A Critical Approach to Social Emotional Learning Instruction Through Community-Based Service Learning

Abstract

The traditional teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic alone will not fully prepare students to lead with integrity, govern fairly, analyze problems, and work collectively with people different from themselves. Social emotional learning (SEL) has been described as one of the missing links in academic education, but a restrictive approach to SEL instruction focuses primarily on emotional and behavioral containment rather than development of active citizenry. Out-of-school programs that provide opportunities for youths to conduct community service learning projects, however, can be a valued resource for supporting critical social emotional learning and social political development. The Chicago Freedom School (CFS) is one such program. This article features the voices of youths’ ages 14–16 who participated in CFS during the 2008–2009 Freedom Fellowship, using content analysis. It also discusses future implications for school mental health professionals and SEL instruction.

Keywords

critical reflection experiential learning transformative education

Traditional schooling in reading, writing, and arithmetic alone will not fully prepare students to lead with integrity, govern fairly, analyze problems, and work collectively with people different from themselves. Nor will it satisfy public education’s “original mission of ‘civic virtue,’ the creation of citizens who are responsible to each other and their community” (Houston, 2008 as cited in Spring, Grimm, & Dietz, 2008, p. 61).

Since the 1990s, social emotional learning (SEL) has been considered one of the missing links in academic education. It integrates the relational skills needed to successfully manage life tasks and is necessary for educating the whole child (Elias, 2006). By 2011, SEL had gained such prominence that U.S. Representatives Judy Biggert (R-IL), Dale E. Kildee (D-MI), and Tim Ryan (D-OH) introduced bipartisan federal legislation to help students achieve in the classroom by improving social and emotional competence. If approved, the Academic, Social and Emotional Learning Act (H.R. 2437) would expand programming that supports skill development in problem solving, conflict resolution, responsible decision making, and relationship building (Biggert, 2011). These skills are categorized into five core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship building, and responsible decision making (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2005), and are noted as playing a critical role in achieving school success (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). However, a restrictive approach to SEL instruction focuses only on “measurement and remediation of individual deficits rather than a way to redirect educators’ focus toward the relational contexts of classrooms and schools” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 533). This article describes a more expansive and critical approach to SEL instruction that encourages youths’ sociopolitical development (SPD). It presents a qualitative case study of the Chicago Freedom School (CFS) and features voices of young people ages 14–16 that participated in the CFS 2008–2009 fellowship program. It also discusses future implications for SEL instruction.

Critical SEL instruction empowers and promotes students’ voices and is a method that engages youth in participatory decision-making and experiential learning. It further encourages parallel emphasis on the qualities of relationship that arguably contextualize skills and behaviors (Hoffman, 2009). Student voice involves learning through activism, negotiating a project, taking responsibility for the project, and seeing it through to completion (Gunter & Thomson, 2007). Initiatives that promote student voice such as community-based service learning can provide opportunities for young people to assume markedly different roles beyond planning school dances and fund-raisers. As young people are involved in talking about their concerns and interests, solving problems, and making decisions, they construct their own identities with the help and collaboration of adult allies (Nelson & Eckstein, 2008). Examples may entail working with a school administration to petition for healthier foods served in the cafeteria, or establishing a safety patrol for young people having to cross gang lines on their way to school. These processes can enable young people to meet their own developmental needs and strengthen student ownership of the change process (Mitra, 2009). Moreover, such initiatives expose young people to opportunities to develop sociopolitical competencies, youth-centered learning, and real-world application.

Mental health professionals, such as social workers have traditionally assumed seven areas in their expansive work in schools: clinician with individuals, family, and groups; community linkage; advocacy; interdisciplinary team coordination; consultation; needs assessment, and program and policy development (Costin, 1973). By embracing a critical approach to SEL instruction, these professionals, in partnership with teachers can encourage SPD through the empowering activity of community-based service learning. The following will proceed, as a beginning foray into whether or not community based service learning will make a difference in youths’ social development.

SEL and Community-Based Service-Learning

SEL is practiced primarily in schools. However, the CASEL (2005), a leading consortium in SEL research and training, asserts that what makes an SEL program effective is its implementation at multiple levels of intervention: home, school, and community (Devaney, O’Brien, Resnik, Keister, & Weissberg, 2006).

The ecological framework of home, school, and community considers SEL development to be a product of transactional relations between these three contexts. At the school level, classroom teachers, school social workers, and other pupil personnel introduce students to social emotional programming. Two exemplary programs offered to the K–12 population are the Michigan Model for Health and Lion’s Quest (CASEL, 2005). These programs encourage development of the five SEL competencies through the promotion of substance abuse education and prevention, and positive social behaviors. These programs also cultivate parental involvement through school-based meetings and planned activities. Based on their meta-analysis, Henderson and Berla (1994) concluded that the most accurate predictor of school success is the ability of the student’s family to create a home environment that encourages learning, to express high expectations for the student’s achievement, and to become involved in the student’s education in school and their community. In other words, constructing such a bridge between school and home promotes positive student outcomes.

