Social and emotional learning is hegemonic miseducation: students deserve humanization instead

Camangian, Patrick Roz; Cariaga, Stephanie

doi:10.1080/13613324.2020.1798374

Cited by 59 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, because these values were pervasive and unquestioned, youth embraced them uncritically, and often to their own detriment. Camangian and Cariaga (2021) directly implicate standardized SEL in this systemic violence, noting that “[a]ny framework that focuses more on changing people’s maladaptive social and emotional orientation to oppression—rather than aiming towards transforming social conditions itself—is hegemonic because it anesthetizes the political will of people” (p. 3).…”

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, bringing DisCrit and other antioppressive frameworks to bear on such practices would be a good first step. Camangian and Cariaga (2021), who reframe the CASEL competencies through the lens of humanization to focus on knowledge (and love) of self, solidarity, and self-determination, provide a powerful example of this. As their work shows, 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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Clark

Chrisman

Lewis

2022

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Clark

Chrisman

Lewis

2022

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We focus our implications on psychology and the related fields of education and counseling, but understand that they are much broader than what we are able to discuss here. As scholars in the interdisciplinary field of education, which is heavily shaped by the discipline of psychology, we see psychology, much like education, at the nexus of oppression and liberation (e.g., Camangian & Cariaga, 2021; Tate et al, 2013). We discuss how each of the interrelated insights, when collectively engaged, offer possibilities for intervening in the psychology of violence generally and, more specifically, the violence of psychology .…”

Section: Implications For Psychology and Related Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calling our souls home: A HMong epistemology for creating new narratives.

Vue¹,

Mouavangsou²

2021

Asian American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article highlights the intersections of political and psychological aspects in the construction of HMong identity and knowledge in academic research. Specifically, in politicizing the psychological and bringing psychology into politics, we intervene in the dehumanizing and limiting representations of HMong Americans that inflict material, ideological, and psychological violence toward HMong Americans. Drawing on interdisciplinary theories, research, and our own personal narratives, we show HMong creative agency in self-construction and determination. We center HMong people as knowledge holders and producers to uncover HMong ways of knowing. Our conceptualization of a HMong epistemology is both theory and praxis and rooted in (a) life, art, and culture, (b) seeking coherence, and (c) spirituality. The article concludes with implications for centering HMong culture, identity, and experiences to construct new understandings of HMong and the world. What is the public significance of this article?This article suggests that HMong perspectives are necessary for advancing HMong inclusion and understanding in research, scholarship, and practice. Focusing on HMong lived experiences and voices offers possibilities for holistic, inclusive, and socially just theory and practice, especially in psychology and related fields.

show abstract

“…Theoretical work suggests that discipline reforms ranging from SEL to restorative justice proffer distinct notions of the meaning of care, who needs care, and why. For example, Camangian and Cariaga (2021) suggest that the ahistorical objectives of SEL reify existing, hierarchical power relations. Furthermore, empirical work on restorative justice (Davison et al, 2019;Lustick, 2017;Sadler, 2021), SEL (Gregory & Fergus, 2017), and PBIS (Bal, 2018) demonstrate that, in practice, such approaches can reify racial and gender inequity.…”

Section: Multiple Competing Policies and Discourses Of Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Caring in the Context of Discipline Reform: A Framework for Researchers and Policymakers

Beneke

2021

Educational Researcher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern about harsh and inequitable discipline over the past two decades has galvanized a host of discipline reforms. These reforms have gained renewed attention in recent months as both the COVID-19 pandemic and mass uprisings against anti-Black violence have both bolstered calls to reimagine schools as caring spaces. This moment raises urgent questions about how researchers and policymakers should understand care in practice. In this review essay, I draw together recent research on discipline reform, as well as care feminism and key insights from critical policy analysis, to develop a conceptual framework for centering “care” in the current reform context. Using this critical-feminist care framework, I highlight the relations, experiences, systems, and ideologies that shape care in practice. I conclude with implications for researchers and policymakers.

show abstract

Social and emotional learning is hegemonic miseducation: students deserve humanization instead

Cited by 59 publications

References 43 publications

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

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

Calling our souls home: A HMong epistemology for creating new narratives.

Caring in the Context of Discipline Reform: A Framework for Researchers and Policymakers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About