Social-emotional learning (SEL), an educational framework that teaches students skills for emotional regulation, interpersonal relationships, and responsible decision-making, has become a cornerstone of modern education. As schools increasingly adopt SEL programs, understanding how these initiatives function across varying educational contexts is essential. This study investigates the research question: How do teachers' perceptions of SEL differ between schools with high and low percentages of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? While much of the existing literature examines SEL's impact on student outcomes, little research explores the perspectives of educators themselves, particularly in relation to how context shapes SEL implementation. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 13 teachers and administrators from Chicago Public Schools (CPS), this thesis analyzes how teachers conceptualize, adapt, and at times resist SEL curricula based on their school’s income level, administrative structure, and training resources. Findings suggest that income level moderately influences teacher autonomy, administrative gatekeeping, professional development in SEL, and how educators define SEL in the first place. At high-income schools, teachers often describe SEL as a tool for self-awareness and identity formation, facilitated by flexible implementation and collaborative professional development. In contrast, teachers at low-income schools more frequently characterize SEL as a mechanism for emotional control and classroom management, constrained by top-down mandates and limited autonomy. These patterns underscore how structural inequities—including policy design, administrative oversight, and disparities in professional development—shape the goals, tone, and perceived legitimacy of SEL programming. Despite some shared challenges, such as pandemic-related disruptions in students' social development, the study reveals that context deeply influences how SEL is both understood and enacted. Ultimately, the thesis argues that teacher perspectives are critical for the success and equity of SEL initiatives. I conclude by recommending that future SEL policymaking center teacher voice, invest in culturally responsive training, and reimagine SEL not as a discipline tool but as a vehicle for relational and reflective education.