Social and emotional learning schemes as tools of cultural imperialism: A manifestation of the international child well-being agenda?

Author(s):

Peter Wood(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research

Format:

Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

14 SES 07 C JS, Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives on Student Wellbeing

Joint Paper Session NW 08 and NW 14

Time:

2017-08-23

17:15-18:45

Room:

K3.24

Chair:

Ros McLellan

Contribution

Whilst interest in social and emotional issues is ‘clearly nothing new’ (Weare, 2007, p. 239), public debate concerning the well-being of children in Britain has intensified over recent years. Pressure from outside of Britain has gathered momentum since the turn of the millennium, when the WHO (1999) called for schools to create an environment where social and emotional development should be prioritised so that child well-being can be enhanced. The need for improved social and emotional well-being of children in Britain was further highlighted in a report commissioned by UNICEF (2007) where comparatively, across OECD countries, British children rated ‘their health as the poorest, disliked school most and were amongst the least satisfied with life’ (Blair, 2007, p. 12). One aspect of the UNICEF (2007) report identified specific weaknesses relating to the education system, where Britain fell into the bottom six countries with regards to how 11 to 15 year olds rated their enjoyment of school life and their judgments of satisfaction with the education they received. Although improvements have been reported in more recent UNICEF reports (see UNICEF 2013; 2016), there have been a spate of publications (see Palmer, 2006; Alexander and Hargreaves, 2007; Layard and Dunn, 2009; UNICEF, 2013; 2016) that continue to demonstrate concern pertaining to the ‘unhappiness and emotional ill-health amongst growing numbers of...young people’, in Britain, (Ecclestone and Hayes, 2009, p. 373). Indeed, such findings have led to calls for greater state intervention so that the well-being needs of British children are met, with an OECD report in 2009 calling for ‘Governments (to) continuously experiment with policies and programmes for children…..to enhance well-being’, (OECD, 2009, p 163).

Acting on these national and international concerns, subsequent British governments have utilised various education-based schemes as a vehicle to target the social and emotional well-being needs of its children. Such strategies include, but are not limited to, the ‘Healthy Schools’ programme, designed to promote a whole school/whole child approach to emotional health, and the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) initiative, ‘designed to support schools in promoting the well-being and learning of children and young people’ (Banerjee, 2010, p. 8). Whilst an aim of the international comparisons of child well-being, outlined above, is to illustrate how ‘performance in protecting children compares with the record of other nations at a similar level of development’ (UNICEF, 2013, p. 4), in this paper I explore some of the practicalities experienced by schools when implementing schemes that focus on child well-being. I make the case that the ‘discourses of emotions’ (Burman, 2009), inherent within the various supranational publications on well-being, are susceptible to exploitation by policy makers and practitioners alike, through the examination of data taken from a study that demonstrates how primary school staff members interpreted and made use of the SEAL initiative. Drawing on Goleman’s (1995) theory of emotional intelligence, Hargreaves’ (1995) typology of school culture, current notions of a ‘whole-school approach’ (Weare, 2007; Banerjee, 2010), and concepts within the interpretive paradigm, the study aimed to determine how social and emotional learning schemes, such as SEAL, were interpreted and utilised within primary schools. As a means of achieving this aim the issues captured in the following research questions were addressed:

1. What are the main motivations for using SEAL in primary schools?

2. How is SEAL being interpreted in primary schools?

3. What are the influences behind these interpretations?

Method

A mixed methods empirical study, employing three separate methodological approaches, utilising a combination of quantitative and qualitative strategies, was developed to explore the research questions. The three phase study was carried out in primary schools in a town in Northern England. Data was gathered from a range of staff members, including head teachers, assistant head teachers, senior management staff, teachers, teaching assistants, welfare staff, other support staff, administration staff and maintenance staff. In phase one, a 29-item questionnaire was employed to access the views of a broad range of staff members, in relation to their interpretation and use of SEAL, across the primary schools in the town. In total, 402 staff members in 38 schools took part in this phase of the empirical study. Phases two and three were carried out in case study primary schools sampled to achieve maximum variation. Consequently, four schools that varied with regards to culture, social class (categorised by pupil eligibility for free school meals), size, number of pupils on roll, ethnicity, religious character, and duration of SEAL use, were selected as cases. Phase two involved semi-structured focus group interviews with groups of management/teaching staff, non-teaching staff and, in two cases, a range of staff selected from the ‘whole school’. There were ten focus group interviews comprising of a total of 44 staff members across the four case study schools. Phase three was composed of 24 semi-structured interviews (six staff members in each case study school) that focused on the individual staff member’s perceptions of SEAL, and particularly their beliefs in relation to its use, function in the school, and impact. Using a mixture of ‘top-down deductive and bottom-up inductive processes’ (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2010, p. 17), the iterative approach adopted during the research allowed the data analysis process to be both exploratory and confirmatory. The findings and inferences reported here have all been subjected to a rigorous form of content analysis, where data collected from all phases of the research was utilised to illustrate the phenomena being reported. To achieve a certain degree of ‘descriptive validity’ (Maxwell, 1992), and to make my interpretations of the participants’ views as ‘valid’ as possible, confirmation of these interpretations were sought. With methodological and data triangulation achieved, the findings reported in this paper have been cross checked and validated with evidence from each phase of the research, and have been subjected to a re-analysis.

