
































Microsoft Word - Siegle (2022) Vol. 6(1) EPIGREP Layout.docx


1christopher.siegle@ucalgary.ca 

Emerging	Perspectives		
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca		

	

Equitable	Social-Emotional	Learning	and	Mindfulness:	Countering	

Systemic	Oppression	in	Secondary	Classrooms	with	Personal	

Practices	and	an	Empowering	Approach		

	Christopher Siegle1 
1 University of Calgary, Canada  

The Black Lives Matter Movement’s revelations and Canada’s Truth and 
Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action both challenge educators to 
critically examine the underpinnings of our classroom practices, including 
frameworks for social-emotional learning (SEL) and associated mindfulness 
practices. The claim is that these strategies positively influence student 
behaviour and readiness for learning. Proponents argue they advance equity, 
while critics contend that positivist perspectives instill dominant cultural 
values within both mindfulness practices and SEL frameworks. Using a 
research lens informed by hermeneutics, I analyzed interview discourse from 
five teachers in an urban, Western Canadian school board. Integrating 
perceptions of equitable SEL frameworks with current research literature, I 
found teachers approach SEL focusing on student deficits, maintaining 
implicit biases, and perpetuating systemic oppression. Notwithstanding, SEL 
frameworks, with mindfulness practices, have been positioned to promote 
equity. Articulating possibilities for an equitable SEL framework, this study 
advocates educators first practice mindfulness for their awareness, examine 
their motives for their approach to SEL, and incorporate SEL into a larger 
social justice framework.  

Keywords: social-emotional learning, mindfulness, equity, systemic 
oppression, hermeneutic 

Siegle, C. (2022). Equitable social-emotional learning and mindfulness: 
Countering systemic oppression in secondary classrooms with personal 
practices and an empowering approach. Emerging Perspectives, 6(1). 6-21. 

 
  In response to progressive calls to action, educators are now compelled to critically 
examine implicit biases hidden within classroom practices. Equity issues surfacing during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, Calls to Action by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission⁠—
especially after the discovery of unmarked graves at Indian Residential Schools across the country⁠, 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

7 

and revelations of systemic racism resulting from the Black Lives Matter Movement, each demand 
scrutiny of our participation with systemic oppression. As a white, male, cis-gender educator, I am 
complicit in perpetuating oppression via my perceived positionality, social identity, and unearned 
privilege. Adopted early in my career, mindfulness practices and, later, the overarching social-
emotional learning (SEL) framework, each require critical analysis.  

Relying on positivist evidence, I had brought mindfulness, and then SEL, into the 
classroom without previous critical examination of the practices and framework. What had been 
my intention for my classroom? What mindfulness practices did I select and why? What did I 
mean by SEL? Seeking strategies to support student well-being while also managing the 
classroom, I incorporated an approach built upon psychological and neuroscientific evidence. I 
introduced mindfulness techniques into the classroom by teaching meditation, boosting self-
awareness through intentional reflection moments, sharing skills with students while working 
alongside yoga practitioners, and, in a special education setting, collaborating with counselling 
professionals providing group sessions teaching deeper self-reflection. In the research literature, 
mindfulness incorporates diverse techniques, like those carried out in my classroom, that build 
“awareness that emerges through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and 
nonjudgmentally, to the unfolding experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145). 
Mindfulness, developed into therapeutic interventions free from the Buddhist elements that 
originally informed the practice, was a way to reduce stress’s detrimental impacts. In my 
classroom, mindfulness calmed and benefited students. This, in turn, inspired an expansive search 
for practices, beyond typical academic work, to increase student engagement. 

I incorporated trauma-informed practice inspired by professional learning provided by 
school authority. I perceived that mindfulness and trauma-informed practice shared similar aims, 
seeking ways to calm a stressed nervous system. Trauma-informed practice, however, highlighted 
additional deficits that students experiencing adversity might face, leading to a wider exploration 
of approaches supporting social-emotional development. Moving beyond mindfulness, I 
incorporated other elements of SEL such as utilizing self-advocacy and problem-solving 
curriculum. I also provided relationship skills training and encouraged perspective-taking for 
empathy. Sometimes explicit teaching moments but, more often, SEL informally responded to 
classroom issues alongside other, more academic learning. Other times, SEL addressed key skills 
supporting specific tasks, like group work. This discussion implies that mindfulness and SEL are 
discrete entities and, while they are treated separately in some research, mindfulness addresses 
self-awareness and self-regulation, two areas social-emotional skills within a well-respected model 
of SEL (Jagers et al., 2019). In this way, SEL existed as a framework for learning a set of 
relationship and emotional skills valued in the classroom. Mindfulness, on the other hand, was a 
set of practices explicitly taught to support two aspects within this larger framework of SEL. In 
this way, for my study, SEL is the  

process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply 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. (Jagers, 2016, p. 162).  
Conversely, SEL includes a diversity of approaches and unfortunately, lack of consistency often 
confounds its definition (Aldenmyr, 2016; Ergas, 2019; Humphrey, 2013; Hyland, 2016; McCaw, 
2020). Accordingly, I brought SEL and mindfulness into the classroom to support the development 
of deficient skills, supporting students' success. 
  



