Gleeful and Worried

gleeful and worried
gleeful and worried

Non-cognitive skills contribute to life success more significantly than cognitive skills. What does this mean for teachers? I've been reading recently about Social Emotional Learning, or SEL, and I am excited to share the following good news:

* SEL is positively related to increased academic achievement in school


* SEL is positively related to higher scores on standardized tests.

That is, strength in such "non-cognitive skills" as the ability to regulate one's emotions (to "self-soothe"), to plan strategically, to look at problems from different viewpoints, to set goals, and to get along with others influences academic outcomes. (Go here to read more about this connection.) This kind of counter-intuitive correlation -- I mean, being able to control one's impulses leads to higher test scores? -- might interest schools and, maybe more importantly, policy makers, encouraging more (welcome) emphasis on students' emotional and relational development.

But there's more. At the request of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), a big ol' report was recently published by the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College that looks at "The Economic Value of Social and Emotional Learning." Seems like a good thing to investigate, considering the academic value SEL appears to have. I can't tell you what a start I experienced on the first page of the summary (p. 3) of this report, where I read,

"[I]t is now becoming widely recognized that social and emotional learning in schools can be as important as or even more important than cognitive gains in explaining important developmental and life outcomes."

Feel free to read that quote again, slowly.

Hank Levin is one of the authors of this report. He wrote an article in 2012 that is cited in the Teachers College report in which he patiently reviews the evidence that the impact of cognitive skills on economic success is exaggerated. Further, he claims what apparently is "becoming widely recognized": that non-cognitive skills (SEL) play a large if unappreciated (in part because they are so difficult to measure) role in life success.

(Don't you love it when hard science and common sense converge on the exact same conclusion? Even if it takes science way longer to get there?)

As an opponent of standardized testing and a proponent of SEL, this good news makes me gleeful! So gleeful that I feel I must share some juicy quotes from Levin's article (all of these come from the second to last page of text, which is unnumbered):

"Far from being harmless, the focus on test scores and the omission of the non-cognitive impact of schools can create far-reaching damage."

"And the instructional strategies used to raise test results, such as test preparation, cramming, tutoring, and endless memorization, may have little effect on the broader cognitive and non-cognitive skills that people need if they are to perform as competent adults contributing to a dynamic economy."

"The obsession with the gap in test scores among races obscures the non-cognitive gap, which may be even more serious and a higher priority to address to improve various outcomes."

"A singular focus on students' scores on cognitive tests can also introduce instructional policies that ignore the importance of non-cognitive skills and fail to value the roles that teachers and schools play in developing students' non-cognitive skills."

BRAVO, Dr. Levin! As you can imagine, I especially love this last quote, as I am all about supporting teachers "in developing students' non-cognitive skills" (as well as, of course, their cognitive abilities). It feels fantastic to have scholars at the top of the field confirm this stance.

What is not yet "widely recognized," though, is the toll such labor can take on teachers and administrators. It's going to take some time, I guess, for researchers and other bellwethers who are just noting the value for students of SEL to step back and wonder about teachers' and administrators' SEL, their abilities to self-regulate and take different perspectives and get along with others. Just because we're adults, alas, does not mean we are experts in SEL! And even if we are highly competent socially-emotionally, that doesn't always protect us from the impingements of relentless, ruthless, needy students!

Just as teachers need to be adequate models of subject matter knowledge, they need to be models of Social Emotional Competence (SEC). Just as teachers need to be able to move freely within the conceptual realm of their subject matter(s), they need to be flexible and smart in the realm of relationships. Just as teachers are crucial to the development in students of Social-Emotional Learning, which can lead to a productive and fulfilling life, so do teachers need support in surviving the incredibly demanding role of Developmental Partner so they can at the very least avoid burnout.

I am gleeful about the status student SEL is gaining in schools! Yet I am worried about the unacknowledged and sometimes heavy toll teaching anything, SEL or otherwise, can take on teachers' bodies and minds.

But perhaps I needn't worry. Perhaps the toll isn't as great as I think it is (or as it was for me). I'd love to hear from you: What's the state of your Social-Emotional Competence? What social and emotional toll does teaching take on you? How much emphasis does your school place on teachers' SEC and social-emotional health? Are you gleeful? Are you worried?