Depending upon a school’s orientation, community engagement often manifests in the form of community-based service-learning projects. Community-based service learning (sometimes manifested as youth activism) is a participatory mechanism by which the SEL process can be actualized (Fredericks, 2003), student voices engaged, decision-making opportunities expanded, and sociopolitical views developed. School- and community-based initiatives that engage young people as active social agents often encourage them to assess community needs, participate in substantive decisions, and implement solutions (Golombeck, 2006), encouraging a current citizenry (where youth are engaged as decision-making contributors who can impact their world today), not just in the future. The meaningful contribution to a larger community through authentic engagement can help adolescents to combat rolelessness (feelings of disconnect and isolation) in turn promoting a positive self-identity, increased sense of self-worth, and enhanced self-efficacy (Chinman & Linney, 1998). Meaningful participation is considered a school resource, along with supports and connectedness (Furlong, Ritchey, & O’Brennan, 2009). Research has shown that youth’s active participation in their learning has a positive impact on their academic achievement. Friesen (2010) found in a 3-year study that students who were more engaged in co-constructing the classroom curriculum fared better on standardized tests than those who were in lower inquiry-based (disengagement due to lack of connection to meaningful real world application) school settings.

Service learning is an educational strategy that encompasses a philosophy of youth empowerment and assists young people in developing the assets needed for active citizenry. Student voice is an essential element of service learning and opens the door for young people to participate in decision making, which may stimulate a desire to become more actively involved in community affairs in the future (Morgan & Streb, 2001). Student voice is a required element of authentic service learning, but it is often not included in courses whose teachers claim they are practicing service learning (Morgan & Streb, 2001). In fact, Western society often caters to adolescents as consumers, rather than engaging them as independent thinkers capable of creating products of their own imagining (Schlegel & Barry, 1991). They have few experiences of “preparing, planning, executing, and assessing” in such an endeavor (Heath, 1999, p. 64). For students who do experience service learning, more examples of student-centered service learning are needed to counter the “missionary ideology” that often characterizes urban service learning (Price, Toole, & Weah, 2007). Missionary ideology refers to “one group trying to impose its ideas upon another group with little or no consideration of the group’s traditions, beliefs and needs” (Price et al., 2007, p. 3). This philosophy may manifest in working cross-culturally with groups of different racial, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. In contrast, research asserts that when young people are involved in service-learning projects with a high degree of voice and ownership, self-concept and political engagement improve and they become more tolerant toward groups of people with whom they do not normally interact (Morgan & Streb, 2001).

Theoretical Framework

This article uses a theoretical framework to create a more expansive approach to SEL instruction. The framework blends tenets of three approaches: Positive Youth Development (PYD), Critical Youth Empowerment (CYE), and SPD (see Figure 1). Mental health professionals partnering with community-based organizations can apply this framework in service-learning projects.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

PYD

The PYD approach uses a coordinated, progressive series of activities, and experiences to assist young people in developing social, moral, emotional, physical, and cognitive competence in their community (Barton, Watkins, & Jarjoura, 1997). PYD focuses on building healthy communities and on the belief that when young people are welcomed to participate in civic affairs as participants, not solely as recipients, they tend to experience optimal development. Through this approach, adults can be socialized to engage young people in roles beyond that of passive students, through meaningful service-learning methodologies. PYD supports an attitude acknowledging what young people are capable of doing at different maturational stages, versus what they cannot accomplish due to perceptions of psychological and biological immaturity or historical and socially constructed restrictions (Golombeck, 2006). Furthermore, PYD encompasses psychological, behavioral, and social characteristics known as the “Five C’s,” which are competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner, 2004; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Youth who develop these traits are considered to be thriving (Lerner, Lerner, von Eye, Bowers, & Lewin-Bizan, 2011). Jelicic and colleagues (2007) further assert that possession of these traits generates a sixth “C”: (to self, family, community, and civil community).

CYE

Expanding on the PYD characteristics of collaboration and connection, the CYE model emphasizes (a) equitable power sharing between young people and adults; (b) engagement of young people in critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes; (c) meaningful participation in sociopolitical processes to effect change; and (d) integrated individual- and community-level empowerment (Jennings, Parra-Medina, Messias, & McLouglin, 2006). CYE is a conceptual framework informed by various models of youth empowerment. Empowerment exists along a multilevel continuum with gradations between micro and macro systems (Labonte, 1990; Rissel, 1994). At a micro level, individuals build their capacity to address adverse situations such as oppression, discrimination, and marginalization by developing coping abilities, gaining understanding of their sociopolitical environments, and building collective relationships, with families, groups, and communities. At the macro level, these collective relationships foster opportunities for coalition building that promote collective well-being and mutual support to effect change (Pearrow & Pollack, 2009).

