Education, recent

Mediocrity for All!

It strikes me as ironic that in a realm like education, the lesson America’s scholastic visionaries never seem to learn is also the most simple lesson of all—that education should be about educating. Theorists persist in reinventing the wheel, sometimes with good intentions and sometimes in the service of agendas that are rather less defensible and/or wholesome than those publicly stated. Such is the case with the hottest currency to emerge from the pointy-headed precincts of pedagogical theory: social-emotional learning, or SEL.

SEL assumes as its mandate “the education of the whole child,” a lodestar concept among today’s educational brain trust. Though the approach has been gaining traction for about a decade, SEL is now poised for what is sure to be its flagship implementation. As New York mayor and erstwhile presidential candidate Bill de Blasio vowed in a recent article for Fortune, SEL is to be rolled out “in every classroom,” serving the 1.1 million school kids of the sprawling New York City system. The mayor goes on to describe a prototype for the plan: We glimpse a morning at a Brooklyn junior high school that begins with a town hall meeting at which students share their latest positive experiences and commiserate over their latest travails. It’s an anecdotal statement of de Blasio’s SEL-driven thesis that ‟[t]he emotional well-being of students is vital to their success in school.”

That sounds plausible enough on the surface, so let’s get a bit more granular. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), has emerged as SEL’s leading advocacy group, with friends in the highest of places, including at least two ex-presidents and the National Education Association. According to CASEL, social-emotional learning is:

The process through which children…acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.

By now one starts to get the sense that any points of intersection between this and hardcore book learning are pure happenstance. Similarly, browse the more expansive list of 15 SEL goals in this piece and you’ll be struck by the preponderance of the social and the relative absence of the learning. Not surprising, inasmuch as another popular SEL tip sheet deems it advisable “to incorporate SEL skill-building into academic instruction whenever possible.” As we move along, you’ll also notice how many of the phenomenon’s goals seem rooted in today’s social justice pieties.

In any case, it should be apparent that implementing all this necessarily presupposes some dilution of the traditional nuts-and-bolts curriculum—the diversion of finite class time to topics and methodologies that have nothing to do with mastering, say, long division. The gurus of SEL make no apologies for this. Rather, as de Blasio insists in his Fortune piece, “these are hard skills….just like reading and math, that must be taught, practiced, and strengthened over time.”

SEL’s unflinching emphasis on the so-called “non-cognitive factors” in cognition is bad news for all supporters of no-nonsense education—that is, the kind that doesn’t encourage students to devote class time to communicating their current emotional status to their peers via emojis, as has happened in some SEL implementations. For while New York’s mayor frames this as a watershed moment in education, we already have a compelling case history in what happens when education is reconfigured around factors extrinsic to schooling’s basic mission. The notion that an emotionally nourished “whole child” should be better at math than his less contented counterpart rests on the same spurious assumptions as self-esteem-based education, which proved such an unmitigated disaster in terms of measurable outcomes that by the turn of the millennium it was repudiated by even some of its loudest early voices.

Indeed, to some educational observers, this is déjà vu all over again (to quote the immortal Yogi Berra). As Chester E. Finn Jr., distinguished senior fellow at of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, argued in a controversial essay for Education Week, self-esteem education has not disappeared, but rather continues to thrive “across a broad swath of America’s K-12 schooling, supported by foundation grants, federal funding, and both nonprofit and for-profit advocacy groups”—except the name has changed “to social-emotional learning.” Educational theorists of the 1960s reasoned, based on pure supposition, that subpar academic performance resulted from subpar self-esteem. Ergo, they surmised, rectifying that deficit would pay dramatic dividends in overall educational excellence, especially among at-risk students. One major task force report “ascribed ‘near-magical powers to self-esteem,’” writes Finn, insisting that it “inoculates [children] against the lures of crime, violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse, chronic welfare dependency, and educational failure.”

