Feeling like a Robot: Origin, Critique and Alternative to “Social-Emotional Learning” Mark Garrison, Ph.D. Professor, Education Research & Policy D’Youville College, Buffalo, New York markjgarrison@gmail.com Paper presented at the 47 th annual meeting of the New York State Foundations of Education Association, Rochester, New York, March 29-30. This paper is based on my forthcoming book, Skinner’s Ghost in the Smart Machine: Algorithmic Education and the New Behaviorism (Routledge). * * * Introduction Many scholars, policy makers and educators are relieved by the contemporary focus on “social-emotional learning” (SEL) and the apparent focus on the “whole child”. According to Google metrics, use of the phrase has increased 300 percent since 1980, when it had no reported use. Federal and state governments, research institutes, think tanks, philanthropies, even international bodies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and World Economic Forum (WEF), champion so-called SEL. For too long, enthusiasts and reformers point out, policy has directed educators to focus on a limited set of cognitive outcomes, giving rise to a wide-range of well-documented problems associated with “high stakes testing.” Growing concerns 1 about mental health among school-aged youth and ongoing school shootings have helped create the conditions for a positive reception of the SEL agenda across the country. This paper explores the origin and meaning of the SEL movement, offering a critique and alternative. Social-emotional learning is the broad lexicon used to designate those areas of human development erroneously referred to as “soft skills”. The paper 1 It should be noted that many of the same social forces that imposed test-based forms of accountability, charters and other corporate inspired management schemes that failed to improve public education are now championing SEL.