Last night I was reading from Schools: A Journal for Inquiry into the Subjective Experience of School
Life, looking to probe a bit into the idea of teaching to the whole
child. Lately, more and more schools say they teach to the whole child, or
claim their approach is different than other schools because of their focus on
the child. With the term whole child
being thrown around so much of late, especially in the middle years, I
began to think - what does it really mean?
According to ACSD, here are the basic attributes of what it
means to be focused on the whole child:
- Each student enters school healthy and
learns about and practices a healthy lifestyle.
- Each student learns in an
environment that is physically and emotionally safe for
students and adults.
- Each student is actively engaged in
learning and is connected to the school and broader community.
- Each student has access to
personalized learning and is supported by qualified, caring adults.
- Each student is challenged academically and prepared for success in
college or further study and for employment and participation in a global
environment.
That sounds about right, but don’t
most schools approach education this way? What school is actively saying they
don’t challenge kids academically or that they don’t promote a healthy
lifestyle?
I came across an article in Schools that mentions Alfie Kohn’s view.
Kohn – who is never short on opinions in print, or in person – made an
interesting point about the whole child approach, and how it often devolves as
the student grows older. He also feels that if schools are to focus on the
whole child, then they need to provide a safe place for growth and change. This
can’t happen when bureaucratic control takes precedent – around school tools
like schedules and policy. Kohn asked the question, “does the schedule rule
learning or does learning rule the school?”
I think there are many examples in
American education today, where teaching is about the system, not the student. Not
just in public schools, where scores are shared in the media and politicians
fire shots at faculty on a weekly basis, but in schools of choice too. Many
parents in our schools look to us to provide preparation – they choose us as a
select school so we can prepare their kids for a select university. We can
measure that, can’t we? Heads can talk about the numbers of kids they place into
Ivy’s and parents can see the numbers too. Done. That quest for quantifiables is
genuine in the competitive world of modern day schooling. So the measurements
better be visible, viable, and valiant.
This is a real issue if you are a teacher. It is an even
bigger issue if you are a teacher teaching to the whole child. They know there
is more to teaching than reading rates, test scores, and college outcomes. Great
teachers know that young people need to think both critically and creatively, now,
more than ever. Students need to know how to evaluate huge amounts of information
in order to work with a diversity of people to solve complex problems, locally
and globally. These are the facts our children face. Therefore, common sense validates
that teaching to the whole child is a right approach. The big question that remains
is whether schools, faced with very real economic, political and social
pressures, will be able to have the guts to stand by their faculty when they
know what works.