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

8 

After scrutinizing diverse sources, to my distress, I uncovered evidence that both SEL 
frameworks and mindfulness practices can perpetuate oppression, inequitably impact racialized 
students, promote compliance with dominant cultural norms, and that commercial interests 
commodify resources for educators, compromising the integrity of the approach SEL and the 
mindfulness practices. The current study, a deeper inquiry into the research, emerged from my 
personal review to answer the question: Can educators equitably engage SEL or does SEL cause 
too much damage in the classroom? Uniquely, applying a hermeneutic analysis to SEL, I 
uncovered motivations, goals, and biases of educators bringing SEL into the classroom. Below, I 
show, despite potential for perpetuating systemic oppression, SEL, along with specific skills of 
awareness developed by mindfulness practices, can advance equity, primarily, when teachers, not 
students, practice skills for self-awareness. SEL also advances equity when educators use the tools 
within a larger social justice framework creating spaces that empower students. Exploring when 
SEL perpetuates systemic oppression, I summarize literature-informed benefits and criticisms, I 
then weave together existing literature with a hermeneutic analysis. After analyzing and 
interpreting discourse, I address the study’s limitations, and provide guidance for educators and 
researchers to move toward equitable SEL. 

Background Information 
What are the benefits of SEL that proponents articulate? As a specific strategy for 

awareness and regulation aspects of SEL, what do supporters of mindfulness practices articulate 
as positive outcomes? Vocal proponents tout several benefits. First, proponents specifically of 
SEL state framework contributes to the establishment of classroom norms, helping educators 
manage classroom behaviour and build safe, respectful learning environments (American 
Psychological Association, 2015). CASEL, an advocacy group for SEL, notes that SEL 
decreases both distress and behaviour problems (Jagers et al., 2019). SEL also develops social 
skills, improves attitudes, increases academic performance, and enhances skills that support 
learning. As a specific approach to the process of SEL, a growing number of mindfulness 
proponents espouse benefits including increased academic success, enhanced social skills, 
reduction of externalizing behaviour, and improvement of relationships in school communities 
(McCaw, 2020). Lastly, proponents for both SEL and mindfulness cite outcomes like reducing 
stress, increasing self-management, improving attentional skills, and diminishing behaviour 
issues (Doikou-Avlidou & Dadatsi, 2013; Ergas, 2019; Hoffman, 2009; Humphrey, 2013; 
Hyland, 2017; Reveley, 2015; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). SEL and mindfulness draw 
educators hoping to create safe, supportive learning environments. According to proponents, 
both SEL and mindfulness hold promise for academic success and student well-being. 
 SEL also offers benefits for advancing equity. By integrating SEL with other 
transformative approaches, some scholars envision a counter to hegemonic structures, those 
structures of social control perpetuating dominant group ideology (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). 
For example, SEL increases compassion, enhances empathy, facilitates student empowerment, 
and encourages a strength-based lens within schools (Andolina & Conklin, 2020; McCaw, 2020). 
Further, weaving both SEL and mindfulness practices with social justice creates a framework 
promoting equity within school systems and can lead to systemic change by heightening 
awareness (Andolina & Conklin, 2020; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Hyland, 2016, 2017; Jagers et 
al., 2019; McCaw, 2020; Schlund et al., 2020; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Proponents of both 
SEL and mindfulness, alongside academic and wellness benefits, see benefits for equitable 
practice. 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

9 

 In light of so many potential benefits, what then are the concerns that have been raised 
about SEL and mindfulness? Detractors, particularly those from critical epistemologies—
“perspectives that recognize that society is stratified in significant and far-reaching ways along 
social group lines that include race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 
2017, p. xviii)⁠—question the influence of a SEL framework. Firstly, a SEL framework, including 
mindfulness practices, often views students with a deficit-based lens, focusing on knowledge 
gaps, performance deficits, or underdeveloped skills (Emery, 2016; Hoffman, 2009; Humphrey, 
2013; Hyland, 2017; Schlund et al., 2020). Secondly, a SEL framework pushes overburdened 
educators outside the bounds of the discipline into a therapeutic role—more like counsellors than 
educators (Aldenmyr, 2016). Thirdly, critics note that both SEL and mindfulness fail to bring 
systemic and environmental change for students facing adversity (Ergas, 2019; Gregory & 
Fergus, 2017; McCaw, 2020; Reveley, 2015; Schlund et al., 2020; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). 
In addition, commercial interests commodifying mindfulness practices suppress BIPOC 
perspectives; advance hidden, exploitive aims; and perpetuate western, individualist ideologies 
(Hyland, 2016, 2017; Reveley, 2015). Individualist, western ideologies centre around the idea 
that people are “free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate” 
(Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017, p. 5); that “group memberships such as our race, class, or gender are 
not important or relevant to our opportunities” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017, p. 103). Using a 
veneer of universal humanity consistent with western ideology and practices that produce calm 
individuals, mindfulness practices undermine diverse voices and silence opposition. Critics have 
contradicted benefits of both a SEL framework and mindfulness practices, raising significant 
concerns that both SEL and mindfulness practices work against equity promises. 

Methodology 
In this study, using a hermeneutic thematic approach, I analyzed interviews with educators 

implementing SEL and mindfulness practices. Hermeneutics is an interpretive approach that 
explores nuances of human experience (Gadamer, 1960/1989), uncovering hidden elements and 
interpreting teacher’s interpretations about SEL (Jardine, 1992; Moules et al., 2015; Shapiro, 1994). 
I began by selecting participants, interviewed participants, then carefully conducted analysis of the 
interviews. 

