-emotional learning,” even though most of them recognized the value of SEL. The big question is whether we’ll ever be able, as a nation, to move past semantics and fear-mongering rhetoric to ensure that our kids are supported in the ways they need.
Related posts:
Last week for The New York Times, I wrote about boredom — why we feel it, what it tells us, and how to overcome it. I had no idea the science of boredom was so fascinating! Read it here.
