Comparative Analysis of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programmes in India and England
Abstract
<h2>Conceptual and Contextual Foundations of Social and Emotional Learning in Comparative Education Systems</h2> <p>Chapter One: Introduction</p> <h3>Socio-Educational Context and Evolution of SEL Policy Frameworks</h3> <p>1.1 Background Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has become a priority in national education arenas in recent years due to the accumulating evidence localizing socio-emotional competencies in better academic performance, fewer disciplinary and behavioural problems, and better mental wellbeing in many settings (Wigelsworth et al., 2022). In India, this led to two state-sponsored programs: the Happiness Curriculum in Delhi (2018) and Anandam Pathyacharya in Uttarakhand (2020). The two programmes have specific daily lesson times in government schools and make mindfulness, empathy, critical thought, and values reflection their primary focuses using culturally appropriate practices like guided meditation, folk stories, and gratitude practices (Chester et al., 2019). Alternatively, the English model was implemented by incorporating SEL skills into the existing PSHE structure, resulting in the mandatory RSHE instruction (2020). In this case, tutor time lessons, PSHE lessons, and holiday activities encompass the aspect of relationships, mental wellbeing, consent, and digital safety, with the use of case studies, circle time, and role play enabling the development of self awareness, self management, and social skills (Mackenzie & Williams, 2018). Both models give contrasting but complementary examples of SEL-immersive and homogeneous wellbeing classes in India and integrated and adaptable PSHE/RSHE in England.</p> <p>This contrast justifies a comparative analysis to explore how differing national models conceptualise, embed, and operationalise SEL within culturally and structurally distinct education systems. The two countries base the interventions of their SEL programme on the framework created by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), which is an influential U.S.-based organisation that initially provided its five core competencies in the late 1990s: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (Ghorabi et al., 2022). These areas are localised and culturally entrenched in India through storytelling and moral tales that are based on Gandhian ideology and local folklore, which form collective values and spiritual introspection by individuals (Khanna & Peterson, 2023; Jose et al., 2022).</p> <p>To illustrate, the Anandam Pathyacharya curriculum in Uttarakhand includes community service activities and themes of nature as ways to support social responsibility education. However, in PSHE/RSHE lessons in England, SEL is covered in the context of health and citizenship, and the main topics are individual autonomy, resilience, and digital safety (Ofsted, 2022; Chechi et al., 2024). Both these models emphasize student-centred learning via interactive lessons, journaling, and experiential activities, but their application in a more general curriculum differs greatly among national frameworks.</p> <p>Implementation and governance structures further differentiate these models. In Delhi and Uttarakhand, a central government state education department mandates daily wellbeing lessons, accompanied by State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) handbooks, master trainer cascades, and NGO partnerships (Alam & Mohanty, 2023). The training of more than 20,000 teachers in every state is unified, so there remains some coherence in every thousand schools. Fidelity checklists and qualitative reports are used to monitor. Conversely, the RSHE requirement set in England introduces statutory coverage but leaves delivery procedures and choice of resources to the school, with PSHE-related activity being examined as part of Ofsted personal development requirements (Department for Education, 2020).</p> <p>CPD in teacher support differs in every local authority and budget, with facilitation usually through the national PSHE Association and NGOs like YoungMinds. Even though there are these differences, all three programmes focus on longer-term professional follow-up and the involvement of stakeholders, parents, community groups, and mental health charities, to support SEL outside of a classroom.</p> <p>Both nations share contexts in their current or prospective challenges and opportunities posed by the growth of SEL at these opposite ends. In India, the challenge lies in reconciling hierarchical classroom experiences and test-taking cultures with participatory SEL teaching (Chester et al., 2019). The complexity of equal distribution of resources in resource-constrained areas and achieving equity adds to inconsistency. Similarly, PSHE provision and coherence of teacher qualification to avoid quality breakages of RSHE fidelity in England remain challenges (Williams, 2018). The two spheres highlight the importance of culturally responsive adaptability.</p> <h3>Identification of Structural and Pedagogical Gaps in SEL Implementation</h3> <p>1.2 Problem Statement While frameworks such as CASEL offer a shared vocabulary for Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), national implementation varies widely due to differing governance systems, pedagogical traditions, and cultural norms (Elias et al., 1997; Ghorabi et al., 2022). This poses a problem in the attainment of coherence, cultural fit, and measurable impact. The Happiness Curriculum in Delhi and the Anandam Pathyacharya in Uttarakhand are two examples of explicit, daily SEL instruction provided in India, based on values content, frequently using Gandhian philosophy and community-based narratives.</p> <p>By contrast, the PSHE/RSHE curriculum in England integrates SEL into health and citizenship education and, as a result, has not prioritised central SEL skills, including relationship skills and responsible decision-making (Kumar & Kumar, 2025). There are also differences in pedagogy: Indian programmes focus on group work and character education, whereas English programmes give priority to individualism and self-reflection (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The training structures also reveal differences—India has centralised cascade structures that are not always accessible to rural areas, whereas England has fragmented CPD pathways with inconsistent quality and uptake (Mackenzie & Williams, 2018).</p> <p>The process of evaluation also varies, with cluster experiments in India and qualitative reviews and sporadic Ofsted inspections in England (Sheng, 2022). This research responds to the fact that despite the advocacy of SEL around the world, its practical application is influenced by local contexts, which has led to disparity in purpose, delivery, and accountability frameworks across systems.</p> <h3>Justification of Comparative Study within Divergent Educational Contexts</h3> <p>1.3 Relevance/Rationale</p> <p>1.3.1 Motivated by the distinct contexts India's vast, developing context—home to over 260 million school-aged children, a multi-layered federal structure, and profound linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity—poses significant hurdles for scaling SEL. The Happiness Curriculum is taught in Delhi (2018) and Anandam Pathyacharya in Uttarakhand (2020), requiring large-scale teacher training and coordination between governance levels (Shinde et al., 2018; Bronfenbrenner, 1979).</p> <p>In comparison, England has a centralized National Curriculum with statutory RSHE, despite individual academy autonomy (Kumar & Kumar, 2025; Mackenzie & Williams, 2018). These contrasting governance models influence programme design, teacher capabilities, and cultural relevance.</p> <h3>Delimitation of Analytical Boundaries and Research Focus</h3> <p>1.4 Scope This study critically examines the scope and character of government-led SEL programmes in India and England through a comparative analysis of three cases: Happiness Curriculum in Delhi, Anandam Pathyacharya in Uttarakhand, and PSHE/RSHE framework in England. It emphasises policy systems, implementation structures, cultural narratives, and stakeholder roles.</p> <h3>Structural Organisation of the Dissertation Framework</h3> <p>1.5 Structure of this dissertation This dissertation is structured into five chapters. Chapter one presents the topic, background, problem statement, objectives, scope, and rationale. Chapter Two provides an overview of literature. Chapter Three describes methodology. Chapter Four presents findings. Chapter Five presents implications, conclusions, and recommendations.</p>