But these would-be educational reformers encountered an immediate stumbling block: Any excellence that surrounded underperforming students might get in the way of the inspirational vibe administrators hoped to establish. It would do little good to sell the mantra that “you’re all winners!” if students could simply glance at their test papers or report cards, compare to those around them, and realize that they were plainly losers. So, administrators decided that they had to de-emphasize excellence in order to achieve the self-esteem benefits that would drive excellence. They regarded this incoherence as just a “temporary” concession to a paramount goal.

There ensued a wholesale celebration of mediocrity. Schools abandoned honor rolls so as not to bruise the feelings of those who failed to make the cut. Red ink disappeared from students’ papers as administrators mandated that teachers make corrections in less “stigmatizing” colors. Teachers were encouraged to recognize the originality and classroom contributions of so-called “individual spellers and pronouncers,” who for whatever reason couldn’t get the hang of orthodox spellings and pronunciations; this was especially desirable in cases where corrections risked treading upon cultural or ethnic sensitivities. Counselors championed pass/fail grading and social promotion, wherein substandard students, instead of being left back, were promoted to keep their friendship circle intact. Kids’ shirts and blouses became bulletin boards for a hodgepodge of ribbons and pins that commemorated everything but genuine achievement: effort, attendance, a cheerful attitude. Children in one lackluster southern school district disembarked from buses each day to be greeted by a full-length mirror inscribed: ‟You are now looking at the most important person in the world!”

In subsequent decades, it became clear that academic greatness is not what generous dollops of self-esteem promote. In 1963, the liminal margin of America’s national experiment in teaching self-love, there began an uninterrupted 18-year slide in SAT scores. But in that same period, the contingent of college-bound seniors who boasted an A or B average jumped from 28 percent to an astonishing 83 percent, as teachers systemwide felt increasing pressure to adopt more “supportive” grading policies. Tellingly, in a 1989 study of comparative math skills among students in eight nations, Americans ranked lowest in overall competency, Koreans highest—but when researchers asked the students how good they thought they were at math, Americans placed highest, Koreans lowest. (What the system had actually wrought were school-kids who believed the hype about themselves and took new pride in the same old mediocre performance.) Meanwhile, 1999’s omnibus Third International Mathematics and Science Study, ranking twelfth-graders from 23 nations, put U.S. students in 20th place, besting only such historic hotbeds of innovation as South Africa, Lithuania, and Cyprus.

The Brookings Institution 2006 Brown Center Report on Education found that nations in which families and schools emphasize self-esteem cannot compete academically with cultures, mostly throughout Asia, where no one worries much about cute emojis or  those ‟non-cognitive” factors. As psychologist and author Michael J. Hurd once told me, “Kids don’t feel better about themselves and then do better in school. They do better in school, then feel better about themselves.” Educational researchers also learned that those temporary relaxations in standards had to be institutionalized systemically after students who were shunted on to the next level couldn’t do the higher-level work, either. The fallout lingers: today, the number of incoming college freshmen who need remedial courses in order to handle college work hovers at an abysmal 50 percent.

There were unintended emotional and behavioral consequences as well, captured  memorably in a 2004 Alexandra Wolfe essay, “American Coddle.” Wolfe described a generation who, thanks to unending infusions of ego amplified by helicopter parents, have insufferable expectations and get damned cranky when those expectations aren’t met—kids who act as though they might never encounter so much is a speed bump on their journey to fulfillment everlasting. Other observers intuited even darker consequences. The work of psychologists Roy Baumeister and Jean Twenge suggests that the frustrated entitlements stoked by the self-esteem movement play a significant role in the rise of the incel community and mass shootings, and today’s epidemic of suicides.

More troubling still, SEL’s elevation of social behavior above all else makes it the perfect Trojan Horse for delivering indoctrination in social justice themes. SEL literature is awash in familiar references originating in academia’s activist wing, from talk of an “emotionally safe” learning environment to “culturally responsive classrooms” that honor the “primacy of group differences.” Other sections of the SEL canon seem to have been lifted, at least in part, from intersectionality and critical race theory. One Stanford white paper even uses the phrase ‟social-justice education” interchangeably with social-emotional learning.