Within the CYE model, meaningful participation challenges the more passive youth persona and encourages youth-determined activities that foster critical reflection and action. Moreover, as young people gain the capacity to address the structures, processes, social values, and practices of the issues at hand, they become more empowered (Jennings et al., 2006). Adult allies who foster motivation, build capacity, and create opportunities via youth-centered efforts (Tolman, Davis, Pittman, & Irby, 2006) are particularly welcomed in this model. These adults help young people to visualize their role as activists in their communities.

SPD

Further expanding this framework, SPD promotes an understanding of the cultural and political forces that shape one’s societal status by emphasizing the acquisition of practical and analytical skills and emotional faculties to act within political and social systems (Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003). Critical reflection is required to help young people come to see and understand the very structures, processes, social values, and practices that they seek to alter. Community-based service learning is a viable approach to providing opportunities to engage in an integrated participatory cycle of critical reflection and reflective actions with the goal of creating change in sociopolitical processes, structures, norms, and images (Jennings et al., 2006).

The progression of SPD supports a more critical perspective of SEL. From an SPD perspective, SEL competencies are acquired through the progression of five critical stages (a critical, adaptive, precritical, critical, and liberation) by which young people attain awareness of injustice, oppression, their own or others’ privilege (or lack thereof), the social order that perpetuates privilege, and the need for liberation (Watts & Abdul-Adil, 1998). The final stage, liberation, is a culmination of youths’ self-acceptance, self-confidence, and social and political understanding, as well as the ability to play an assertive role in controlling resources and decisions in their community (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1998). Liberation is when young people not only experience the salience of oppression but also become involved in tangible and frequent social action and community development. Such activity promotes praxis: reflection and action, a quintessential sign of active citizenry and civic virtue. It is in the tug and pull of liberation that activists see the vulnerability of their oppressor, the effect of their own power, and their need for further development (Watts et al., 2003).

Bailis, Shields, Hennig, and Neal (2005) assert that K–12 schooling is only one educational format in which young people attain knowledge, skills, attitudes, and aspirations that support successful adulthood. Community-based organizations are also viable learning centers that promote these experiences but are often underutilized. The CFS is one such learning center where critical SEL instruction is taking place.

The CFS

A flagship of the CFS, the Freedom Fellowship program, is grounded in the tenets of liberatory education that links education, social justice, and activism, and seeks to engage and prepare the most disenfranchised members of society, particularly low-income students and students of color, to fight for a more just world (CFS, n.d.). This fight is put into motion through students’ (hereafter referred to as Fellows) participation in a 10-month program that begins with a 6-week Summer Leadership Institute (SLI). (There have been recent changes to the program; this article is based on the 2009 iteration.) During the SLI, Fellows are intentionally introduced to the first three stages of SPD via various consciousness-raising activities and experiences. At the close of the SLI, Fellows continue to receive mentoring from adult allies on their own activist goal plan aimed at promoting social change within their communities (CFS, n.d.).

Thirty Fellows, aged 14–16, were accepted into the Freedom Fellowship class of 2008–2009. In this Cohort, 66% of the Fellows self-identified as African American and 33% as Latino/Latina; 50% of the Fellows identified as female and 46% identified as male, with just fewer than 4% not claiming any gender. Sixty percent of Fellows lived in an urban environment and 45% attended public schools.

Prospective teachers applied for hire in the spring of 2008. As part of the SLI application, teacher prospects submitted an original course plan that followed the guidelines of the CFS sociopolitical perspective. The teachers who consented to classroom observations were racially diverse: African American, 33.3%; Latino/Hispanic, 22.2%; Caucasian/White, 22.2%; Asian/Pacific Islander, 11.1%; and Other, 11.1%. The majority (66.7%) of the teachers were female, and 33.3% were male.

Research Design

This study received Institutional Review Board approval to conduct a mixed-method study with the CFS. The initial purpose of the study was to investigate the experiences of young people located in a resilient community via survey, classroom observation, and focus groups, as they relate to traits of resilience. After receiving parental permission and student assent, a onetime survey was administered to the Freedom Fellows prior to the start of the SLI. Survey questions were adapted from a 2007 evaluation created by Loyola University’s Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL, 2011). The survey questions entailed: (1) Perceived impact on social change based on one’s racial identity, friends, community, family, ability, religion/spirituality, neighborhood, school, job/work, local government, student organization, and gender; (2) Resiliency: exploring sources of love and affection, encouragement to reach goals, and partners in social change activity; (3) Social Responsibility: items inquired of interconnection with other in the community, responsiveness to social conditions within the community, and problem-solving skills; (4) Perspective taking: items inquired of enjoying and valuing others who are different from respondent; and (5) Activism: items inquired of respondent’s ideology, experience doing activist activities, and frequency of certain activist activities.