 
Participants 
 

Randomly selecting and sending emails to 36 principals in an urban, Western Canadian 
school division, I sought participants already engaging an approach to their classrooms that 
included SEL. I interviewed all willing participants who contacted me in response to information 
shared by supportive school principals. I conducted five, online, hour-long, and semi-structured 
interviews based on predetermined interview questions (see Table 1). While all five participants 
identify as white, two participants identify as she/her, and three identified as he/him. By 
coincidence, all participants worked in secondary classrooms. One participant had taught for over 
fifteen years, another for over ten. The remaining teachers had taught for under ten years. Three 
of the five participants had taught in different settings within special education, each supporting 
students struggling with mental illness. Preparing for the study, I collaborated with the Research 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

10 

Ethics Board to mitigate ethical issues through careful processes for recruitment, obtaining 
informed consent, protecting participant well-being, respecting participant privacy, and addressing 
my role as an educator within the school board where I was conducting the research. 

 
Table 1 

Interview Questions for Equitable Social-Emotional Learning and Mindfulness 

Research Question Interview Questions 

How might we understand what draws 

teachers to SEL in the classroom? 

What is your experience with SEL? 

How did you first learn about teaching social and emotional 

skills? 

How did you decide to teach social and emotional skills in your 

classroom? 

How do you talk with colleagues about SEL? 

How might we understand the benefits 

that teachers perceive when SEL is used 

in the classroom? 

How does your teaching of social and emotional skills impact 

students and teachers in the classroom? 

What benefits do you see?  

- For which students?  

- When do you utilize SEL?  

- What does it look like in your classroom (small groups, 

individual, whole class)?  

How does the classroom feel during and after teaching social and 

emotional skills? 

How might we understand the impact of 

power, privilege, and systemic or implicit 

bias on the practice of SEL? 

What role does SEL play in your classroom management? 

How does your practice of SEL change the way you interact with 

your students?  

- In what way? Can you give me an example? 

What kind of preparation have you undertaken to engage these 

practices?  

- Was there training?  

- Did you read a book, articles, or other literature?  

- What did the preparation address?  

- What was your role? Where did the preparation 

originate?  



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

11 

- How did you feel about the preparation? 

Are your SEL interventions targeted to specific behaviors, such 

as anger management, or do they reflect a general approach to 

teaching SEL skills? 

How do we know SEL is working and what role does assessment 

play in the process? 

 
 
I situated my analysis within existing literature on SEL, equity, and mindfulness. Searching 

the ERIC database, I obtained literature using the search terms: “interpret*,” “mindfulness,” 
“hermeneutics,” “constructivist,” “constructivism,” “critical theory,” “self-regulation,” “emotion 
regulation,” “social-emotional learning,” and “critical discourse analysis.” To ensure consistency 
with participants’ experiences, I excluded studies older than ten years, studies from religious 
studies classrooms, and studies focusing on elementary classrooms. Eighteen of the remaining 
sources included peer-reviewed literature focusing on classroom practice. Following the practice 
of scholars before me (Moules et al., 2015), I wove research literature into my analysis. 
 
Conducting Analysis 
 

I carefully approached the rigorous process of conducting this thematic analysis. After 
conducting interviews, I transcribed interview discourse by hand and then manually analyzed 
transcripts to form reasoned judgements, attending to elements that caught my attention and 
revealed meaning, speculating diverse interpretations (Moules et al., 2015). As a researcher, I 
listened for truth in participant words, ensuring I listened to the other, rather than my own 
perspective; I was a seeker of knowledge and understanding, not only empathy (Moules et al., 
2015). Grouping participant dialogue by themes, with my hermeneutic lens, I resisted producing 
themes as an analytic goal. I discerned meaning through conjectures of interpretations and 
reasoned judgements, choosing one interpretation over another to articulate a new understanding 
of equity implications of a SEL framework and mindfulness practices (Moules et al., 2015). My 
study explored implicit bias, systemic racism, and my positionality as a white male educator and 
their influence on approaches, like SEL, and practices, like mindfulness, in my classroom. The 
study examined participant dialogue for similar revelations. By nature, these hidden elements 
remain imperceptible in discourse but persist within a western worldview. Habermas illuminated 
hidden elements within discourse as he blended hermeneutic analysis with critical theory (Moules 
et al., 2015; Shapiro, 1994). Critical theory refers to “a body of scholarship that examines how 
society works…offer[ing] an examination and critique of society…guided by the belief that 
society should work toward the ideals of equality and social betterment” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 
2017, p. 4). In honouring Habermas’s infusion of critical theory, I incorporated self-reflection into 
my analysis. Through the distance self-reflection creates, I examined the sociocultural context 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

12 

underlying expressed language (Kennedy Schmidt, 2014). Finally, establishing the findings’ 
validity and reliability, I compared my analysis with insights gleaned from existing SEL, equity, 
and mindfulness research literature, (Moules et al., 2015). Analyzing interview transcripts and 
research literature, I became intimately familiar with discourse, critically reflecting upon 
background knowledge underlying dialogue.  

Although critical analysis has a diverse history across academic disciplines, applying 
hermeneutic analysis to both a SEL framework and mindfulness practices uniquely generates 
understanding of educator perspectives. Addressing a topic often explored from a positivist 
perspective, I did not seek to undermine “scientific knowledge in itself, nor relativiz[e] it, but 
[establish] a context of human understanding in which science occupies a significant space but not 
the whole space” (Moules et al., 2015, p. 37). Drawing on teacher perceptions of power and 
privilege, I interpreted participant perceptions of the SEL frameworks and mindfulness practices 
to uncover perspectives, expose cultural meaning, and explore hidden discourse elements (Jardine, 
1992; Moules et al., 2015). Consequently, analyzing teacher perspectives on SEL and equity, I 
observed “beings who are speaking out of traditions that precede them, using words that are already 
saturated in cultural meanings” (Moules et al., 2015, p. 41). Examining educator discourse, hidden 
or explicit, Habermas’s expansion of Gadamer’s theoretical frameworks, structured my analysis 
of the interplay between SEL, mindfulness, and equity. 

