Compliance vs. Social-Emotional Learning [Revisited]
- Greg Mullen
- Sep 11
- 4 min read
In 2019, I wrote an article on compliance versus social-emotional learning. I am revisiting that article and exploring the tension between compliance in schools and the growing emphasis on social-emotional learning (SEL). At first glance, the two seem to sit at odds: one is about following rules and routines, the other about fostering self-awareness and emotional growth. Yet both are deeply woven into how schools function.
The real challenge lies not in choosing one over the other, but in finding a balance that supports safety, structure, and human development.
The Problem: Self-Awareness vs. Demands for Compliance
Schools often promote SEL by teaching students to identify and manage their emotions. At the same time, schools expect strict compliance with rules, routines, and teacher authority.
This creates a kind of cognitive dissonance. For example, a student learns to recognize their frustration but is then told to “be quiet” rather than given space to express it. For students who naturally succeed within structured systems, this conflict may not be obvious. But for students who feel constrained or silenced by compliance demands, self-awareness can fuel resistance. Empowering them to “know themselves” can also empower them to challenge the status quo—which schools may perceive as disruptive rather than constructive.
The deeper issue is that compliance often comes from an authoritarian imbalance of power: rules designed more to maintain order than to cultivate responsibility. When compliance is valued over authentic growth, emotions like pride, shame, or anger get tangled up with the act of simply “following the rules” for the sake of learning based on an institution's schedule rather than the inherent schedule of a human's cognitive and psychosocial development.
The Value of Compliance
To be clear: compliance has real and necessary purposes in schools.
Safety: Parents expect schools to keep children safe. Following emergency drills or staying in supervised areas is non-negotiable.
Oversight & Accountability: Teachers and administrators must coordinate expectations. If students refused to line up for dismissal, chaos would put safety at risk.
Instructional Access: In classrooms with dozens of students, routines (lining up, raising hands, turning in work) allow all children access to instruction.
Imagine: a class of 30 students transitions between math and reading. Without a clear compliance-based procedure (clean up, move desks, gather materials), instruction time would shrink and inequities would grow.
Big Idea: Compliance is not the opposite of SEL—it is the structure within which SEL may develop. The danger comes only when compliance is treated as the ultimate goal, rather than a scaffold for learning and development.
The Value of Social-Emotional Learning
SEL asks us to step back and consider the big picture: Who are we raising to graduate from high school?
Do we want graduates who can follow directions, or ones who can reflect, empathize, and self-manage?
Should “success” mean only high test scores, or also resilience, ethical reasoning, and responsibility toward others?
Imagine: A student learns to manage group conflict during a science project. That skill will serve them long after they forget the details of the experiment.
Importantly, SEL must be embraced not just by students, but by the adults guiding them. Schools that model empathy, reflective listening, and collaborative problem-solving will see those traits mirrored in students.
However, schools must also recognize that systems of accountability—like standardized test ratings—often measure only academics. This makes it imperative that communities support SEL by challenging narrow definitions of success.
The Risks of Social-Emotional Learning
SEL is not risk-free. Like any instruction, poorly implemented SEL can backfire.
Analogy: Many adults say, “I’m just bad at math” after years of discouraging experiences. Imagine the same happening with emotions: “I’m just bad at handling feelings.”
Example: A student told weekly to “calm down” in the same way they’re told to “solve this problem” may learn to resent the entire idea of emotional self-regulation.
The danger lies not in teaching SEL itself, but in teaching it through rigid compliance. If SEL becomes another box to check—twenty minutes a week, graded or not—students may disengage or resist.
Balancing Compliance and SEL
The tension becomes clear when we imagine two different classrooms:
Rigid SEL Lesson: A teacher delivers a scripted 20-minute SEL lesson. A student expresses disinterest. The teacher insists on finishing the plan. Compliance wins, but the SEL lesson’s purpose—acknowledging feelings—is undermined.
Responsive SEL Lesson: The same teacher pauses the script and instead invites students to explore their current feelings and coping strategies. The lesson shifts from teacher-driven compliance to student-driven growth.
The difference lies in whether compliance serves learning or silences it. Balance requires teachers to:
Respect routines where safety and access demand it.
Adapt lessons when students’ lived emotions provide a more authentic learning opportunity.
See authority not as diminished but redefined—from command-and-control to guide-and-coach.
Compliance in Self-Directed Learning
Self-directed learning environments make this balance even more visible.
Teachers first: Just as educators must master content before teaching it, they must also develop their own self-awareness and emotional management skills. Without that modeling, SEL falls flat.
Developmentally appropriate strategies:
In elementary school, teachers must break down emotions into simple building blocks (e.g., joy, sadness, anger) so students can name and cope with them.
In middle school, teachers must help students link those basics to more complex feelings like jealousy, pride, or guilt.
Example: A student cries in frustration during math. Treating the behavior only as “non-compliance” misses the chance to teach coping strategies. Instead, the teacher can guide reflection (“What are you feeling?” “What might help you calm down?”), shifting responsibility to the student.
Compliance is not separate from these moments—it is part of them. A child “out of compliance” may simply be a child in the middle of an emotional experience. If teachers only punish, they remove the child’s chance to own their emotional growth.
Conclusion: It Begins with Us
Balancing compliance and SEL is not about checklists or programs. It is about educators’ willingness to reflect on:
Their own emotional awareness.
Their own balance of structure vs. flexibility.
Their role in guiding students not just toward academic success, but toward human growth.
When teachers and schools commit to this dual responsibility, compliance becomes more than rule-following—it becomes the foundation for safe, structured environments where authentic social-emotional growth can flourish.
And that balance begins not with students, but with us.
Greg Mulle
September 12, 2025