Qualitative data were collected via classroom observations of various courses and instructors and from three focus group sessions, which included approximately one third of the Fellows (McKay, 2011). The focus groups and classroom observations were used to assess the Fellows’ experience (e.g., promotion of voice, choice, and empowerment), as well as the Fellows’ perception of their efficacy to generate social change in their communities.

Classroom observations were conducted in selected SLI classes, with eight classes being observed at least once. A range of courses was offered: (a) examination of the relationship between schools and gentrification/housing reform, (b) militarization of schooling, (c) the role of theater in social change movements, and (d) leadership skills for public action.

A research assistant and the author conducted the observations using a field form to observe the physical setting (seating, lighting, and temperature). Culture of the training room and methodologies were also observed. Observation of the culture of the training room documented the following: whether facilitators were sensitive to the group dynamics of the classroom; the type of ground rules set for the classroom; and students’ nonverbal responses concerning: participation, withdrawal, attendance, and initiative. Observation of methodologies focused on whether Fellows were engaged in the classroom by autocratic control or democratic design. An autocratic design supports a banking model of education or “teacher talk” (Shultz, Westerhof-Shultz, & Ragland, 2003, p. 216) limiting the student to concentrating only on the knowledge of the teacher, whereas a democratic design supports a more learner-centered environment in which the student has a voice in the learning process. Data were quantified in terms of frequency, that is, how often young people were engaged versus lectured to in the classroom environment. Lectures were defined as the absence of small group discussion and activity, and the dominance of teacher talk for the length of the session. Engaged was defined as the prevalence of student-centered activities (discussion, individual reflection, and class or small group activity). Of the 12 classroom observations completed, 10 engaged discussions versus two lecture formats were counted.

Fellows who completed the initial study survey were invited to participate in three focus groups. Incentives were offered (a US$10 Target gift card and a one-way bus pass) at the end of each focus group meeting. Three focus groups were conducted: October 2008, January 2009, and April 2009 with a convenience sample of the Freedom Fellows, each averaging slightly less than one third (8) of the Fellow population. During the off months when the focus groups did not meet, Fellows worked on their student-led projects and remained involved in CFS periodic trainings and consultative meetings. During this time, Fellows and adult allies were also asked to participate in a monthly blog concerning their relationships as well as the progress of the student-led projects. The blog sites, however, were extremely underutilized with only three entries entered during the 6-month tracking period.

Data Analysis

Survey Data

The survey responses were organized using frequency distribution of categorical and ordinal data. The sample size was very small, ranging from 26 to 29 completed responses. Responses were summarized as modes of the ordinal and categorical responses.

Qualitative Data

A content analysis was conducted for both the field notes of the classroom observations and the focus group transcripts. A compilation of the classroom observations provided a contextual image of the learning environment of the SLI. The physical setting of the classrooms was adequately lit with ample seating and comfortable room temperature. When one of the observed classes moved outside, youth remained engaged in the outside activity. Regarding the culture of the training rooms, initially students of various races did not engage with one another, yet later in the SLI students interacted across racial lines. Student engagement fluctuated with some students being more self-directed whereas others were more disengaged or needed teacher-led activities. For example, students were so playful with peers during the instruction breaks that it was difficult for them to refocus during the class session.

Most instructors utilized some type of media (film and speech) or engaged youth through a form of Socratic questioning about a topic. Instructors used visual guides, newspaper clips, or outlines to better explain the particular topic of session and youth were asked to respond to challenging questions about various issues. Small groups were also used as an effective mode to engage youth. Guest speakers were brought in to provide real-world experience (e.g., former military personnel to provide a critique of their military experience). Role-plays were also used to assist in student taking different perspective than their own.

The author developed the focus group questions in collaboration with the CFS advisory board (consisting of youth, CFS staff, and community members). Questions explored the presence of resilience assets such as caring relationships with and high expectations from parents, nonfamily adults, peers, and meaningful opportunities for youth to participate in their schools and communities (Krovetz, 1999). Resilience assets have been attributed to higher standardized test scores (Hanson, Austin, & Lee-Bayha, 2003). Examples of focus group questions, posed over the course of three focus group sessions, included:

What do you aspire for your community?

What skills do you have that will help bring this about?

What are the other supports that you think that you need in order to see your community aspirations achieved?

How do you handle conflict as it may relate to obstacles in implementing your social change activity?

Describe how your mentor has or could be helpful in assisting with this activity?

What obstacles have you experienced in implementing this activity?

How have you handled them?

In the primary data analysis, three theoretical constructs emerged from the qualitative data that relate to promoting a resilient community: (a) experiencing adults as allies, (b) developing positive youth outcomes, and (c) believing in the future (McKay, 2011). During the reanalysis of the same data, a priori coding (Weber, 1990) was applied to the data to explore the occurrence of critical SEL instruction, based on CASEL’s (2005) five SEL competencies. Revisions were made and categories refined as data analysis continued. For the focus group transcripts, a conceptual analysis procedure using selective reduction of relevant passages for further examination was used (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Further, recording units (Krippendorff, 1980) or repeating ideas were grouped together into categories, formulating themes. Data triangulation occurred via comparing focus group transcripts to classroom observation field notes, high modal survey responses, SEL competencies, and previously published constructs. Further analysis rendered an alignment of SEL competencies and previously published constructs as well as emerging themes, represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Triangulation of data.

