Question

Abrams, Zara. “Teaching Social-Emotional Learning Is under Attack.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/monitor/2023/09/social-emotional- learning-under-fire. Accessed 20 Nov. 2025.



In recent years, social-emotional learning (SEL) has become one of the most debated topics in American education. While SEL has been part of schools for decades—under names like “character education” or “whole-child learning”—it is now caught in political crossfire. Lawmakers in several states have proposed bills to ban or restrict SEL programs, and some parents argue that SEL exposes students to controversial ideas that do not belong in classrooms.

At its core, SEL teaches students how to understand and manage their emotions, build healthy relationships, make responsible decisions, and work with others. According to Tammy Hughes, a professor of school psychology at Duquesne University, some members of the public have confused these goals with efforts to teach about critical race theory or gender identity, even though standard SEL programs are not designed to focus on those topics.

Despite the backlash, psychologists and researchers emphasize the importance of SEL for students’ mental health and academic success. Studies involving thousands of students show that SEL programs improve academic performance, reduce anxiety, strengthen peer relationships, and create more positive school environments. Research even suggests long-term benefits: students who participate in SEL are more likely to graduate high school, attend college, and have fewer legal or health problems in adulthood.

Still, criticism persists. Some parents and activists argue that SEL represents a “woke agenda,” while others believe it distracts from core academic subjects. These concerns have appeared at school board meetings and parent conferences across the country. At Albemarle High School in Virginia, for example, a freshman seminar that teaches SEL skills faced pushback from parents who felt such learning should be taught at home, not in school.

At the policy level, states such as Oklahoma and Iowa have introduced bills attempting to limit instruction related to self-awareness, emotional regulation, or perseverance—key components of SEL. While most of these bills have not passed, newer proposals that require heavy review of instructional materials or expand opt-out options could still restrict schools from offering SEL programs. Interestingly, national surveys show that the majority of parents—across political groups—actually support the skills SEL teaches. Over 90% of parents want schools to help students set goals, manage emotions, and approach challenges positively. However, many parents dislike the term “SEL” itself. Words like “life skills” are far more popular. Researchers suggest that using clearer, more familiar language might help families better understand what these programs teach. Despite political disagreements, psychologists warn that limiting SEL could harm students at a time when youth mental-health concerns, including depression and suicidality, are already rising. As Harvard professor Stephanie Jones notes, turning SEL into a political battleground risk hurting the very students schools aim to protect.

What is the author’s primary purpose in discussing both the criticisms and the benefits of SEL throughout the article, “Teaching Social-Emotional Learning is Under Attack?” (Second Source)

A.
To persuade readers that SEL programs should be permanently removed from schools

B.
To inform readers about the controversy surrounding SEL while presenting evidence of its effectiveness

C.
To entertain readers with a narrative about educational trends

D.
To argue that parents, not schools, should be responsible for all SEL instruction

Answer 1

B. To inform readers about the controversy surrounding SEL while presenting evidence of its effectiveness

Explanation: The article describes the political and parental criticisms of SEL and also summarizes research and expert opinions showing SEL’s benefits, indicating an informative aim that weighs both sides rather than advocating removal or entertaining.