Group vs Individual - Focuses on Common Good and not Independence

Social Emotional Learning

CASEL’s latest iteration of Social Emotion Learning (SEL), Transformational SEL (TSEL), places great emphasis on the collective over the individual. From their definitive paper on TSEL, Table 1 shows the progression of SEL over the years from Personally Responsible SEL to Participatory SEL to Transformative SEL.

My guess is that the vast majority of teachers learned SEL through the Personally Responsible variation, as it is advertised to be built on individual success, making it something that parents want and expect out of an educational framework. However, over the past five years or so, CASEL has embraced the Transformative SEL model and I am guessing most teachers and school administrators are unaware of this development. TSEL is a brazenly collectivist (aka communist) model, and its authors know that they are pulling a shell game. In the section of the TSEL paper that frames their view on citizenship (p164), they actually wrote the following:

“Transformative citizenship is the type most closely aligned with critical democracy, as it refers to actions taken to advance policies or social changes that are consistent with human rights, social justice, and equality. Such efforts might be inconsistent with or violate existing local, state, and national laws.”

That sounds kind of revolutionary, doesn’t it? Under TSEL, individualism fades as groups are identified and people are judged with respect to their group identities. When groups are ranked, there will always be hierarchies created. For example, if third grade math scores are categorized into groups based on race and then those groups are ranked, some groups will be on the bottom and others will be on top. SEL identifies and adjusts individual achievement expectations based on one’s group identity. Using this method, children who are struggling and need support are told they are achieving because their expectations have been lowered. Rather than empowering these children to be independent and teaching them how to overcome challenges, SEL teaches them to be dependent on the system. The more identities a child holds that rank low in the power hierarchy, the less accountable that child has for their behavior and performance. In fact, children in Grand Haven are now being measured on their growth in math and English skills. In other words, an entire grade level of students could be a year behind in math, but if they show growth, they are considered successful.

SEL discussions commonly focus on emotionally-charged social issues viewed through identity lenses such as race, gender, or socio-economics. For example, an SEL lesson may focus on the challenges faced by school children that do not have access to the internet. Students might discuss economic factors that contribute to a lack of internet access. This could include homelessness, single parent households, or living in rural areas. Then they may discuss what role responsible decision-making plays in creating equitable internet access for all. Perhaps greedy internet suppliers did not build infrastructure in rural areas because it was not profitable. Perhaps the government should install internet wiring in all rural areas. They might recognize that poor country folks need the assistance of wealthy city folks to have equitable access to internet. These students would then be encouraged to be socially aware of how they could make this situation more equitable, and take action that would lead towards providing internet access for everyone.

These discussions tend to silence alternative viewpoints. For example, if a student raises questions such as who pays or what is the proper role of free market capitalism, that student would be directed to consider responsible decision-making. In addition, that student would not be doing a good job with self-management because their innocent question could be considered a microaggression against someone who does not have internet access. They would be labeled as unkind, not empathetic, and the view would be dismissed.

Table 2 from the TSEL paper gives examples of approaches to the various forms of SEL:

The youth participatory action research (YPAR) of the Transformative model is lightyears away from the idea of skill development in the Personally Responsible model.  The paper (p.176), notes in regards to YPAR projects:  “The use of social science research skills positions youth as experts — critical consumers and producers of knowledge — about their lived experiences and of the required processes for bringing about desired changes.”  For the uninitiated, that is unmistakably coded language to say it produces political activists.

When you hear the phrase “Common Good” think Social-Emotional Learning. Ideas such as everyone needs to wear masks and get vaccinated for the common good are in-line with Social-Emotional Learning. Depending on the teacher, Social-Emotional Learning and its generative themes approach can be distracting to a lesson’s effectiveness at best, and can be considered unlicensed group counseling at worst, and when the SEL process outlined above is followed the conclusion of participants is always the same. They know that somewhere unfairness and injustice are occurring, and we must become active and ensure that the marginalized group receives justice.