The purpose of this Bachelors thesis is to investigate teachers' work and attitude to life in relation to the curriculum. Furthermore, how teachers look at students' emotional/social development in their general development. The thesis also reviews the criticism from The Swedish School of Authority on various programs primarily SET (social and emotional training) Three qualitative interviews and four observations at three different schools with teachers have been conducted. Using theories of social constructivism, deliberative conversation and social and emotional skills, the intention is to interpret the gathered material. The results show that the teachers see knowledge of life in school as important in the foundation of students´ emotional/social development. One teacher follows the SET program and two teachers’ took inspiration from various other programs and ideas. All the teachers proceed from core values, curriculum and their own goals in teaching life skills. Two teachers particularly emphasized on how the students developed emotionally and socially. Teachers were receptive to the National Agency’s criticism, and emphasized the importance of method selection, student adjustment, self-interest and that the Agency support the work. The teachers furthermore were able to handle sensitive situations.  This study focuses on teachers´ different views for and against the work program. Teachers who did not follow any program were perceived to have the best knowledge and education, and were most suited to the student body, where evaluation exercises were common. The SET program hinders teacher adaptation to the students because of its restrictive form. Life skills in school curricula have been considered important by the government, teachers and parents. There seems to be an increasing concern among students and greater demands of society. Agency's lack of clarity regarding value application has meant that the manual-based program SET, is sold as aid to schools by private operators. The Agency is now critical of these programs that they consider not to be sufficiently scientifically proven.