Reimagining Social Emotional Learning: Towards An Ecological Framework

Understanding Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

I’ve been diving into updates in the literature and recently came across The Complicated Rise of Social Emotional Learning in the United States (Dalrymple & Phillips, 2024), published in the Harvard Educational Review. The article traces the long and complex history of SEL, highlighting longstanding, well-conceived programs—like Head Start and Yale Child Study Center’s School Development Program. These initiatives drew upon prevention science and developmental research, echoing the systems-based approach I advocate for today.

However, there were also programs like DARE, which had a well-documented history of underwhelming results. In prevention science, it’s widely understood that telling people what not to do is far less effective than guiding them in what to do.

A Critical Turning Point

The Harvard Educational Review article helped me pinpoint a critical turning point: 1985! That’s when things started to go off the rails. Schools began targeting children’s individual assets—trying to build social skills and reshape kids’ inner worlds. We started overlooking neurological development and instead attempted to teach coping strategies explicitly, aiming to overtly control emotions. That same year, there was a push for creative conflict resolution among peers, which was super complex from an ethics and informed consent point of view. Social awareness and self-control became expected behaviors for young children—skills that often emerge later in life.

Much of this programming is conceived from correlational research showing links to these assets and positive life outcomes. However, correlation does not equate causation, and explicit instruction for social emotional wellness makes little sense to many psychologists and counselors, myself included.

The Influence of the 1980s

I was 12 in 1985, and thank goodness I seemed to have dodged those programs. But when you consider who was influencing mental health back then, it starts to make sense. I think about some of the influencers in the mental health space. The psychotherapy world was saturated with pop psychology and self-help. Primal scream therapy and encounter groups were still making the rounds! How do I know about these things? Some of those “hippies” trained me—they were my academic supervisors and mentors. Some of them were psychoanalysts, quite popular in 1985. They loved dissecting the individual psyche; it was their jam!

Also, the Oprah Winfrey show started in 1986! Everyone was analyzing everyone! So, maybe it makes sense that SEL was trying to analyze and clinically intervene with kids rather than addressing systems and societal issues.

And I am sitting here thinking, "Why did they start picking on the kids?"

The Shift in Focus

Instead of addressing chronic stress caused by societal neglect of kids' educational, medical, physiological, and nurturance needs, the focus turned toward the child as the problem in need of intervention. The “fix” for struggling children was to make them more socially aware, more sensitive, and more controlled.

Looking at the goals outlined in the Harvard Educational Review article, it’s hard to miss how SEL began encouraging children to mask their thoughts and emotions—emotions that were, in fact, shaped by the conditions they were living in. Programs launched after 1985 weren’t tackling root causes. They zeroed in on regulating the child. Notably, these interventions were disproportionately applied to children labeled “at risk,” especially in racially and economically marginalized communities. SEL became a tool to enforce “acceptable” behavior rather than nurture development.

The Role of CASEL

Another striking detail from the article was the prominent role CASEL has played in all of this. So I had to ask: what is CASEL getting out of it?

According to Microsoft Co-Pilot, in 2024, CASEL—a nonprofit founded in 1994—reported $11.7 million in revenue and $11.9 million in expenses. The organization receives funding from major philanthropic players, including the Gates Foundation, the Raikes Foundation, and the Salesforce Foundation. Their CEO in 2023 was making $287,785. With around 55 staff and broad institutional influence, CASEL has established itself as a powerful voice in shaping district-level SEL implementation.

The Political Tool of SEL

I’m left frustrated that SEL devolved into a political tool, much like decisions to restructure schools into middle school models or track students without heeding research. SEL initiatives seem to echo the same pattern—adopting social skills groups without evaluating disparities or real-world applicability. The literature and real-world application tell a story, but the practice continues, nonetheless, disconnected from best developmental and ecological thinking.

A Path Forward

Raising Moxie charts a path forward—one that reclaims a focus on emotional development by centering relational attunement, adaptive stress exposure, and developmental alignment. Instead of reducing emotions to isolated behaviors, our approach connects stress exposure and emotional capacity to real-world relationships, ecological context, and attuned adult leadership. Current SEL often overlooks these foundations; we build from them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolution of Social Emotional Learning has been complex and often misguided. The focus has shifted from addressing systemic issues to targeting individual children. As we move forward, it's crucial to reclaim a more holistic approach that nurtures emotional development and considers the broader context of children's lives.

References:

• Comer, J. P. (1988). Educating the whole child: The School Development Program. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 40–43.

• Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1999). Child development comes to school: The Yale School Development Program. Theory Into Practice, 38(4), 267–274.

• Dalrymple, K. A., & Phillips, J. M. (2024). The complicated rise of social emotional learning in the United States: Implications for contemporary policy and practice. Harvard Educational Review, 94(3), 337–360.

• Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 111–134.

• Demke E. (2022). The Vulnerability-Stress-Model-Holding Up the Construct of the Faulty Individual in the Light of Challenges to the Medical Model of Mental Distress. Frontiers in sociology, 7, 833987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.833987

• Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., & Haws, S. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84(9), 1394–1401.

• Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. A. (2008). Long-term effects of Head Start on low-income children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136, 257–268.

• PBS Frontline. (2002). Does DARE work? PBS Frontline

• American Psychological Association. (2007). DARE: Popular but ineffective? APA Monitor on Psychology, 38(2). APA Monitor