By Joel M. Phillips and Kelsey A. Dalrymple
Social emotional learning (SEL) is under fire from both sides of the political spectrum. But clues for its future can be informed by its complex past.
Since the term SEL was coined thirty years ago, we have seen the adoption of SEL standards across the country, the birth of myriad SEL curricula and programs, and a large body of scholarship demonstrating SEL’s power to support academic success and positive behavioral change. This rise has not lacked criticism, and a growing number of scholars warn that SEL can be weaponized as a tool for control and conformity, suppressing the identity expression of Black, Brown, and LGBTQIA+ youth. Others argue that teaching skills such as conflict resolution and social awareness must include discussions around racism, power, and privilege.
Efforts to reimagine SEL programs in line with these critiques, however, risk increased censure from the political right. Conservatives have accused SEL of pushing a progressive agenda, brainwashing children, and acting as a Trojan horse for Critical Race Theory. This rhetoric has made SEL a divisive concept in many school districts and states.
When considering the history of SEL, discourse on whether SEL alleviates or perpetuates inequities is imperative. Those present at the ‘birth of SEL’ when CASEL was founded in 1994 were products of their own time and experience. Each emerged within a particular historical context shaped by racial and socio-economic inequity and discrimination. By taking the narrative back thirty years further, and considering their work and the work of those who influenced them, we can increase our understanding of SEL today and its possible future trajectory.
SEL is often cited as having its roots in James P. Comer’s School Development Program (SDP), which he developed in the 1960s. While federal money was directed into education programming under President Johnson’s War on Poverty, Comer recognized that many resulting initiatives were insufficient due to their deficit-based philosophy and no effort to bridge the cultural gap between the majority white educators and the minority non-white students and community. Thus, the SDP aimed to support the ‘whole child’ and to improve school climate by bringing school stakeholders together to make collective, data-driven decisions.
In the 1970s, educational programming mirrored the shift of President Nixon’s move away from supporting low-income communities to punishing perpetrators in the War on Drugs. As incarceration rates for Black, Brown, and other marginalized groups increased, the focus on school climate was eclipsed by programs promoting healthy and desirable behaviors, and eliminating undesirable behaviors. With the majority white culture defining what is desirable, these programs risked eliminating behaviors associated with, and exhibited by, racially and economically marginalized groups.
The 1980s saw the continuation and intensification of these political trends as the War on Drugs was folded into a broader War on Youth. The 1983 report “A Nation At Risk” foretold a dark future for the U.S. economy and national security unless the quality of education was improved. In the wake of increased pressure on test scores, record numbers of students were referred to special education services and removed from the general education classroom. Just like those arrested and removed from general society, there was an overrepresentation of racial, language, and economic minority children in these self-contained settings. Within this context, founders of CASEL, including Dr. Robert P Weissberg, Dr. Mark Greenberg, and Timothy Shriver, developed programs and curricula to promote individual social and emotional competence and prevent or reduce behavior and emotional problems.
As we currently find ourselves in the War on Woke and hotly contested debates on SEL throughout the country, various efforts have made progress in developing and exploring epistemically inclusive, indigenous, anti-racist, and anti-colonial forms of SEL that prioritize solidarity, social justice, and transformative change. The success of these efforts will be decided by societal priorities, public policy, and those in positions of power. The focus and scope of the pre-1994 programs that laid the foundation for what became SEL were clearly defined by the culture and political wars of their day, just as the latest heated debates are shaping SEL programming and policy in the present.
Will SEL programming splinter depending on political ideologies resulting in areas of anti-racist SEL and SEL deserts? Will the need to convince communities of the value of SEL programming result in a more community-based approach; a move away from one-size-fits-all SEL and closer to Comer’s original model?
About the Authors
Joel M. Phillips is an elementary school counselor and SEL coach with experience as an educator across multiple roles and educational settings. He endeavors to apply an equity lens and a critical eye to all SEL content he delivers. Kelsey A. Dalrymple is an educational anthropologist and scholar of international and comparative education with a professional background in education and humanitarian response. Her work and scholarship explore processes of knowledge production, systemic inequities, and pedagogies like social emotional learning with marginalized, refugee, and crisis-affected communities.
They are the authors of “The Complicated Rise of Social Emotional Learning in the United States” in the Fall 2024 issue of Harvard Educational Review.