Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL). Donna Lord Black

users to compare the skills within each framework and across the different frameworks so they could then be connected back to evidence‐based practices. Since skills may be labeled differently across the various frameworks, the project was especially mindful of the need for clarity and transparency in defining the skills so that decisions about interventions and strategies could be better informed. In other words, through the work of the project, specific skills were identified for six different non‐academic domains, and the skills were then connected to those that may be labeled differently in the various frameworks. For example, under the cognitive domain, the skill of inhibitory control is identified as self‐management under the CASEL framework, but under the Building Blocks for Learning framework, it is identified as executive functions. Categorizing skills according to the six non‐academic domains allows the skills to be connected across the frameworks and eliminates confusion created by the various terms used to describe the skills. Consequently, practices can be better aligned with the scientific evidence that supports them.

      Consensus About SEL

      While the Taxonomy Project adds clarity and helps address some of the dilemmas in the field, there are individuals who have raised questions about the efficacy, legitimacy, and appropriateness of SEL in education. To be clear, many (if not most) educators have embraced the principles and practices of SEL and believe it improves learning and performance, while removing some of the barriers to educational equity in schools. These proponents advocate for SEL as a viable means of improving student and system outcomes. However, there are those who express doubts about the claims that SEL offers. There also are those who believe it to be more than an educational initiative, and therefore not appropriate in education. In general, opposing views of SEL can be categorized into two areas: (a) those in which the efficacy and legitimacy of SEL are called into question, and (b) those in which SEL is viewed as an ideological belief system.

      Opponents of SEL who are not completely convinced of its effectiveness or its research‐supported legitimacy respectfully argue that SEL advocates have not clearly identified what it is and have oversold the research. Given the ambiguity in defining what SEL is and the confusion over terminology (as previously discussed), these arguments are valid, but not confirmatory. The existence of a vast number of SEL frameworks has not helped dismiss the argument either. Although efforts such as the Taxonomy Project might help diminish some of the confusion, a certain amount of ambiguity will continue, so long as there are more than 100 SEL frameworks from which to choose. The prominent work done over the past several decades by organizations such as CASEL (2017), the Committee for Children (2020), and the Search Institute (2020), among others, has helped increase the understanding of what SEL is, and may also be helping to propel some of these frameworks to the forefront in education. Indeed, the CASEL framework has become the most widely adopted framework in schools during the most recent years. As more schools adopt a framework for SEL, the level of transparency will continue to increase, leading to a corresponding decrease in the level of ambiguity and confusion in the field.

Opponents of SEL also argue that advocates have oversold the research and are promoting SEL as the solution for all the problems in education, including the disproportionate achievement gaps, the disproportionate disciplining of certain subgroups of students, and the overreliance on standardized test scores. These opponents further argue that disagreements in the field over how to measure and assess the outcomes of SEL make it challenging to prove effectiveness. Proponents of SEL, however, counterargue that SEL is based on a body of educational research spanning several decades. In fact, Shriver and Weissberg (2020) point out that “the evidence supporting SEL doesn’t come from a single set of studies but from the coming together of many strands of rigorous research,” and “this research demonstrates that well‐implemented, universal SEL programming, both in and out of school, promotes a broad range of short‐ and long‐term academic and behavioral benefits for K‐12 students” (p. 54). Proponents further argue that SEL has not been driven by any federal mandates but has been “based on the emerging consensus of successful communities, convinced that this is the missing piece in American education” (NCSEAD, 2019, p. 8).

      Other arguments in opposition to SEL raise concerns about the adoption of SEL standards. Essentially, opponents of SEL believe these standards will become the non‐academic version of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2020) and that schools will be measured on how students feel and on students’ social behaviors (Gorman, 2016). Ideological opponents further argue that SEL is a “nationwide effort to develop government standards for kids’ feelings, social behavior, and relationships” (Pullman, 2016) and is nothing more than social engineering. Pullman (2016) likens SEL to a “liberal social agenda on race and sexuality” and states that “[it] is all about psychologically and emotionally manipulating children in order to push a certain political agenda.” Advocates for SEL contend that it is not ideological at all but is based on research and knowledge of strategies that support learning in a social context and promote healthy development. Advocates further argue that these strategies have proven far more effective than the traditional policies and practices that have long relied on blame, control, and punitive approaches.

      Clearly, there is much work to be done to gain consensus on whether social and emotional development are two critical dimensions of learning. While healthy and respectful debate can be useful and can lead to constructive results, there also is the possibility that the debate will become one that is less focused on the educational benefits and more focused on political and ideological issues. Indeed, it has been suggested that critics are “gearing up for another education war, one that could easily become as nasty, divisive, and damaging as the reading wars, the math wars, and—the mother of all education wars—the war between progressive and conservative philosophies of education” (Zhao, 2020).

If SEL is to be successful, there must be ongoing research and evidence to support its efficacy, along with a commitment to the hard work needed to lay a foundation for success and ensure implementation with fidelity. Evaluating outcomes of SEL must include a comprehensive process for collecting, reviewing, and analyzing qualitative and quantitative information, all of which can be undermined by inappropriate and incohesive data. Proven metrics and systematic methodology will be essential to the decision‐making process. Finn and Hess (2019) offer seven suggestions for avoiding pitfalls and delivering on SEL’s promise. A description of these suggestions is provided in Rapid Reference 1.3.

Rapid Reference 1.3 Seven Suggestions for Avoiding the Pitfalls of SEL and Delivering on Its Promise

      1 Slow down and focus on getting it right. While the need for SEL may be high, going fast may not be the best approach. Growing the program steadily and slowly will make it possible to focus on doing it wisely and well. A calibrated rollout can increase the likelihood of positive change.

      2 Be clear about what SEL is and is not. It can be tempting and much easier to build momentum and win allies by offering an inclusive or generic definition of SEL, but proponents need to make clear that SEL is not a replacement for rigorous instruction. Instead, it enhances instruction. It rests on legitimate research, and it is part of preparing students to become competent adults and responsible citizens.

      3 Make sure that character and civic education loom large in the SEL portfolio. The link between SEL, civic education, and character education is equally as important as the link between SEL and academic achievement. Promoting character formation and preparation for responsible citizenship should be critical elements of the SEL portfolio.

      4 Making schools safer is an appealing facet of SEL, so long as the transcendent point is student safety, not adult agendas. The goal of SEL should not be about promoting political and legal debates over discipline policy and practices, but should adhere to the goal of making students feel safe and valued. Strategies for doing this should be held to the standards of evidence, not to standards that are ideologically friendly or politically useful.

      5 Parental