First, the classroom may not be the appropriate setting for psychological interventions to take place. Some of these interventions can trigger upsetting emotional reactions, particularly when certain activities are completed (such as tasks like, “Write about the last time someone betrayed your trust”) or when certain questions are asked (for example, “When was the last time you felt sad and why?”). When students arrive at school to embark on a 6-7 hour day of learning and academic enrichment, care should be taken to consider the intensity of these interventions, so as not to trigger strong emotional reactions in children that could make learning hard or even impossible. 

Second, teachers may not be qualified and trained to deliver the SEL curriculum in classrooms. Teachers are already dealing with a substantial number of tasks and pressures, such as teaching a curriculum that prepares students to pass standardized state exams; managing disruptive and disrespectful behaviors that interfere with classroom learning; dealing with rising class enrollment; and ensuring quality instruction with limited resources, among other issues. What’s more, many teacher-education programs do not explicitly train teacher candidates to deliver the SEL curriculum; therefore when teachers are tasked with using this content, they may feel unprepared. 

Finally, prioritizing SEL may not be wise when K-12 students’ test scores are mixed or even poor in reading, math, and science. While it’s not impossible to teach SEL programming while ensuring that students meet benchmarks in these subjects, in districts struggling with basic learning, any available instructional time should probably be dedicated to helping students master basic reading, math and other skills. While emotional regulation skills and reading, for example, are both important, reading is far more practical and fundamental than learning how to regulate one’s emotions. 

In her recent bestselling book, Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up, author Abigail Shrier identifies the shortcomings of SEL and mental health education in general in classrooms, arguing that if the goal is to help students regulate their emotions, the “unceasing attention to feelings” is likely to undermine any opportunity for a student to achieve emotional stability. Shrier also quotes Leif Kennair, a Norwegian psychologist and an expert in the treatment of anxiety disorders: 

"You can't learn emotional regulation from a lecture…. You learn how to handle the disappointment of not making the basketball team by not making the basketball team. Not from classroom instruction. Social emotional learning exercises often assume that by discussing a hypothetical disappointment, kids can skip the painful experience and arrive straight at maturity and social competence. But there is no way to gain friendship skills except by attempting to make a friend. There is no real way to learn to overcome failure except by struggling and, eventually, managing to do it."

As with anything, people should be aware that there are limits and even serious risks to patients using mental health services. For example, the rush to provide crisis counseling following a major natural disaster or mass casualty event (e.g., mass shooting) can cause more harm than good. Psychological interventions that take place right after these tragic events often provide minimal help for patients and can even promote “histrionics,” which impedes recovery and elongates the sense of crisis. 

The classroom may not be the appropriate setting for psychological interventions to take place.

Therapy is also not necessarily the answer for those who are mourning the loss of a loved one. Crying, withdrawal, sadness, inattention, appetite changes, and more are typical and sometimes even healthy reactions in response to grief and loss. Offering grief therapy to those who are going through typical grieving could make things worse by tamping down these responses and not letting the person work through their natural and understandable sadness.

The ability to see the nuance here is important. It could be the case that individuals who survived a mass casualty event may need therapeutic services should they be suffering from unwanted symptoms such as intrusive thoughts, persistent guilt, reliving the event, panic attacks, etc. Or for those who have lost a loved one, if their grief response is much longer than would be expected and they are still experiencing lingering feelings such as emotional numbness, intense loneliness or identity disruption, then certainly a psychotherapeutic intervention would be appropriate.

But an important takeaway here is also that resilience, not maladaptive responses, is the norm for people. Although the magnitude of the adverse event varies, all of us have experienced things that have negatively affected our well-being, from losing a job or getting divorced to having a miscarriage or dealing with a difficult medical condition. These are common, yet stressful experiences, and many of us are able to surmount these challenges without therapy or other mental health services. 

Of course, as I’ve already said, mental health services provide invaluable help to many individuals in genuine need. But in K-12 schools, redirecting students’ attention to their strengths and skillsets will better prepare them for the unrelenting changes and unpredictability of life. Although they may be vulnerable, dependent, and undeveloped, students will be better served by envisioning themselves as capable, self-empowered individuals. This is what is needed to promote students’ growth, learning, and resilience in a world where so many aspects of their lives may be out of their control.