Interpretive Analysis 
 

Conducting my hermeneutic analysis, I found that, although teacher perspectives revealed 
problematic patterns perpetuating systemic oppression, an equitable SEL approach, with 
supportive mindfulness practices, is possible when we focus on educators first and when we situate 
the approaches and practices in a larger empowering framework. 

 
SEL Perpetuates Oppression 
 

How and when do SEL or mindfulness perpetuate systemic oppression? Interview 
discourse and research literature indicate the potential for perpetuating oppression when educators 
incorporate a SEL framework or mindfulness practices too informally, focus on classroom 
management, and when they focus on “helping” students. 

 
SEL as “social capital” 
 

Problems with a SEL framework emerged when educators applied an unplanned, informal 
fashion. All participants sought guidance for a SEL framework through personal experience, 
scrolling through websites, addressing personal well-being, or from attending teachers’ convention 
sessions. There were some differences in the approach that participants took for SEL in their 
classrooms. Participants speaking from special education experience articulated more structured 
approaches to SEL than those speaking from experience in a traditional classroom. Firstly, 
participants with special education experience cited small group conversations, structured lessons, 
or specific interventions targeting student needs. Similarly, participants from a special education 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

13 

background learned about SEL and mindfulness from system supports or school administrators. 
Despite differences, there was consistency in the framework participants used to guide their 
approach to SEL. A clear finding was that positivist literature guided the SEL framework 
participants embraced. Professional development on SEL relied heavily upon neuroscience, with 
four of the five participants acknowledging neuroscientists informing their approach to SEL taken 
in the classroom. Participants identified: Dr. Bruce Perry’s (2006), Neuro-Sequential Model of 
Therapeutics; Blaustein and Kinniburgh’s (2010) Attachment, Regulation, Competency model; the 
Adverse Childhood Experiences research outlined by a CDC-Kaiser Permanente (1998) study 
popularized in Dr. Nadine Burke Harris’s TED talk (2015); and a Brain Architecture Game (2009), 
informed by Dr. Judy Cameron. Correspondingly, Hoffman (2009) acknowledges emerging 
neuroscience proliferating within SEL curriculum. Alongside neuroscience, psychological 
research drove the participant’s approach to SEL, with one participant highlighting Howard 
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (1983) theory, another identifying Daniel Goleman’s Emotional 
Intelligence (1995), a third Ross Green’s Collaborative Problem-Solving (2010) approach. While 
diverse sources informed approaches to SEL, positivist perspectives influenced all participants. 

Citing either neuroscience or psychology, participants mentioned diverse practices focused 
on building growth, coping, empathy, awareness, problem-solving, and social skills. Accordingly, 
participants also spoke to specific mindfulness techniques within a broader SEL framework. 
Positivist perspectives infused both SEL and mindfulness with individualist references: “self-
esteem,” “self-advocacy,” “self-regulation,” “self-awareness,” “self-reflection,” self-preservation,” 
“self-determination,” “self-management,” and “self-understanding.” Participants each embraced 
mindfulness and, more broadly, SEL to support students coping with adversity from complex life 
circumstances. Unfortunately, both SEL and mindfulness miss the mark as focusing on developing 
an individual’s skills fails to shift ecological and oppressive forces (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; 
Hoffman, 2009; McCaw, 2020). Congruent with participant experience, researchers’ critique both 
SEL frameworks and mindfulness practices for perpetuating hegemonic, positivist, middle-class 
values (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Humphrey, 2013; Hyland, 2016; Schlund et al., 2020; Sellman 
& Buttarazzi, 2020). Additionally, despite broader efforts decolonizing psychological 
interventions, participants seeking resources outside a Western worldview, such as Indigenous 
Perspectives contained within Bendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Beckern’s (1990) Circle of Courage, 
counteracted their own efforts by amending resources using an “individualized” approach, 
applying a colonial lens to non-colonial ways of knowing. Participant discourse, combined with 
research literature, revealed foundational positivist perspectives emphasizing self. 

Discourse of educators about their SEL framework or mindfulness practices revealed 
additional impacts on classroom culture. Participants used consumerist words like “buy-in” and 
“social capital,” although these terms one participant labelled “icky” and said made them feel 
uncomfortable. Emphasis on economic terms corresponded with troubling aspects of both SEL 
and mindfulness in research literature. Firstly, commercial interests commodifying curriculum 
infuse mindfulness with capitalist bias (Hyland, 2017; Reveley, 2015; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). 
Furthermore, a SEL framework or mindfulness practices, by reducing negative impacts, 
complicitly exploit young people, normalize oppressive capitalist systems, and disguise damaging 
consequences of students’ prolific social media consumption (Ergas, 2019; Hyland, 2017; McCaw, 
2020; Reveley, 2015; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Participant perspectives and research literature 
highlighted how, left to their own devices, educators rely on hegemonic, readily available 
resources that perpetuate oppression. 

 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

14 

SEL as a disguise 
 

The reasons educators employ SEL also led to an inequitable framework. Ambivalent about 
their roles, participants sought student compliance with system expectations while also facilitating 
classroom community. SEL becomes a way to bridge ambivalence; participants framed 
compliance around enhancing student progress. Strikingly, one participant placed high value on 
“expectations”, referencing the word thirty times. Conversely, another participant altered phrasing 
to suggest students entering the “learning and growth zone” still insinuating classroom 
expectations. Participants judged an approach SEL beneficial when it enabled student compliance 
by increasing attendance, decreasing swearing, reducing classroom incidents, increasing school 
engagement, and facilitating greater student work completion. Similarly, scholars note that SEL 
becomes a tool for measuring conformity, hiding this desire in positive, strength-based language 
(Humphrey, 2013). Participant discourse and research literature both exposed SEL employing 
positive language to couch educators’ desire for compliance. 