This is a highly politicized vision of social progress indeed. And because teachers wield the power of the gradebook, compliance with such outlooks can be forced upon suggestible students. “Here we have government demanding that young people exhibit certain feelings and social behaviors, and if they don’t, their schools could be dinged for it,” SEL critic Wendy Pullman writes in the Federalist. “That’s not only manipulative but creepy.” So, when de Blasio writes in Fortune that children must learn to “embrace diversity” and “challenge stereotypes,” he is not using those words in their neutral, generic senses, bur rather to evoke the omnibus set of justice imperatives surrounding the righting of historic wrongs, the undoing of privilege, and so forth. SEL assumes that injustice has put certain groups at an almost congenital disadvantage, and seeks to build consensus for the idea that remedies must be undertaken.

This ethic is legible in the first major proposal to emerge from a task force impaneled by de Blasio to improve diversity in what is (improbably?) ranked as the nation’s most segregated school system. The School Diversity Advisory Group recommended eliminating New York’s “gifted and talented” programs as well as “selective admissions” screening for many of the city’s better-performing schools. De Blasio’s influential hand-picked education czar, Richard Carranza, cites the steps as necessary to achieve the regime’s full-throated commitment to an educational system in which, a decade from now, the typical school reflects the melting-pot demographics of the city as a whole. As it stands today, New York’s gifted-and-talented programs are overwhelmingly populated by Asian and white students (in that order), who also win the bulk of available slots in the magnet schools with demanding admissions criteria.

The task force’s plan harks back to the downwardly mobile thinking of the self-esteem movement, effectively penalizing superior achievers for creating the imbalances that so embarrass equity-minded mayors like de Blasio. The plan “solves” the disparity somewhat in the manner that thoroughbred handicappers make races fairer by forcing top horses to carry added weight. It is clear from de Blasio’s public statements that what he seeks is educational homogeneity: all student bodies basically look the same, all students basically receive the same instruction.

This is a common thread in SEL-inspired thinking: Everyone meets at the same level. Alas, except in exalted environments like MIT or Harvard Law, educational homogeneity seldom occurs at the level of excellence. Throw poor learners into a class to achieve a jury-rigged demographic balance and the teachers will have to teach down to lowest common denominator, lest they risk losing the lesser students entirely. One supposes that such tactics strike progressively-minded administrators as a relatively easy way of achieving a more balanced, equitable system. But why stunt the growth of the better-performing students who are the most likely spark plugs of the engine of American progress?

Beyond that—and just as unforgivably—what is the message to the minority children that these strategies are supposed to benefit: that in a meritocratic system, you can never hope to compete? What is the message to minority parents? That programs reserved for the “gifted and talented” cannot achieve a desired level of minority representation, so if we seek full integration we must scrap those programs as well as all criteria designed to assess educational readiness? There is no way around the implication that integration and excellence cannot peacefully coexist. Seldom has there been a more naked statement of the cynicism embodied in what George W. Bush speechwriter and policy adviser Michael Gerson dubbed the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

The better approach would be to invest meaningfully in the lousy schools that leave minority children so ill-prepared to compete. But that step is hard, costly and time-consuming. It is so much easier and politically expedient to make a grand gesture—simply doing away with programs and assessments that make minority children look bad. At its outer limits, SEL-based thinking opens the door to some truly bizarre curricula. Seattle, a historic hotbed of progressive-inflected education, has implemented in its public schools its Ruler program, a customized version of SEL. One manifestation is “Math Ethnic Studies, a K-12 slant on the “power dynamics” underlying arithmetic. Check out some of the topics listed here. Aside from wasting class time in a subject that’s difficult enough for some to master as it is, such coursework undermines the pursuit of an all-important STEM lingua franca by stoking suspicion of math and science…by blaming the tools for the misuse of those tools.

