When you鈥檝e been around as long as I have, one gets all manner of intriguing questions. While I usually respond to such queries in private, some seem likely to be of broader interest. So, in 鈥淎sk Rick,鈥� I occasionally take up reader queries. If you鈥檇 like to send one along, just send it to me, care of Caitlyn Aversman, at caitlyn.aversman@aei.org.
Dear Rick,
I read your column from last fall on 鈥淚s Petting a Guinea Pig SEL?鈥� In it, you criticized a lot of what gets done under the label of social and emotional learning (SEL). I understand that you were focused on the need to deal with bad SEL, and I take your point. But I didn鈥檛 see much appreciation for the body of research supporting SEL or the enormous value SEL offers when it鈥檚 done well. So, I guess I鈥檓 wondering, first, whether you鈥檙e anti-SEL and, second, whether you鈥檇 push back on the ideologues who attack SEL the same way you did on the 鈥渜uacks鈥� who are doing bad SEL?
Sincerely,
Mixed on Guinea Pigs but Pro-SEL
What a thoughtful question. It鈥檚 an important issue, and I鈥檓 glad to be pushed on it.
Let鈥檚 see, for starters, I absolutely did not mean to suggest that I鈥檓 鈥渁nti-SEL.鈥� In fact, I think SEL can be enormously valuable. Core SEL competencies like managing your emotions, maintaining positive relationships, setting goals, and making responsible decisions are important to success in school and life.
Heck, as and I back in 2019, SEL provides the opportunity to help 鈥渞ebalanc[e] an education system that in recent decades has focused overmuch on reading and math scores while giving short shrift to character development, civic formation, and the cultivation of ethics among its young charges.鈥� So, as for whether I鈥檓 anti-SEL, the answer is decidedly no. SEL has much to offer, and I think a number of the practices under the SEL umbrella are sensible and constructive.
All that said, there鈥檚 plenty that gives me pause about SEL today. As I suggested in the guinea pig column you alluded to, the SEL community needs to do better at policing itself. After all, as I last year, 鈥淪EL can be reasonably described both as a sensible, innocuous attempt to tackle a real challenge and, too often, an excuse for a blue, bubbled industry of education funders, advocates, professors, and trainers to promote faddish nonsense and ideological agendas.鈥� Those who approach SEL as a tool of practical, apolitical pedagogy should see that their efforts are undermined when SEL is also eliminating advanced math, subjecting students to 鈥減rivilege walks,鈥� or adopting practices that undermine school safety.
So, that鈥檚 my general stance on SEL.
Now, onto your second question: Do those critics who鈥檝e turned SEL into an all-purpose bogeyman deserve the same scrutiny I鈥檇 give to the pro-SEL quacks? Yes, they absolutely do. You鈥檙e too polite to say it quite this plainly, but you鈥檙e intimating that there is a whole strain of SEL criticism that鈥檚 caught up in point-scoring, politics, or unhealthy social media memes. And you鈥檙e right. This crowd鈥檚 over-the-top claims and complaints deserve the same tough love from serious SEL skeptics that guinea pig providers deserve from SEL enthusiasts.
Indeed, it鈥檚 fair to say there鈥檚 a whole thread of conspiratorial thinking around SEL, including assertions that it鈥檚 part of a grand conspiracy to brainwash American kids or help the Chinese Communist Party capture their intimate data. This stuff turns legitimate concerns into a caricature. That makes it harder to tackle real problems or even distinguish sensible SEL from the troubling stuff and, ironically, undercuts efforts to convince educators and the broader public that the distinction is one worth making.
In a very real sense, the serious SEL proponents and serious SEL critics are wrestling with the same problem鈥攖he challenge of fending off one鈥檚 鈥渇riendly鈥� fringe. Fighting people on the other side of an issue is one thing; fending off the charlatans, poseurs, and kooks who are nominally 鈥渙n your side鈥� is a trickier kind of challenge. But it鈥檚 a critical one for both camps.