Interview discourse and research literature highlighted how educators came to view student 
experiences. Conveying an emotionality while discussing unpleasant experiences, participants’ 
awkward constructions highlighted unease with strength-based phrasing. Firstly, participants 
paired “behaviour” with emotionally charged words like: “bad,” “other,” “trouble,” “problem,” 
and “challenging.” Secondly, echoing emotionally charged sentiments, participants spoke to 
students with “issues,” and “difficulties.” More subtly participants referred to students as “lively,” 
“boisterous,” and “struggling with social cues.” Notably, scholars recognized similar language 
patterns when educators targeted student skill deficits with SEL (Emery, 2016; Hoffman, 2009). 
Language patterns exposed a deficit model focusing on challenges emerging from the child (Emery, 
2016) or societal failure to develop emotional literacy, particularly among boys (Hoffman, 2009; 
Schlund et al., 2020). Nevertheless, participants spoke hopefully that SEL would increase student 
regulation, leading students to overcome challenges by engaging problem-solving skills. 
Accordingly, SEL appears as a positive spin upon older, deficit-based interventions (Humphrey, 
2013).  

Some language patterns included more troubling phrases. Participants used phrases, such 
as “off-the-wall,” “a pain in the ass,” “giving [teachers] a hard time,” “acting out, or lashing out, 
or… reacting to situations,” and moments when “all hell was breaking loose” or students exhibited 
“fight or flight responses.” Inherited from dominant cultural values within neuroscientific 
perspectives, discourse connotated a wild, animal, and uncontrolled nature of students consistent 
with research literature (Emery, 2016; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Hoffman, 2009; Humphrey, 2013). 
Conversely, when educators modeled skills, a SEL framework reduced punitive interactions; 
thoughtful SEL approaches paired with careful mindfulness practice offered a counter to deficit-
based mindsets through alternate narratives (Ergas, 2019; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Jagers et al., 
2019; Reveley, 2015; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Although, language indicated problematic 
perspectives, scholars noted opportunities for SEL that benefit school communities. Unfortunately, 
both research literature and participant discourse underscored that SEL perpetuates oppression 
when focusing on student deficits or classroom management. 
  



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

15 

SEL as “a path and a solution” 

A SEL framework paired with mindfulness practices, emphasized providing “help” to 
students and espoused cultural universality that perpetuated a colonial, Eurocentric mindset. A 
Eurocentric mindset views the world as “linear and singular, static, and objective” (Little Bear, 
2014, p. 82). Participant comments indicated a model of “helping.” Firstly, recognizing fragility 
in students, participants spoke compassionately about students’ home and social environments. A 
SEL framework aided educators responding to student experiences with trauma, mental illness, 
gang violence, sexual violence, marginalized social identity, a disadvantageous home life, or being 
part of an “at-risk population.” “At-risk” connotated student fragility. Participants also spoke 
frequently about anxiety and stress as prominent student concerns. Moreover, a SEL framework 
became a solution holding classrooms together, helping “these kids.” Phrases like “baggage,” 
“invisible backpack,” or “carrying way more than I can” revealed a heaviness encumbering 
students facing issues beyond an educator’s purview. Participants hoped SEL would develop 
problem-solving skills, helping students escape repeating behavioural patterns. Pairing SEL with 
mindfulness, participants confidently responded to students with an evidence-based “path and 
solution.” Unfortunately, solutions highlighted white paternalism underlying responses aiming to 
fix students (Foucault, 2003). Likewise, packaging mindfulness too neatly and emphasizing core 
principles, like non-judgemental awareness, discourages critical thinking, limiting exposure to 
important ethical elements within authentic mindfulness practice (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; 
Hyland, 2017; Jagers et al., 2019; Schlund et al., 2020). Problematic attitudes emerged when 
approaching SEL as an antidote for students’ social and emotional challenges. 

SEL and mindfulness also obscured diverse cultural experiences through an emphasis on 
universal approaches. While participants spoke about student needs drawing them to SEL, 
participants viewed SEL as a foundational framework: “things that every classroom should have;” 
and “less of an add-on and more of… an integral part of everything that they do.” Research 
literature suggested caution when emphasizing universal approaches; a universal emphasis 
sacrifices diverse perspectives to dominant, white cultural values (Gregory & Fergus, 2017). As 
you can see, when educators approach SEL as a universal framework with simplistic interventions, 
educators impose dominant cultural values that perpetuate oppression.  

Changing Educators 

A SEL framework and mindfulness practices both perpetuated oppression when unguided 
educators used products packaged for widespread commercial distribution, when thinking about 
students paternalistically, and when applying adopting a SEL framework for classroom 
management. So, why bother with SEL approach or mindfulness practices if they potentially 
perpetuate oppression? Both SEL and mindfulness, while problematic, also increased equity by 
increasing empathy and increasing educator awareness of their own biases. 