Results

The frequency distribution of survey data rendered a wide range of responses, and the highest modes are noted here. For Perceived Impact on Social Change, 55.2% of respondents indicated that it was very true of having a strong connection to friends, 55.2% of respondents indicated that it was somewhat true that their neighborhood could create social change; 50% of respondents indicated it was not at all true that they had a strong connection to the local government. For Resiliency, 69% of respondents felt that they received encouragement from their families to reach their goals. For Social Responsibility, reversed coding revealed that 42.3% of respondents would prefer to present to a group, yet only 34.6% indicated that it was very true of having much to say about what happens to them, and only 34.6% indicated that it was very true that they think that they are able to solve problems in the their community (this seemingly lack of confidence appeared to wane later, based on focus group data). For Perspective Taking, 53.6% of respondents indicated that it was very true that they enjoy positive relationships with people different than themselves, and 64.3% indicated that it was very true that working with people different from themselves could bring social change. For Activism-Experience Doing Activist Activities, 58.6% of respondents had participated in a protest rally, and while 48.3% of respondents had not taken action against violence in their neighborhood, 65.5% were likely to do this in the future.

The reanalysis of classroom observations and focus group interviews resulted in themes addressing SEL and instruction: (a) experiencing problem-based learning, (b) showcasing my individual strengths, (c) becoming socially aware of others as resources, and (d) understanding the power of the student voice. The grouped themes are presented using the SEL descriptors (CASEL, 2005; IBSE, n.d.) in the theoretical narrative that follows.

Experiencing Problem-Based Learning

A facilitator began a lesson entitled, the Politics of Perception and the 2008 presidential election. The facilitator presented several visual images depicting how the media introduces bias through visual images, such as TIME magazine’s altered version of the 1994 mug shot of O. J. Simpson after he was taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. In the photo, O. J. Simpson’s face was darkened, and critics charged the magazine with racism, subliminally suggesting that a darker hue conveyed a more menacing or guilty appearance for the not yet convicted suspect. The facilitator prompted the Fellows to reflect on the media’s influence on perception of identity and character of people represented, and emphasized the power of emotions and how it sways the real issues of a debate.

The facilitator further engaged the young people in critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes. Two students (who participated in the inaugural Freedom Fellowship) were designated as coordinators for the SLI and given the same respect as the facilitator. A Fellow student coordinator led an activity. She posed questions regarding various issues addressed in the 2008 presidential election, such as the relevance of affirmative action, slanted media coverage, and the war in Iraq. Many Fellows were not politically aware, as indicated by the discussion and rationale for opinions. Most of their conclusions had been based on others’ opinions and not their own summations, and the facilitator encouraged the Fellows to explore on their own the topics that were presented in class, so that they would have informed opinions concerning the issues. Such a student-centered approach to learning defies a theoretical trajectory that solely supports a unidirectional flow from the adult to the student. Instead, young people have a greater opportunity to apply skills and attain knowledge.

Showcasing My Individual Strengths

The supportive climate of CFS, undergirded by a strengths-based approach of viewing youth development, promotes the use of communication and social skills to interact effectively with others (CASEL, 2005; ISBE, n.d.).

As the young people reflected on the SLI, evidence of SEL was revealed in their discussion. Josie said (participants’ names are changed),

I used to be scared of speaking in front of a large crowd. I find that easy now. They be like, someone give a speech at an assembly? And I’m like yeah! Let me get up there and talk, and I’ll talk for hours. It’s easy because it shows leadership…If you not speaking up, who else is going to do it?

Becoming Socially Aware of Others as Resources

The premise of the PYD approach and the CYE model promotes positive bonding with adults through equitable power sharing and encourages Fellows’ social involvement by creating their own student-led activist plans. This theoretical frame of youth work further promotes the recognition of student’s personal qualities and support, and their analysis of how positive adult role models and support systems contribute to school and life success (CASEL, 2005). Kiki remarked on how adult mentors can persuade other adults in viewing young people as more than just passive participants:

People can say you are just a kid, but having the adult ally following your plan with you, you have some sort of support from an adult. So it just kind of shuts that stereotype.

This theme also highlights the persistence of young people when they feel supported. When asked how he addressed obstacles to implementing his project, Tyrone asserted,

No, ain’t nobody stop me. It was a lot of people helping me.

Tommie further shares the experiences that he had with his adult ally in crafting his youth-led project,

They can help in a lot of ways to help build you up. They can keep asking a lot of questions that they know the people you will be going against will ask you. So, they help you, so you do not look like a fool. So they are saying, you need to get this, get that, they ask a lot of questions, and keep you on your game.

