Giving Compass' Take:

• In this Education Next post, executive editor Frederick Hess offers support for the general concept of social and emotional learning (SEL), but discusses reservations about executing it well.

• Which metrics might be best used when it comes to judging the effectiveness of SEL programs? Should funders proceed more cautiously?

• Another perspective: How SEL integration contributes to future success.

I’m entirely supportive of the premise [of social and emotional learning] ... And yet I find it a whole lot easier to think of all the ways this low-key, decentralized, likable enterprise can ultimately do more harm than good.

For one thing, SEL must be about helping children build the capabilities that promote learning and academic success; it cannot become an excuse to displace content instruction, burden teachers, or justify dubious pedagogy. I’m far from confident we can maintain that balance.

For another, there are a whole host of vendors, goofballs, and charlatans who have a program, intervention, or curriculum they’re looking to pitch as an answer to the SEL challenge — I’ve little confidence that schools and systems are equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff.

And, in a moment when many in education seem inclined to drape pretty much everything in ideological garb, I fear that schools will struggle to tackle sensitive dimensions of SEL without alienating many parents or tripping over the same cultural divides that laid low Common Core.

Read the full article about why SEL is easy to love, but has some flaws by Frederick Hess at Education Next.