TED Conversations

edward long

Association of Old Crows


This conversation is closed.

In school can, and should, "Emotional Intelligence" be taught?

Read the brief New York Times article before you share your ideas about this. Well beyond the scope of the three R's, does this usurp parental responsibility?


Closing Statement from edward long

19 Tedsters offered 91 comments on the question. 33 Thumbs-up. Read them all to see the clear trend. Educators do not see EI as an appropriate curriculum item. The day-to-day handling of individual issues of emotional turmoil is part of the teacher's lot in life and most of them agree they call for privacy, and the public airing of the details of a students home life is not proper. Folks who grew into adulthood without "normal" family support and guidance see the real need for teaching children, in class along with reading and writing, how to manage their emotions. Some say it takes a village to raise a child, others say it takes a family. The NYT link is biased in favor of teaching EI in school. Empathy figured in as did usurpation. A spirited, polarized discussion. Thanks to the contributors.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 17 2013: With more and more kids at risk due to either poor parenting/alcoholism/drug-addiction--the question is what can any/all of us do to help them fight their way out of a bad beginning--because not doing so IS going to cost all of us. I believe--yes teacher's should be trained because probably not all have a healthy EQ themselves--it will only help them, not hurt them. Then EQ could be incorporated into all the schooling. For example, teaching history--ask about how the Japanese might have felt during their time in POW camps--how does it make the students feel?

    "The question here is should teachers be required to become trained in SEL and should curricula be amended to include regular, requisite classroom hours dealing with specific problems which most of the students probably do not have?"

    Yes, because their training would ultimately benefit ALL students--even witnessing another student being helped would be an example of 'empathy' for all students to observe. It isn't just the at-risk kids who need to develop empathy. And again, since drug-addiction is at an all time high--along with divorce--most students in the classroom may be included in the 'at-risk' category than we think. I think the benefits far out weigh the negatives.

    Thanks for welcome--and yes, I did make it out! But it took a village ;- )
    • thumb
      Sep 17 2013: I will not be surprised if this conversation evolves into a Village vs. Family issue. Does it take a family or a village to raise a child? The village idea is viewed negatively because it looks suspiciously like excessive government involvement. The family idea is rejected by those who did not have the benefit of a caring, nurturing family. Perhaps the two scenarios are so different that one solution will not work. Whatever happens any caring society will keep an eye on every child and intervene to rescue from harm.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.