Understanding the Power of Student Voice

As depicted in the classroom illustration, Fellows were introduced to exploring the politics of perception and taking a stance on the issues. Jaime decided to have an effect on his school community because of his experiences at CFS. As an example of evolving through the critical stage of SPD, Jaime created a video that teaches tolerance and acceptance as it relates to his school environment and the practice of homophobia:

It’s a video response to a video that was aired at my school last year in which a kid in the video used the word gay with a negative connotation. And we made a video response [but] the school’s administration rejected our request.

In response, Jaime drafted a petition to give equal viewing time to show the video, collecting 500 signatures, and then submitted the petition to the principal. Still denied the opportunity to show the video, Jaime said, “[School officials] don’t believe homophobia is a problem at my school.”

Although the administration was not in support of this countervideo, Jaime was not dissuaded. He applied for a grant to create a documentary on homophobia and also facilitated two workshops outside of school concerning the issue. He further used the media as a way to inform others about homophobia and was featured on a local digital podcast program. His actions were a clear demonstration of recognizing individual and group similarities and differences; discussing stereotyping and its negative effects for both the victim and perpetrator (ISBE, n.d.); and explaining how individual, social, and cultural differences may increase vulnerability to bullying and identify ways to address it (CASEL, 2005). Moreover, Jaime’s actions reflect the onset of the liberatory stage in SPD through his meaningful participation in sociopolitical processes to effect change. Often young people go beyond the status quo, pushing the envelope for change and holding adults accountable to a myriad of “Character Counts” slogans strewn throughout school settings (Nicholson, Collins, & Holmer, 2004).

Social emotional development does not just mean managing emotions, but also empowering youths to move beyond the status quo. A more restrictive approach to SEL instruction may have shielded Jaime from experiencing this challenge. Challenge is an essential element of human development. It allows young people to actualize their potential by responding and adapting to adverse situations (Jennings et al., 2006). In addition, confining students to curriculum without opportunity for real-world application may support silos of disconnected knowledge and passive citizenry versus active participants in the advancement of knowledge. Joe shared this sentiment comparing the youth development organization to school,

They taught us what they don’t teach us at school and that’s a shame; because school is suppose to give you an education that will help you in the real world.

Limitations

As documented by the onetime survey, the small sample provided descriptive modal summaries at best. Further, it was not administered after the SLI and only reflects the Fellows’ initial thoughts about the items asked and a seeming proclivity to certain views and responses. Yet, in this beginning exploration of qualitative data, preliminary findings convey the reactions of youth who experienced a critical approach to SEL instruction through community-based service learning. Further, four themes identified from the results align with the development of social emotional competencies. This study, however, did not assess the youth’s application of SEL instruction to in-school activities and its impact on academic achievement. Comparative studies are needed to assess whether this critical approach to SEL instruction has a greater impact on youth school and life success than traditional SEL instruction.

Future Implications

Research

Connell and colleagues (2001) suggest that the long-term goals of community-based youth development initiatives must support young people’s life chances through the promotion of their economic self-sufficiency, healthy family and social relationships, and contribution to their community. Some vehicles by which these objectives will be met is through multiple supportive relationships with adults and peers; challenging and engaging activities and learning experiences; and meaningful opportunities for involvement and membership. Moreover, D’Agostino (2010) asserts that service learning predicts social capital postcollege graduation. Although social capital is not identified as an SEL goal, it may be a by-product of an individual’s ability to interact and manage relationships with others, glean the resources embedded within the social structures available, meaningfully participate in opportunities afforded by those networks, and gain social currency (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2008). This currency facilitates the exchange of valuable resources and opportunities within and across diverse communities. Future research should explore how schools promote social capital for students, particularly marginalized youth through SEL instruction.

Policy

Schools with adequate resources express their value of meaningful participation of students and active citizenry through their investment in service-learning, internships, and real-world application of knowledge. Unfortunately, many American public schools do not have the resources (financial or personnel) to provide community service-learning opportunities (Spring et al., 2008). At the time of this study, the CFS did not have a formalized partnership with the area public schools. As a stand-alone organization, the CFS supported the preparation of active citizens through the development of students’ sociopolitical consciousness. Although partnerships between schools and youth development organizations are often undervalued and underdeveloped (Anderson-Butcher, Steeler, & Midle, 2006), these partnerships could help bridge the gap that exists within schools that so desperately need resources to provide enriched experiences for students.