SEL and Mindfulness for “BLM and all that” 

A SEL framework increased educator self-awareness. All participants addressed their 
social identity, expressing a duty to use their position to highlight systemic racism. Conveying an 
urgency to begin conversations about systemic racism, participants observed how SEL framed 
sensitive discussions. Concurrently, they also intimated ongoing discomfort with conversations 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

16 

about race and privilege, acknowledging peers struggling, even resisting, creating space for 
uncomfortable conversations. Indicating discomfort, participants used generic phrases like “subtle 
things,” “BLM and all that,” and “things related to… past history.” As scholars noted, a SEL 
framework addresses discomfort while aiding educators critically examining factors driving 
inequity (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Jagers et al., 2019; Schlund et al., 2020). Similarly, mindfulness 
practices played a role in shifting adult perceptions; mindfulness practices illuminated educator 
biases (Ergas, 2019; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Schlund et al., 2020; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). 
Going further, some advocated integrating SEL, including mindfulness practices, with social 
justice to create new, equity-promoting, transformative frameworks (Hyland, 2017; Jagers et al., 
2019; Schlund et al., 2020). Conversely, educators should proceed cautiously, noting that existing 
approaches to SEL inadequately examine power, privilege, and cultural differences (Gregory & 
Fergus, 2017). Similarly, mindfulness dangerously reduced critical thinking, perpetuated systemic 
oppression, and increased an output submissive to growing system demands (McCaw, 2020; 
Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Both a SEL framework and mindfulness practices, through 
examining bias, equipped educators to equitably engage students, but both also require a cautious 
approach to sustain benefits. 

SEL for “curiosity and gentleness” 

SEL frameworks changed educators by increasing openness to students. Participants spoke 
about how SEL increased empathy in school communities. One participant noted that SEL 
produced empathy for “complex and honest things” that students experience; instilling “curiosity 
and gentleness.” Other participants noted SEL helped them approach students differently. 
Participants described how SEL provides a framework for understanding “where a student is 
coming from,” while increasing “self-awareness and being aware of others.” Participants talked 
frequently about SEL encouraging empathy by improving participants’ “ability to identify and 
understand other people’s emotions” (Greater Good, n.d., para. 1). In this way, SEL supported 
participants in developing empathy.  

Identifying themselves within student experiences, participants highlighted another aspect 
of empathy as an outcome of their approach to SEL, especially when incorporating mindfulness 
practices. Alluding to “perspective taking” (Greater Good, n.d., para 2) participants addressed 
struggles with sexism, poverty, anti-Semitism, and mental illness. Participants examined social 
identity, gaining perspective into student experiences, while sharing the impacts of systemic 
racism with students. Identifying barriers to appreciating student perspectives, participants 
mentioned the unfairness of privilege and the danger of unconsciously using power. Similarly, 
scholars noted approaches to SEL, including mindfulness practices, promoted perspective-taking 
behaviour by establishing warm, empathetic environments that foster greater collaboration 
(Andolina & Conklin, 2020; Doikou-Avlidou & Dadatsi, 2013; Ergas, 2019; Hyland, 2017; 
Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Mindfulness practices specifically shifted participant practice, 
altering roles within the classroom, by increasing effective listening, empowering students, and 
reducing educator attempts at control. Practicing mindfulness calmed participants, aided emotional 
regulation, increased participant confidence, provided participants an internal locus of control, and 
helped participants become aware of their responses to students. Similarly, literature identifies that 
mindfulness increased educator self-awareness, leading to less punitive classrooms (Doikou-
Avlidou & Dadatsi, 2013; Ergas, 2019; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Hecht & Shin, 2015; Jagers et 
al., 2019; Reveley, 2015; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). By increasing educator self-awareness, 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

17 

including highlighting social identity, mindfulness increased empathy; when educators engaged 
mindfulness for themselves first, the habit helped advance equity in the classroom. 

Student Empowerment 

Beyond benefiting school communities when educators practiced SEL and mindfulness for 
themselves, these approaches changed school cultures by facilitating belonging, empowering 
students, and changing interactions between people in school communities. 
 

SEL to help students “feel part of things” 

The approach to SEL has potential to transform classroom culture. Participants observed 
SEL empowering students, increasing student autonomy, and facilitating student self-advocacy. 
Empowering students fosters “the self-actualization or influence of” students (Merriam-Webster, 
n.d., para 3). Insinuating self-actualization in the educational idiom, “you’ve got to Maslow before 
they Bloom,” educators understand Maslow’s hierarchical zenith (Maslow, 1948) emerges in 
approaches, like SEL, supporting students so they can reach their full potential. SEL developed 
student self-advocacy, self-determination, and ownership over their circumstances. Participants 
described their approach to SEL as helping students influence their circumstances, see themselves 
in learning, and take responsibility for their education. Participants saw SEL increasing student 
voice by ensuring students “come to the table and, at least, have a seat at it.” Again, these 
comments echo frameworks that empower communities that “promote the…influence of” students 
(Merriam-Webster, n.d., para 3).  Participants observed their approach to SEL serving students, 
making them “feel part of things rather than just drones that are being dictated to.” 
Correspondingly, feeling a sense of autonomy intrinsically motivated students (Andolina & 
Conklin, 2020). Likewise, power-sharing facilitated a transformative, social-justice informed slant 
to SEL (Jagers et al., 2019; Schlund et al., 2020). Scholars extended potential for empowering 
students beyond school, recognizing ethical principles central to practices, like mindfulness, that 
challenge oppressive pressures (Hyland, 2016). A beneficial SEL framework included powerful 
values that dramatically shift roles within school communities to build equitable power dynamics 
empowering students. 