Expected Outcomes

In aiming to understand how primary school staff members interpreted the SEAL programme, this study established how staff judgements of the pupils, their parents and home-life influenced the operationalisation of the scheme. Assumptions regarding the pupils’ parents were especially influential, as SEAL was adapted and utilised in response to the schools’ value judgements concerning the quality of ‘parenting’ the students were assumed to receive. Staff members working across the case study schools often attributed blame to parents for the pupils’ ‘inappropriate’ social, emotional and behavioural skills. Specifically, the data illustrated a tendency for staff to blame certain groups of parents, particularly those from minority-ethnic and low socio-economic backgrounds, for their children’s ‘inappropriate’ behaviours. In response, staff members made use of SEAL to endorse behaviours deemed suitable to them and, in doing so, countered the endeavours of these parents. Consequently, the scheme and the school became prime sites of intervention with both exploited to encourage children to behave and act in specific ways. Yet, what was also clear was the reticence of staff to acknowledge the values of the children’s families and communities when endorsing these behaviours, which led to situations where schools were encouraging behaviours that were discouraged in the home. With reference to Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of cultural capital and in keeping with the views of Apple (2004) and Ball (2008) - that education helps to produce and maintain cultural hegemony - this paper demonstrates how SEL schemes have the potential to marginalise and/or promote certain values, norms and behaviours, thus becoming tools of ‘cultural imperialism’ that restrict ‘cultural pollution’ (Apple 2006). The paper concludes with calls for improved communication between home and school in order to guard against the marginalisation of social behaviours and cultural norms that are valued within the multiple realities that exist within children’s lives.

References

Alexander, R., and Hargreaves, L. (2007). Community soundings: First report of the Cambridge University Primary Review Group. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Apple, M. W. (2004) Ideology and the curriculum (3rd Ed). London: Routledge Falmer. Apple, M. W. (2006) Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, God and inequality (2nd Ed). London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2008) The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press. Banerjee, R. (2010) Social and emotional aspects of learning in schools: Contributions to improving attainment, behaviour, and attendance. A report on data from the National Strategies Tracker School Project. Sussex: University of Sussex. Blair, A. (2007) Britain’s children are the unhappiest in the world. The Times, 14th February. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood. Burman, E. (2009) Beyond ‘emotional literacy’ in feminist and educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 35 (1), pp. 137-155. Ecclestone, K., and Hayes, D. (2009) Changing the subject: The educational implications of developing emotional well-being. Oxford Review of Education, 35 (3), pp. 371-389. Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury. Hargreaves, D. H. (1995) School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (1), pp. 23-46. Layard, R., and Dunn, J. (2009) A good childhood: Searching for values in a competitive age. London: Penguin. Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62 (3), pp. 279-300. OECD (2009) Doing Better for Children. Paris: OECD. Palmer, S. (2006) Toxic childhood. London: Orion. Teddlie, C., and Tashakkori, A. (2010) SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (2nd Ed). London: Sage. UNICEF (2007) Report Card 7. An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre UNICEF (2013) Report Card 11. Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre UNICEF (2013) Report Card 13. Fairness for children: A league table of inequality in child well-being in rich countries. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre Weare, K. (2007) Delivering ‘Every Child Matters’: The central role of social and emotional learning in schools. Education 3-13, 35 (3), pp. 239-248. WHO (World Health Organisation) (1999) Creating an Environment for Emotional and Social Well-Being: An Important Responsibility of a Health-Promoting and Child-Friendly School. Atlanta: Division of Adolescent and School Health.

Author Information

Peter Wood (presenting / submitting)

Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.