This author, however, is not naive to assume that schools and youth development organizations do not have differing agendas regarding youth development. In fact, Raji Swaminathan’s (2007) study of community-based service learning suggests a word of caution when pursuing such a partnership. Educators and community organizational staff must be in agreement with the purpose and process of the community-based service-learning activity. Assumptions regarding the experiences must be addressed, as well as the division of responsibilities and type of knowledge gained from the learning experience (Swaminathan, 2007). Further, mutual respect of each entity must be expressed so as to not co-opt the mission of the other but support the value of each organization in promoting the social and emotional development of the participating young people (Swaminathan, 2007). Further, as the differences between schools and youth development organizations are negotiated, these organizations could prove to be vehicles to bring about critical social emotional development. The promotion of opportunities that encourage the development of relational skills through the exercise of voice, choice, and meaningful participation may engage young people to become active citizens by making positive contributions to their world.

Practice

Public schooling often takes a rather conservative and narrow stance in regard to educating the masses (Thomsen, 2004), whereas youth development organizations often exercise more freedom with student’s SPD. This type of social development may appear to promote an adversarial posture toward the institutions that young people seek to influence. Yet, cultivating a spirit of activism actually supports problem solving and conflict resolution at the micro- and macro level (Males, 2006). According to Germain (2006), school mental health professionals such as school social workers should engage “the progressive forces in people and situational assets, and [effect] the removal of environmental obstacles to growth and adaptive functioning” (p. 30). There are several examples in the literature of how mental health professionals can use service learning as an innovative method of addressing SEL goals in a school group setting (Lantieri, 1999; McKay, 2010; McKay & Johnson, 2010; McKay, Sanders, & Wroblewski, 2011). As mental health professionals partner with teachers within as well as outside the classroom, students may experience an expanded approach to SEL instruction.

Conclusion

This article employs the voices of the Freedom Fellows to theorize how SEL may occur via the experiential method of community-based service learning. For the CFS, this process emphasizes meaningful participation and SPD of young people fostered by youth–adult partnerships. Such a transformative process may promote a prepared citizenry that leads, governs, analyzes, and works with a high degree of civic virtue, satisfying public education’s original mission.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

Special acknowledgments to the 2008–2009 Freedom Fellows and staff of the Chicago Freedom School for their valuable contributions to this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Author has received financial research support from the UIC underrepresented faculty recruitment funding program.

References

Anderson-Butcher

Steeler

E. G.

Midle

(2006). A case for expanded school-community partnerships in support of positive youth development. Children & Schools, 28, 155–163.

Auerbach

C. F.

Silverstein

L. B.

(2003). An introduction to coding and analyzing qualitative data. New York: New York University Press.

Bailis

L. N.

Shields

Henning

Neal

(2005). Profiles of community-based service-learning in the United States. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. Retrieved from http://www.nylc.org/sites/nylc.org/files/files/126CBOG2G.pdf

Barton

W. H.

Watkins

Jarjoura

(1997). Youth and communities: Toward comprehensive strategies for youth development. Social Work, 42, 483–493.

Biggert

(2011, July 7). Biggert, Kildee and Ryan aim to bring social learning into the classroom. Congresswoman Judy Biggert. Retrieved September 9, 2011, from http://biggert.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=22&sectiontree=21,22&itemid=761

Center for Urban Research and Learning. (2011). Chicago freedom school executive summary. Retrieved March 27, 2014 from http://loyolacurl.squarespace.com/projects/chicago-freedom-school.html

Chicago Freedom School. (n.d.). Youth leadership. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://chicagofreedomschool.org/initiatives/youth-leadership-development

Chinman

M. J.

Linney

J. A.

(1998). Toward a model of adolescent empowerment: Theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 393–413.

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence–based SEL programs (Illinois ed.). Chicago, IL: CASEL. Available at http://casel.org/publications/safe-and-sound-an-educational-leaders-guide-to-evidence-based-sel-programs-illinois-edition/

10.

Connell

J. P.

Gambone

M. A.

Smith

T. J.

(2001). Youth development in community settings: Challenges to our field and our approach. In Benson

Pittman

K. J.

(Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities and challenges. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

11.

Costin

(1973). School social work practice: A new model. Social Work, 20, 135–139.

12.

D’Agostino

M. J.

(2010). Measuring social capital as an outcome of service learning. Innovation in Higher Education, 35, 313–328

13.

Devaney

O’Brien

M. U.

Resnik

Keister

Weissberg

R. P.

(2006). Sustainable schoolwide social and emotional learning (SEL). Chicago, IL: CASEL.

14.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.

15.

Eccles

Gootman

(Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

16.

Elias

M. J.

(2006). The connection between academic and social and emotional learning. In Elias

Arnold

(Eds.), The educator’s guide to emotional intelligence and academic achievement: Social emotional learning in the classroom (pp. 4–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

17.

Fredericks

(2003). Making the case for social and emotional learning and service learning. Education Commissions of the States. Retrieved September 9, 2011, from http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/4404.pdf

18.

Friesen

(2010). Uncomfortable bedfellows. Teacher Librarian. 38, 8–14.

19.

Furlong

O Brennan

Ritchey

(2009). Developing norms for the California Resilience youth development module: Internal assets and school resources subscales. California School Psychologist. 14, 34–46.

20.

