The debate surrounding social-emotional learning (SEL) epitomizes a broader cultural clash in American education. Once the controversial topic was critical race theory (CRT); now, SEL is at the forefront, igniting concerns about its efficacy and ideological underpinnings. SEL’s rise and integration into schools shed light on the systemic issues plaguing American education, often tracing back to university schools of education.
The Concept of SEL
At its core, SEL aims to teach students emotional intelligence, including skills like open-mindedness, acceptance, and self-control. While these goals seem beneficial on the surface, they mark a departure from traditional virtues such as prudence, temperance, and courage. Instead of instilling objective ethical standards, SEL promotes subjective value systems and prioritizes self-regulation for future job prospects over inherent moral principles. Even in its most benign form, SEL raises questions about the role of teachers as quasi-therapists and the practicality of integrating such content into an already crowded curriculum.
Criticisms of SEL
SEL has faced significant criticism for potentially serving as a vehicle for progressive politics in the classroom. Its broad, appealing language makes it an easy tool for embedding controversial educational practices, such as eliminating traditional grading or introducing lessons on gender identity and privilege. Critics argue that while SEL purports to teach basic emotional skills, it often becomes a pretext for implementing a wider progressive agenda.
The Role of University Schools of Education
The proliferation of SEL in K-12 education can be traced back to university schools of education, which advocate for its inclusion. Institutions like UNC-Chapel Hill, Appalachian State University, and East Carolina University have embraced and promoted SEL through research, publications, and international programs. These academic hubs influence teacher training and instructional practices, often prioritizing SEL over traditional educational methods.
The Broader Educational Crisis
The rise of SEL reflects a deeper crisis within the educational system. University schools of education are criticized for focusing more on radical, politicized conceptions of education than on practical classroom preparation. Leading professors often challenge the value of traditional knowledge and the civilizing influence of education, instead advocating for student-led discovery free from established rules and literature.
This trend parallels a historical shift dating back to the 1960s, when student activists sought to transform universities from institutions of knowledge dissemination to hubs of political advocacy. The “Port Huron Statement,” a manifesto from this era, argued against the traditional quest for truth in universities, proposing instead that these institutions should drive societal change.
Contrast with Traditional Educational Philosophies
This modern approach starkly contrasts with traditional views like those of John Henry Newman, who saw universities as custodians of society’s accumulated knowledge and traditions. Newman believed universities should focus on teaching, with research being secondary, as the discipline required for advanced study naturally fosters skills akin to SEL.
The Way Forward
Addressing the issues with SEL and broader educational practices requires more than opposition; it demands a rearticulation of the value of traditional education. Reforming education departments to include diverse perspectives, such as those of educational conservatives like E.D. Hirsch and practical guides from figures like Doug Lemov, could provide a more balanced teacher training curriculum.
Ultimately, the debate over SEL is about the purpose of education. Should it be to pass along the best of human thought and achievement, or to mold students according to contemporary progressive ideals? Reforming educational practices and curricula to emphasize timeless knowledge and skills could help resolve this conflict, ensuring that students receive a well-rounded and meaningful education.
This approach involves a recognition that some works of literature are inherently valuable, some habits and actions are universally good, and some truths about the world can be known and should be taught. By reclaiming these principles, educators can counteract the drift towards an education system focused solely on social and emotional development at the expense of academic rigor and intellectual growth.