To return to where we began: Education should be about educating. When that mission is hijacked or distorted by extraneous or overarching goals, everyone suffers—most notably the innocent children who were the putative beneficiaries of your enlightenment. Yes, black Americans are still redlined and sometimes forced to pay exorbitant rent for dubious housing; that has nothing to do with whether they have sufficient math skills to properly balance their checkbooks after paying that rent. In the end, today’s “enlightened” SEL approaches seems guaranteed to offer (at best) justice for some, and mediocrity for all.


Steve Salerno is a widely published essayist and professor of journalism. His 2005 book, SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless, explored the self-improvement industry’s wider footprint in society. You can follow him on Twitter @iwrotesham


  1. “the education of the whole child” - aka, it’s not enough that he can add, he needs to love Big Brother too!

  2. This is very simple. Whether they admit it or not - and none do - everyone knows that they cannot increase general intelligence (IQ, effectively). But to ‘equalize’ students, they certainly can decrease the achievement of the best. That is what they have set about to do.

    ‘If our children can’t do better, then yours can do worse.’

    Of course, this entire effort has one source - low African American achievement.

  3. Excellent, but depressing, article. It’s hard to believe that ideological buffoons like de Blasio and his minions are wreaking havoc with the education of so many of our children. Both anti-science and anti-common sense.

  4. I understand the author’s frustration, however, at the same time, I do sympathize with educators that are trying to educate children that are increasing low on emotional awareness. Many, if not most of their students spend hours glued to screens, no longer sit down to meals with their parents, no longer attend worship services, and come from “child-run homes” in which they receive little discipline and/or pushback against their selfish urges.

    Additionally, I’ve seen data that indicates that people with high emotional intelligence quotients (EQ) tend to fair quite well in professional environments, especially in ones that aren’t especially demanding of high IQ. If I recall correctly, one such study indicated that EQ was more important that IQ in most fields.

    Conservatives might say this is part of a bigger agenda to push us towards a society that is ready and accepting of communist ideology. It seems plausible: 1) erode the family and religion’s power/ability to inculcate children with emotional maturity and moral responsibility; 2) replace ground lost with government programs design to indoctrinate children with a new homogeneous moral code that can be easily dictated by the State.

    While I don’t think that Progressives are being intentionally nefarious in this particular instance, I do believe that these programs do/are/and will ultimately lead us down a dangerous path. The more the government assumes the responsibilities of family, religion, and community, the worse off we will be.

    What is the solution? I’m unsure.

  5. In a couple of decades or so the Chinese and the Russians will simply walk into America and take over. We will be too stupid to even look up.

  6. If you had said: “I don’t think that every Progressive is being intentionally nefarious”, I would have found that credible.

  7. “Wolfe described a generation who, thanks to unending infusions of ego amplified by helicopter parents, have insufferable expectations and get damned cranky when those expectations aren’t met—kids who act as though they might never encounter so much is a speed bump on their journey to fulfillment everlasting.”

    Therein is the root cause for income inequality and so called social injustice, the undisciplined schooled that they are entitled to the same outcomes as the driven and ambitious. Some of these kids are going into deep debt trying to obtain the education public high schools denied them.

    Private school, the best investment I ever made.

  8. Perhaps government youth education camps isn’t the right way to educate your citizens for a free and competitive world. For a centrally planned, authoritarian type, teaching kids “go along with the majority” makes sense.

