(Un)Standardizing Emotions: An Ethical Critique of Social and Emotional Learning Standards

C. Clark, A. Chrisman, S. Lewis
{"title":"(Un)Standardizing Emotions: An Ethical Critique of Social and Emotional Learning Standards","authors":"C. Clark, A. Chrisman, S. Lewis","doi":"10.1177/01614681221111432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study took place within a policy context in which the state of Ohio, echoing moves across the country, adopted a set of K–12 Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) standards based in the work of the Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning (CASEL) and its core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. As one of the first states to make such standards part of the state reporting system for school progress, and considering recent critiques of the hegemonic, normative impacts of SEL, we engaged in a systematic analysis of these standards to consider how they affect and further exacerbate the systemic oppressions experienced by multiply-marginalized people in schools. Purpose: This article reports on the normative assumptions in the Ohio SEL standards, using critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the DisCrit tenets to engage in an ethical critique of the real and potential social effects of these standards. Situating these standards relative to existing scholarship on race and dis/abilities in school, we show how the Ohio SEL standards and the CASEL competencies ignore racism, ableism, and other oppressions; privilege civility over productive conflict; and focus on behaviors over emotions, especially when expressed by Black, Brown, dis/abled, and queer people. Research Design: This is a qualitative study whose data were derived from an analysis of the Ohio K–12 Social and Emotional Learning Standards and the CASEL core competencies. Conclusions/Recommendations: Our ethical critique of the Ohio K–12 SEL standards and CASEL core competencies demonstrates how benign acquiescence to their expressed assumptions may negatively affect the experiences of multiply-marginalized people in schools. By ignoring racism, ableism, and other oppressions; privileging civility over productive conflict; and focusing on behaviors over emotions, especially when expressed by Black, Brown, dis/abled, and queer people, SEL standards may undermine or erase the critically productive role that emotions have played in movements for social justice. If we truly want to prioritize the actual social and emotional learning of all students in schools, we need a framework that explicitly names inequities, allows for collective agency, and acknowledges and enables access to emotions. Making space for these emotions, although considered by some to be outside the “norm” of acceptable classroom behaviors, would allow all students to be seen for who they are, to truly express how they feel, and to create and take up opportunities, themselves, for social change and justice.","PeriodicalId":22248,"journal":{"name":"Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221111432","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: This study took place within a policy context in which the state of Ohio, echoing moves across the country, adopted a set of K–12 Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) standards based in the work of the Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning (CASEL) and its core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. As one of the first states to make such standards part of the state reporting system for school progress, and considering recent critiques of the hegemonic, normative impacts of SEL, we engaged in a systematic analysis of these standards to consider how they affect and further exacerbate the systemic oppressions experienced by multiply-marginalized people in schools. Purpose: This article reports on the normative assumptions in the Ohio SEL standards, using critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the DisCrit tenets to engage in an ethical critique of the real and potential social effects of these standards. Situating these standards relative to existing scholarship on race and dis/abilities in school, we show how the Ohio SEL standards and the CASEL competencies ignore racism, ableism, and other oppressions; privilege civility over productive conflict; and focus on behaviors over emotions, especially when expressed by Black, Brown, dis/abled, and queer people. Research Design: This is a qualitative study whose data were derived from an analysis of the Ohio K–12 Social and Emotional Learning Standards and the CASEL core competencies. Conclusions/Recommendations: Our ethical critique of the Ohio K–12 SEL standards and CASEL core competencies demonstrates how benign acquiescence to their expressed assumptions may negatively affect the experiences of multiply-marginalized people in schools. By ignoring racism, ableism, and other oppressions; privileging civility over productive conflict; and focusing on behaviors over emotions, especially when expressed by Black, Brown, dis/abled, and queer people, SEL standards may undermine or erase the critically productive role that emotions have played in movements for social justice. If we truly want to prioritize the actual social and emotional learning of all students in schools, we need a framework that explicitly names inequities, allows for collective agency, and acknowledges and enables access to emotions. Making space for these emotions, although considered by some to be outside the “norm” of acceptable classroom behaviors, would allow all students to be seen for who they are, to truly express how they feel, and to create and take up opportunities, themselves, for social change and justice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
标准化情绪:对社会和情绪学习标准的伦理批判
背景:本研究是在政策背景下进行的,在此背景下,俄亥俄州在全国范围内采取了一套基于学术和社会情感学习协作(CASEL)工作的K-12社会和情感学习(SEL)标准及其核心能力:自我意识、自我管理、社会意识、关系技巧和负责任的决策。作为首批将此类标准纳入州学校进展报告系统的州之一,并考虑到最近对SEL霸权和规范性影响的批评,我们对这些标准进行了系统分析,以考虑它们如何影响并进一步加剧学校中多重边缘化人群所经历的系统性压迫。目的:本文报告了俄亥俄州SEL标准中的规范性假设,使用批评性话语分析(CDA)和DisCrit原则对这些标准的实际和潜在社会影响进行伦理批评。将这些标准与学校现有的种族和残疾/能力奖学金相比较,我们展示了俄亥俄州SEL标准和CASEL能力如何忽视种族主义、残疾主义和其他压迫;将文明置于生产性冲突之上;关注行为而不是情绪,尤其是当黑人、棕色人种、残疾人和酷儿群体表达时。研究设计:这是一项定性研究,其数据来源于对俄亥俄州K-12社会和情感学习标准和CASEL核心能力的分析。结论/建议:我们对俄亥俄州K-12 SEL标准和CASEL核心竞争力的道德批判表明,对其表达的假设的良性默许可能会对学校中多重边缘化人群的经历产生负面影响。无视种族主义、残疾歧视和其他压迫;将文明置于生产性冲突之上;关注行为而不是情感,尤其是当黑人、棕色人种、残疾人和酷儿群体表达情感时,SEL标准可能会破坏或抹去情感在社会正义运动中发挥的重要作用。如果我们真的想优先考虑学校里所有学生的实际社会和情感学习,我们需要一个明确指出不平等的框架,允许集体代理,承认并允许情感的获取。尽管有些人认为这些情绪超出了可接受的课堂行为的“规范”,但为这些情绪腾出空间,将使所有学生都能被看到他们是谁,真正表达他们的感受,并为社会变革和正义创造和抓住自己的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pride Flags in Public Schools: Evolving Legal Issues to Consider “It’s Going to Go Beyond These Walls”: Toward a More Expansive Vision of Civic Learning Taking Seriously Campus Debates Surrounding Invited Speakers: Open-Mindedness and the Ethics of Inquiry in Higher Education From a Spark, a Mighty Flame: How Germinal Networks Support Teachers of Color to Promote Change in Activist Organizations and Beyond Avenues for Engagement? Testing the Democratic Nature of Library Book Challenge Processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1