Before reading further, watch this inspiring video:
Since the 1970s, the US education system increased levels of testing, homework, and academic content (Lyndsay, 2013). During the same period, the traditional American (and Canadian) family unit of the 1950s has been evolving, and it would be very difficult today to argue there is a typical family structure. While diverse family structures are indicative of a balanced and fair society (especially in gender and ethnicity), in many cases there are side effects that educators have only in the last few decades uncovered. For example, the phrase “latchkey kid” arose in the mid-20th century when employment rates among women increased (the phrase refers to students under 14 years old who return from school to an empty home). These kids are more susceptible to boredom, loneliness, and poor lifestyle choices, compared to those who have a carer at home (Barlow & Durand, 2008). The effects on behaviour, depression, self-esteem and academics, are significant (for those students left alone regularly for more than three hours) (Mertens & Flowers, 2003). I was unable to find Canadian figures, but the US Census shows 6% of 10 year olds and 14% of 13 year olds are regularly latchkey kids (https://www.census.gov/sipp/sb94_05.pdf).
In her Master’s thesis, Lyndsay (2013) observes that “while family systems may be natural foundations of social emotional learning, their inherent variables and wide capacity range, make them inconsistent and unreliable sources of SEL.” Insofar as families instil SEL on their young, there is a widening gap between the competencies children need and what parents are able to offer.
SEL in the private and public sector
A 2015 study of 1,009 students by independent UK thinktank Demos found that “large numbers of young people – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds – do not have enough opportunity to take part in non-formal learning and are thus at risk of not developing key skills important for success.” (Birdwell & Scott, 2015). Furthermore, the Demos study highlighted non-formal learning as a key differentiator between private and public education:
Less than four in ten (39 per cent) of state school respondents agreed that their school provided enough opportunities for volunteering and social action compared with 70 per cent of fee-paying school respondents. There were similar differences for outdoor activities (49 per cent compared with 82 per cent), deliberative activities (40 per cent compared with 80 per cent [deliberative means debating, mock parliament and trials]) and uniformed activities (19 per cent compared with 42 per cent). (Birdwell & Scott, 2015)
What these findings show (perhaps unsurprisingly) is that SEL must extend beyond the classroom and home, insofar as non-formal learning equates to SEL. Students who fill their days with up to ten hours of meaningful activity within a tight-knit community are steeped in “key skills for success”. For public sector educators, this means students should be disincentivised from going home at 3pm to cocoon. There are, of course, many valid reasons that some students may not be able to take full advantage of extracurricular and non-formal activities. Educators can and should still do as much possible to identify and overcome socioeconomic and other barriers to participation in SEL.
Many students leave school without knowledge of their own identities, and social and situational awareness. Too often, educators force students to obey self-serving rules, to contain emotions and impose certain behaviours. Traditional learning is effective and has elements of pastoral and emotional care, and generations of students have been served well by it. Even prescriptive and disciplinary policies have a place in specific rare situations. But do top-down methods of controlling behaviour remain popular because they are effective in the short-term, even if their flaws compound over the longer-term? If this is the case, then the later years teachers and society are saddled with the long-term costs. In 2012, a UK Telegraph article reported on new legislation at the time which required schools to pay a GBP 4,000 levy per excluded (aka expelled) student (Evans, 2012). This supposedly represents the cost of finding a new school for the student.
I have never visited a school that didn’t have a code of conduct, inclusion policies, extracurricular and sports programmes. My practicum school (which is public sector) has vast poster-covered hallways and rooms, and a Boys Club (which aims to counteract the harmful individual and societal impacts of archetypal male stereotypes on school youth, a topic explored in the 2014 film The Mask We Live In). Yet none of the schools I’ve visited in the past has had a formal SEL policy. So – are schools failing to equip students with the hallmarks of SEL? Absolutely not. What they are neglecting to do is methodically evaluate social and emotional competencies and outcomes, and analyse how incumbent formal and non-formal programs are meeting such needs.
Lyndsay (2013) argues that “the acquisition of [SEL] skills should not be random, implemented only by progressive schools or consciously aware teachers. These skills are far too important to be left to chance.” If we as educators cannot measure (or even define) how “well-adjusted” our students are, how can we be sure they were provided the best school experience?
The teacher training landscape
The UBC BEd programme has lately put great focus on mental health, framing it in a similar light to physical health. For good reason:
Approximately 25% of students in schools will struggle with school adjustment at some point…and…as many as 15%–22% of students will develop serious enough social-emotional and mental health problems to warrant treatment. (Merrell, 2008)
Like keeping physically fit, becoming mentally healthy is a continuous process that takes effort, focus and knowledge. Unlike working out, very few in the education sector understand mental health and its implications on learning. Perhaps in response to that, UBC’s Faculty of Education offers a Master’s programme concentrating on SEL. In the programme website, it states that “SELD [SEL] is sometimes called “the missing piece,” because it represents a part of education that is inextricably linked to school success, but has not been explicitly stated or given much attention until recently.” (http://ecps.educ.ubc.ca/human-development-learning-and-culture/hdlc-graduate-programs/concentration-in-social-emotional-learning-and-development-seld/). The UBC BEd Primary programme offers an SEL concentration, yet I have had very little exposure to the subject In the Secondary programme. The lack of applied SEL training for future secondary teachers is, in my opinion, regrettable.
Healthy demand for SEL?
A California study of 13 students (half senior and half junior years) participated in a mini-SEL curriculum: “Through mindfulness, self- inquiry, self-reflection and group activities, the WE curriculum promotes self- awareness, self-management and social-awareness” (Lyndsay, 2013). The “WE curriculum [has] 22 lessons divided into three main categories: Discover Yourself, Connect With Others, Engage the World.” (Lyndsay 2013). The findings of this research were positive:
Although participation in the abbreviated WE program took place over a ten week period, it is important to note that the total classroom time students spent engaged with the material and each other, was just over three hours. The importance of their reported experiences [which was unanimously positive] underscores an unmet need for guidance in the social and emotional arenas of their lives, as well as, recognition by the students themselves, of its value in navigating a complex, rapidly changing world.” (Lyndsay, 2013)
While there was selection bias (13 out of 30 prospective students participated in the research), the findings are still valuable, in that over 40% of students voluntarily gave up their lunch hours for ten weeks to participate. In my view, that is substantial.
SEL for all
Students are often branded negatively when they don’t fit conventional educational expectations: for instance, they are called non-academic, disengaged, struggling or below average. Labelling risks perpetuating past outcomes. Students who are labeled as such really need to become proficient with social emotional competencies, to best navigate the way forward.
Likewise, the model student who is good at many subjects also needs these same competencies, if they are to make personal and career choices that fit optimally with their values and personalities.