SEL for “being attuned” 

Participants each spoke about mindfulness practices within a larger SEL framework. For 
participants, mindfulness practices facilitated stronger relationships. Mindfulness created calm, 
safe, and comfortable student spaces. When mindfulness worked well, participants encountered 
organic interactions where participants understood students, while students met classroom 
challenges. Acknowledging interwoven interactions, participants described relational 
responsiveness in musical terms like “flow,” “rhythm,” “attuned,” and “in tune.” Others described 
“give and take” interactions between people in a school community. Indeed, mindfulness, 
sometimes within a larger SEL framework, produced positive benefits for trust, relationship skills, 
and democratic milieu in the classroom (Andolina & Conklin, 2020; Jagers et al., 2019; McCaw, 
2020). Producing positive benefits, however, required creating a culture of belonging instead of 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

18 

managing behaviour (Hoffman, 2009; Schlund et al., 2020). Participant discourse and research 
literature revealed both a SEL framework and mindfulness practices shift power relationships, 
promoting an equitable space of belonging, and facilitating an equitable school climate where 
students see their role as change-makers. 

Implications and Limitations  

A poorly conceived approach to SEL, or misguided mindfulness practices, can perpetuate 
systemic oppression. Although problematic, educators can equitably apply SEL and mindfulness. 
An equitable SEL framework requires that we first practice self-reflection, then create empowering 
environments for students. Below, readers will find classroom implications and opportunities for 
further research. 

What do my findings mean for classroom practice? Firstly, educators must examine our 
motives for our approach to SEL, including any mindfulness practices we may incorporate. 
Responding to discomfort and inexperience, challenging classroom experiences lead many 
educators to pursue SEL. Viewing a SEL framework as tools to support students, while also 
managing classrooms, we approach SEL, and any mindfulness practices we incorporate, from a 
positivist-influenced, deficit framework (Doikou-Avlidou & Dadatsi, 2013; Emery, 2016; Ergas, 
2019; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Hecht & Shin, 2015; Hoffman, 2009; Humphrey, 2013; Hyland, 
2017; McCaw, 2020; Schlund et al., 2020). Unfortunately, within a deficit perspective, SEL 
frameworks fail to address ecological contexts underlying challenges we identify and, when 
offered alone, perpetuate white, middle-class value systems (Doikou-Avlidou & Dadatsi, 2013; 
Emery, 2016; Ergas, 2019; Hecht & Shin, 2015; Hoffman, 2009; Humphrey, 2013; Jagers et al., 
2019; Reveley, 2015; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Considering factors that perpetuate systemic 
oppression, educators must examine our motives behind our approach to SEL.  

Despite potential challenges rising from our motives, SEL frameworks can advance equity. 
My study finds that combining SEL frameworks with social justice pedagogies can transform how 
educators approach students, this is further enhanced when mindfulness practices include ethical 
aspects of the practices (Hyland, 2016, 2017; Jagers et al., 2019; McCaw, 2020; Schlund et al., 
2020; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). A SEL framework that includes mindfulness practices, while 
calming students in classrooms, also empowers them, creating space to examine implicit bias and 
enhancing social skills, like empathy. In this way, although potentially problematic, SEL combined 
with mindfulness is a powerful approach to promoting equity when first engaged for personal 
reflection and shared within an empowering context.  

Unexpectedly, my research revealed an informal approach to SEL. While more typical 
outside the United States, an informal approach runs contrary to research literature focusing upon 
manualized approaches to SEL (Emery, 2016; Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Humphrey, 2013; Hyland, 
2016, 2017; Schlund et al., 2020; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020). Policy counters an informal 
approach; however, policy requires caution, effective policy should guide us to resources that 
advance equity. Conversely, policy may also become restrictive, leaning upon the same 
commodified interventions discovered informally (Gregory & Fergus, 2017; Hyland, 2017; Jagers 
et al., 2019; Schlund et al., 2020). What might an effective policy look like? Effective policy 
informs the nature of interventions, outlines professional learning, and ensures an equitable focus. 
Schlund et al. (2020) identify situating SEL within equity policies rather than special education 
policies. Furthermore, strong policy ensures educators use SEL, and mindfulness practices, for 
creating empowering student spaces (Andolina & Conklin, 2020; Doikou-Avlidou & Dadatsi, 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

19 

2013; Hyland, 2016, 2017; Jagers et al., 2019; Schlund et al., 2020); ensures educators, firstly, 
employ practices themselves to realize mindfulness’s ethical benefits (Ergas, 2019; Hyland, 2016, 
2017; Jagers et al., 2019; Reveley, 2015; Schlund et al., 2020; Sellman & Buttarazzi, 2020); and 
facilitates an equitable SEL framework under effective leadership (Schlund et al., 2020). 
Advancing an equitable SEL framework requires we examine our motives, and, within thoughtful 
policy structure, practice mindfulness for self-reflection. 

While my research highlights next steps for classroom practice, factors limit the influence 
of the study. For instance, the small sample size makes generalizing findings difficult. Similarly, 
the secondary focus excludes existing elementary research, making generalizing to younger grades 
challenging. Additionally, three of the five participants, plus myself, have a special education 
background; the unclear impact of this commonality may limit the findings’ generalizability. The 
findings, though insightful, may not apply consistently across these disparate settings. 

The study also points to next steps for research. For instance, the impacts of special 
education experience upon SEL could drive further research. Researchers may consider the 
impacts on SEL outcomes of informal approaches to SEL, including the unstructured nature of 
professional learning. Lastly, researchers may explore an understanding of specific SEL and 
mindfulness techniques that advance equity. For instance, when teaching includes students 
interacting in small-groups, scholars note that SEL builds trust or facilitates belonging (Doikou-
Avlidou & Dadatsi, 2013; Hoffman, 2009). What aspects of SEL or mindfulness bring forward 
positive outcomes that educators desire from these approaches? 

