PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 22, 2015
Supporting Emotional Learning Act
Amends the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 to require:
the National Center for Education Research to carry out research regarding the impact of social and emotional education;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the Commissioner for Education Research to support research into social and emotional skills and habits; and
comprehensive centers to provide training, professional development, and technical assistance regarding the use of scientifically valid teaching methods and assessment tools in imparting social and emotional life learning.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require highly qualified teachers to have preparation in the understanding, use, and development of social and emotional learning programming.
Defines "social and emotional learning" as the processes through which students acquire and effectively apply:
self-awareness and self-management skills to achieve academic and life success;
social-awareness and relationship skills to establish and maintain positive relationships; and
responsible decisionmaking skills and behavior in personal, school, and community contexts.
Requires Teacher Quality Partnership grants to be used in preparing prospective and new teachers and principals to understand, use, and develop social and emotional learning programming. (Teacher Quality Partnership grants are provided to partnerships between high-need local educational agencies [LEAs], their high-need schools, and institutions of higher education [IHEs].)
Requires centers of excellence to design teacher training programs that promote the understanding, use, and development of social and emotional learning programming. (Centers of excellence are minority-serving IHEs or partnerships between such IHEs and other IHEs that are awarded grants to ensure that current and future teachers are highly qualified.)
Requires Teach to Reach grants to be used to train general education teacher candidates to understand, use, and develop social and emotional learning programming. (Teach to Reach grants are provided to partnerships between IHEs and high-need LEAs to more effectively prepare general education teacher candidates to instruct disabled students in general education classrooms).
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Susan A. [D-CA-53] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.497 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.497 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.497 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.497 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.