Germain

(2006). An ecological perspective on social work in the schools. In Constable

Massat

C. R.

McDonald

Flynn

J. P.

(Eds.), School social work: Practice, policy, and research (6th ed., pp. 28–99). Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

21.

Golombeck

S. B.

(2006). Children as citizens. Journal of Community Practice, 14, 11–30.

22.

Gunter

Thomson

(2007). Learning about student voice. Support for Learning, 22, 181–188.

23.

Hanson

T. L.

Austin

Lee-Bayha

(2003). Student health risks, resilience, and academic performance: Year 1 report. Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd, Health and Human Development Program.

24.

Heath

S. B.

(1999). Dimensions of language development: Lessons from older children. In Masten

A. S.

(Ed.), Cultural processes in child development: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 59–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Henderson

Berla

(1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Citizens in Education.

26.

Hoffman

(2009). Reflecting on social emotional learning: A critical perspective on trends in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 79, 533–556.

27.

Illinois State Board of Education. (n.d.). Illinois learning standards, social/emotional learning (SEL). Retrieved August 19, 2011, from http://www.isbe.net/ils/social_emotional/standards.htm

28.

Jelicic

Bobek

Phelps

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2007). Using positive youth development to predict contribution and risk behaviors in early adolescence: Findings from the first two waves of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 263–273.

29.

Jennings

L. B.

Parra-Medina

D. M.

Hilfinger Messias

D. K.

McLouglin

(2006). Toward a critical social theory of youth empowerment. Journal of Community Practice, 14, 31–55.

30.

Krippendorff

(1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

31.

Krovetz

(1999). Fostering resiliency: Expecting all students to use their minds and hearts well. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

32.

Labonte

(1990). Empowerment: Notes on professional and community dimensions. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 26, 64–75.

33.

Lantieri

(1999). Hooked on altruism: Developing social responsibility in at-risk youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 8, 83–87.

34.

Lerner

R. M.

(2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

von Eye

Bowers

E. P.

Lewin-Bizan

(2011). Individual and contextual bases of thriving in adolescence: A view of the issues. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1107–1114.

36.

Lin

Cook

K. S.

Burt

R. S.

(2008). Social capital: Theory and research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

37.

Males

(2006). Youth policy and institutional change. In Ginwright

Noguera

Cammarota

(Eds.), Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change (pp. 301–318). New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

McKay

(2010). Critical service learning: A school social work intervention. Children & Schools, 32, 5–13.

39.

McKay

(2011). The resilient community: Implications for out of school programming. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28, 357–373.

40.

McKay

Johnson

(2010). Service learning: An example of multilevel school social work practice. School Social Work Journal, 35, 21–36.

41.

McKay

Sanders

Wroblewski

(2011). Positive youth development and school capacity building. School Social Work Journal, 36, 16–25.

42.

Mitra

(2009). Strengthening student voice initiatives in high schools. Youth & Society, 40, 311–335.

43.

Morgan

Streb

(2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 154–169.

44.

Nelson

J. A.

Eckstein

D. E.

(2008). A service learning model for at-risk adolescents. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 223–237.

45.

Nicholson

Collins

Holmer

(2004). Youth as people: The protective aspects of youth development in after-school settings. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 55–71.

46.

Pearrow

M. M.

Pollack

(2009). Youth empowerment in oppressive systems: Opportunities for school consultants. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 19, 45–60.

47.

Price

V. C.

Toole

Weah

(2007). Moving beyond the “missionary ideology” to effective practice. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.

48.

Rissel

(1994). Empowerment: The holy grail of Health Promotion? Health Promotion International, 9, 39–47.

49.

Roth

J. L.

Brooks-Gunn

(2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94–111.

50.

Schlegel

Barry

(1991). Adolescence: An anthropological inquiry. New York, NY: Free Press.

51.

Shultz

E. B.

Jr Westerhof-Shultz

Ragland

D. J.

(2003). September 11 as a theme for a peace-oriented course. Peace Review, 15, 215–221.

52.

Spring

Grimm

Dietz

. (2008). Community service and service-learning in America’s schools, 2008. In Kielsmeier

J. C.

Root

Lyngstad

Pernu

(Eds.), Growing to greatness 2009: The state of service learning. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council, 13–26.

53.

Swaminathan

(2007). Educating for the real world: The hidden curriculum of community service learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 134–143.

54.

Thomsen

(2004). Positive youth development: If schools were like baseball teams! Reclaiming Children & Youth, 13, 80–84.

55.

Tolman

Davis

Pittman

Irby

(2006). Adult roles in youth activism. In Sherrod

L. R.

(Ed.), Youth activism: An international encyclopedia (Vol. 1). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 38–47.

56.

Watts

Abdul-Adil

(1998). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression: Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 255–272.

57.

Watts

Williams

N. C.

Jagers

(2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 185–194.

58.

Weber

R. P.

(1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

59.

Zimmerman

Rappaport

(1998). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750.