It is one thing for a public college or university to teach about a concept that may be abhorrent, but it is another for a K-12 school to implement it. Such implementation, i.e. “praxis”, ought to be prohibited. Utah is proposing to do so with HB 399, which reads, in part:
(b)”Character education” means current or historical social emotional learning frameworks, models, practices, programs, systems, or tools developed by any public or private source, including those from the Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning [CASEL], the Harvard University EASEL Lab, and civil society organizations and:
(i)includes an array of interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies or skills organized into cognitive, emotional, metacognitive, psychosocial, social, or spiritual domains to shape attitudes, beliefs, language, or mindsets or to develop character, dispositions, identity, or values;
(ii)is referred to by an array of terms, including 21st century skills, competencies, civic or family engagement, durable skills, lifelong learning skills, interventions, non-academic skills, services, social skills, soft skills, subjective skills, personalized learning, or wellbeing;
(iii)establishes practices or rituals related to existential meaning or purpose; or
(iv)uses speech-ranking indexes or tools to establish or measure the social or emotional value or effect of communication.
The sentiment is the correct one, and it will be seen if the definition of the terms is adequate or if they are too vague. In particular, the inclusion of specific examples could be used to demonstrate compliance from a fundamentally similar system by noting differences with the cited examples.
Nonetheless, the broader attempt to define the terms is a step in the right direction.