  9. Your skepticism is warranted, but I think you dismiss EQ a little too quickly. Let me give a personal anecdote that I’ve seen in one way, shape, or form in every office I’ve worked in over the past 20 years. I work in the field of engineering. The median IQ tends to be high.
    Right now, I’m working on a project that requires a team of engineers to work together. The lead engineer on the project is probably the least competent engineer of the group - in terms of actual design capabilities - but he has the highest position. Why? Because he’s conscientious and knows how to work with people. He knows how to lean on people, motivate people of differing personalities, organize meetings efficiently and, for the most part keep cantankerous engineers working together smoothly and on schedule. Of the department chiefs in my building, every single one of them has both high IQ and EQ. The engineers with low EQ get passed over for leadership positions because they just can’t navigate personalities. They lack empathy, sympathy, tact, and so on. They’re relegated to their cubicle to crunch numbers in their niche and the bigger picture (and often higher paying) roles are left to better leaders.
    In summary, if you have the median IQ needed to work in your field (be it retail, or molecular biology), good. But in order to truly succeed, IQ won’t be enough. You’ll end up needing EQ more and more the further up the ladder you go.

  10. What a horrible experiment to inflict on students. What kind of useless, mal-adjusted adults will this produce? It’s hard to imagine this isn’t the intention: produce masses of people incapable of competing in the real economy but well-versed in the oppression narratives that will allow them to shift the blame for their failure onto capitalism, meritocracy, and republicanism.

    Reading this back-to-back with the recent article on hierarchies, this corruption of the education system seems like it has roots in the rejection of hierarchies. I would have thought anyone who remembers high school would see the folly in treating all students as if they had the same natural abilities. I went to a high school stratified into three (in the latter years, four) levels, and the few classes where my level was mixed with the second-tier level were a nightmare. Disruptive students, dumbed down curriculum, bullying… My cousin was in the bottom-tier and in my attempts to co-ordinate with his teachers to tutor him effectively, I learnt that group was even worse, with very little learning going on at all. What is the benefit of subjecting high-performing students to this kind of learning environment? And of making low-performing students face their inadequacy by putting them in the same classrooms as the high-performing ones?

    The key to better educational outcomes is more stratification, not less. Putting students with their cognitive equals will do a hell of a lot more for their self-esteem than pretending everyone is actually equal. We can all sense our position on the hierarchy, no amount of conditioning is going to make students lose awareness of where they stand, but gaslighting them about it will breed unhealthy compensation strategies. Instead of wasting money on these new curricula, investment in a higher teacher to student ratio for lower-performing students would be effective. High-performing students can thrive in a classroom of 35-40 students, but those numbers are plain unworkable for low-performing students.

    The other thing that struck me was that the new approaches to curricula seem to aim to replace parents as the source of psychological nourishment. Putting aside how inappropriate that is for a government institution in a free country, it’s just never going to work. You can’t make up for problems in home life because no one at the school can care about a kid as much as his parents. There are teachers who make heroic efforts to, but love is just not scalable and transactional that way. As the author says, schools need to stay in their lane.

  11. There is a fairly simple and very specific example of how this sort of thinking harms children, and it resides in the difference between teaching phonics or ‘whole word’, for reading. First, it’s important to note that ‘whole word’ is vital for the 10% of the population that is dyslexic, and the 4% that is severely dyslexic. My mother the primary school teacher was perhaps ideally placed in her vocation, when her knowledge of children’s learning faculties led to a very early diagnosis of my brother, her son, at a time when educators were far less prepared to diagnose and take remedial action with children who are dyslexic.

    But in America, this method, so vital for some, is now taught to almost all children by default. This is incredibly harmful to the 90% of children who are not dyslexic. It stunts their reading potential at exactly the point in their education when they should be cramming as much information as possible into their tiny little heads, and learning a love of reading that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. Worse, it only exacerbates the divide between children from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and their wealthier counterparts. Parents in middle and higher income backgrounds can far more often afford the time to listen to their children read and help them ‘sound it out’. What’s worse is many more experienced teachers know that phonics are a better system, and many a wayward parent has been on the receiving end of a tirade from an irate teacher, for teaching their kid the ‘wrong’ method.

    The correct answer to the quandary of intellectual diversity, is to provide streamed and specialised education wherever possible, because unlike most forms of diversity, cognitive diversity is the most profound form of diversity of thought, and is hence most likely to be valuable, because of the unique insights and questioning which it can afford. But this desire for equality at all costs is damaging. It’s the liberal desire to enforce equality run amok, providing no benefit to the least fortunate, and intellectually stunting the rest- from the merely average to the intellectually gifted (although the latter will almost always overcome).