 

Conclusion 
Uniquely, a hermeneutic analysis of teacher perspectives examined aims, goals, and 

reflections of educators engaging SEL and mindfulness. These approaches espouse a colonial, 
deficit-based ideology limiting equity gains when approaching positivist-informed SEL and when 
utilizing commercialized SEL approaches. These risks require me, as a white, male, educator 
typically blinded to my privilege and ignorant of systemic oppression embedded in our institutions, 
to take a cautious approach to SEL lest my approach negate my equitable aims by perpetuating 
hegemony. Conversely, results guide us toward SEL that advances equity. Achieving positive 
outcomes requires engaging mindfulness for our awareness. Lastly, situating in a framework that 
creates spaces where students feel empowered enhances equity benefits. Equitable SEL requires 
caution, awareness, and intentionality; we must strive for constructive outcomes countering 
hegemony and creating equitable spaces, for, as stated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1986, as 
cited in Ratcliffe, 2017), “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of 
the oppressor.” 

 

References  
Aldenmyr, S. I. (2016). What values, whose perspective in social and emotional training? A 

study on how ethical approaches and values may be handled analytically in education 
and educational research. Ethics and Education, 11(2), 141–158. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2015.1115613 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

20 

American Psychological Association. (2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK-12 
teaching and learning. http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse /top-twenty-principles.pdf 

Andolina, M. W., & Conklin, H. G. (2020). Fostering democratic and social-emotional learning 
in action civics programming: Factors that shape students’ learning from ‘project 
soapbox’. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1203–1240. 
https://doi/10.3102/0002831219869599 

Doikou-Avlidou, M., & Dadatsi, K. (2013). Enhancing social integration of immigrant pupils at 
risk for social, emotional and/or behavioural difficulties: The outcomes of a small-scale 
social-emotional learning programme. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 18(1), 3–
23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.675137 

Emery, C. (2016). A critical discourse analysis of the new Labour discourse of social and 
emotional learning across schools in England and Wales: Conversations with 
policymakers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(104). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191022000016347 

Ergas, O. (2019). Mindfulness in, as and of education: Three roles of mindfulness in education. 
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53(2), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9752.12349 

Foucault, M. (2003). The essential Foucault: Selections from the essential works of Foucault, 
1954-1984. New Press. 

Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.; 2nd rev. 
ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1960)  

Greater Good. (n.d.). Empathy | Defined: What is empathy. Retrieved 23 March 2021, from 
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/empathy/definition  

Gregory, A., & Fergus, E. (2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline. 
The Future of Children, 27(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0006 

Hecht, M. L., & Shin, Y. (2015). Culture and social emotional competencies. In J. A. Durlak, C. 
E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and 
emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 50-64). Guilford Publications. 

Hoffman, D. M. (2009). Reflecting on social emotional learning: A critical perspective on trends 
in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 533–556. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325184 

Humphrey, N. (2013). Social and emotional learning: A critical appraisal. Sage Publications. 
Hyland, T. (2016). The limits of mindfulness: Emerging issues for education. British Journal of 

Educational Studies, 64(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1051946 
Hyland, T. (2017). McDonaldizing spirituality: Mindfulness, education, and consumerism. 

Journal of Transformative Education, 15(4), 334–356. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344617696972 

Jagers, R. J. (2016). Framing social and emotional learning among African-American youth: 
Toward an integrity-based approach. Human Development, 59(1), 1–3. 
https://doi.org/10.1159/000447005 



 
 
Siegle – Emerging Perspectives  
(2022) 
 
   

 
 

21 

Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional 
learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. 
Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 162–184. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032 

Jardine, D. W. (1992). The fecundity of the individual case: Considerations of the pedagogic 
heart of interpretive work. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(1), 51–61. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1992.tb00264.x 

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. 
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016 

Kennedy Schmidt, L. (2014). Understanding hermeneutics. Taylor & Francis Group. 
Little Bear, L. (2014). Jagged Worldviews Colliding. In Battiste, M. (Ed.). Reclaiming 

indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77-85). UBC Press. 
Maslow, A. H. (1948). Higher and lower needs. Journal of Psychology, 26, 433–436. 
McCaw, C. T. (2020). Mindfulness ‘thick’ and ‘thin’: A critical review of the uses of 

mindfulness in education. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 257–278. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2019.1667759 

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved 23 March 2021, from 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empower  

Moules, N. J., McCaffrey, G., Field, J. C., & Laing, C. M. (2015). Conducting hermeneutic 
research: From philosophy to practice. Peter Lang Publishing. 

Ratcliffe, S. (Ed.), Oxford Essential Quotations. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 22 June 
2021, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/ 9780191843730.001. 
0001/q-oro-ed5-00016497 

Reveley, J. (2015). School-based mindfulness training and the economisation of attention: A 
Stieglerian view. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(8), 804–821. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.914880 

Schlund, J., Jagers, R. J., & Schlinger, M. (2020). Emerging insights on advancing social and 
emotional learning (SEL) as a lever for equity and excellence. CASEL. 
https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CASEL-Equity-Insights-Report.pdf 

Shapiro, S. E. (1994). Rhetoric as ideology critique: The Gadamer-Habermas debate reinvented. 
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, LXII(1), 123–150. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/LXII.1.123 

Sellman, E. M., & Buttarazzi, G. F. (2020). Adding lemon juice to poison: Raising critical 
questions about the oxymoronic nature of mindfulness in education and its future 
direction. British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(1), 61–78. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1581128 

Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in 
social justice education. (2nd Ed.). Teachers College Press. 

Tutu, Desmond. (1986). Desmond Tutu. In.  