    And who does it harm the most? The poorest people, disproportionately from the very marginalised groups that the Left purports to support. John McWhorter has defined phonics as one of the four key changes that could improve the educational outcomes of African Americans. ‘Whole Word’ harms black people, more than anyone else- just like everything else that the Left-dominated educational establishment seems intent on inflicting on poorer people, from victim narratives to self-esteem building, from lax low-level discipline to a dislike of sporting competition in schools. Because the child of the wealthy white liberal parents, always has the resources of two well-educated parents, and a home full of books, to correct for the failings of a miscalibrated education-system. Others are less fortunate.

  12. Thank you Geary for your comments. The room full of books argument overlooks the genetic / hereditary side of things. Parents who provide their kids with loads of books are themselves bright and this is a more important factor in how the children turn out than the actual books themselves.

    A house full of books is strongly correlated with a hereditary intelligence component. Also bright kids will often like reading and the books will then follow. A desire to read in the child leads to books in the house in the first place as opposed to the mere presence of books making the child want to read. This desire is often innate. My parents for example could have given me loads of books. It would not have mattered as I would not have read them.

    It’s like saying a child doesn’t like people hugging him and being touchy feely with him because his parents never hug him . However maybe the parents never hug him because the child due to his nature does did not like to be hugged. Or alternatively the parents do not hug the child because they themselves are not that way inclined and naturally then the child would inherit such a disposition and would himself not like to be hugged.

  13. I actually think the percentage of nefarious progressives is pretty large, and growing daily. There’s some interesting thoughts about this in Douglas Murray’s new book. But the easiest way for me to think about this stuff is to decide if this is about helping some people up or pulling some others down.

  14. The cousin I mentioned in my last comment, who was in the dysfunctional bottom tier at my heavily-stratified high school, never did succeed in learning math, was kicked out for punching a retarded kid who spat on him, and never ended up finishing high school. He was just scrapping by in our heavily-taxed, over-unionized, industry-adverse home province of Quebec, but since moving to Alberta he is making fantastic money.

    It’s not for no reason people move to Alberta and not to Quebec for work: a business-friendly attitude means more opportunities for everyone. This is particularly true for those who are not cognitively gifted, who rely on a rapidly growing economy to provide skilled and unskilled jobs in infrastructure development.

    Saying the solution for those on the lower tier of the cognitive spectrum is to increase taxes, to make places like Alberta more like places like Quebec, is contrary to what we can observe the outcomes are for both business environments.

  15. When you say things like this, and your original complaint about the Trump tax cuts, it gives the impression you think taxes should go up. That is why I made the comparison between Alberta and Quebec: if anything needs to change for either of those two provinces, Quebec should be cutting taxes to resemble Alberta more, not the other way around.

    The only vote that affects business behaviour is with your dollar. You are free to “vote” for greater employee compensation by only purchasing from businesses that pay their employees to your satisfaction. Bringing in government to compel that by force doesn’t end well.

    As to why the people at the top “deserve” to become wealthier, it is because we collectively have chosen to give them our money in exchange for the goods and services they produce. Some of that they used to pay people to turn screws and push brooms, but the workers don’t truly “produce” anything. They complete a task they were instructed on how to do, using equipment and facilities paid for by the entrepreneur. It’s been a good deal for the worker: the amount of work time it takes to buy all manner of necessities and luxuries has fallen dramatically in the last 30 years (except things the government has meddled in, like university). We don’t want to mess with a system just because some workers feel entitled to claim profits when they don’t assume risks.

    Greta offers nothing but a call to panic, and that is the worst possible response to any situation. Climate change alarmism is really just advocacy for international socialism, not easily distinguishable from SJ.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

118 more replies


Comments have moved to our forum