Both sides flawed in student achievement vs. whole child debate
July 07 2009 by 
Hayes Mizell
Public school educators sometimes fall into debating the purpose of their enterprise: is it student achievement, or to develop the whole child?
ﾠ
Advocates for either position enter the debate with certain advantages. The student achievement crowd is riding the current tide of standards, testing, and accountability. But the whole child group has the rhetorical high ground. Critics of the student achievement position argue that it focuses education too narrowly on academics and, by implication, test scores. Critics of the whole child view regard it as too amorphous, warm, and fuzzy. ﾠ
ﾠ
Both camps stake out their positions without acknowledging their own weaknesses. Student achievement is not the likely outcome of education unless educators are sensitive to students' interests and learning styles, as well as their vulnerabilities and aspirations. Educators seeking to increase student learning jeopardize their potential to do so when they give short shrift to students' social and emotional needs, or downplay the importance of student voice. ﾠ
ﾠ
Advocates for the whole child have the right idea, but are often weak in execution. Their concept of what it means to develop the whole child may be so idealized and broad that it's not in sync with the operational realities of public schools. Public schools cannot do everything. Successful schools exercise self-discipline in their focus and operations, develop consensus about what is most important, then relentlessly pursue that agenda. If advocates do not provide realistic direction for what schools should address and, by implication, what they should not address, within the context of schools' very real limitations, the whole child can (and often does) mean anything. When that occurs, schools drift toward low expectations and academic mediocrity. ﾠ
ﾠ
The student achievement vs. whole child debate seems to be another case of educators having great difficulty holding two concepts in their heads at the same time, and reconciling them. The truth is that both concepts are essential, and there is evidence of that in many successful schools. It is not easy, however, for educators to stretch their beliefs and their practice to embrace this more comprehensive pursuit of education outcomes. School systems and schools must take initiative to engage educators in new thinking and learning. How do they do that? Appropriate professional development, of course.
Hayes Mizell is NSDC's Distinguished Senior Fellow.
Posted in Hayes Mizell | 
11 comments
Jul 8, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Reminds me of the old "whole language" vs "phonics" debate. The answer is, of course, a blending of both.
Jul 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Educating the whole child is both skill development and attention to all his or her needs. What better way to develop a well adjusted, competent learner who strives to do his or her personal best, than to help him achieve. There is no need for whole child education to be all ooey gooey. Whole child philosphies include subject matter that is known to include and enhance skill development such as the arts. And students without social skills have great trouble being successful in college and in life. Consider the problems of those with Asperger's Syndrome as one example. Students with this condition may be academically gifted but are characteristically lacking in social skills. There are also serious shortcomings in teaching to the test and focusing solely on basic skills, including lack of actual education and higher order thinking skills.
You have to have both to produce an educated population, attention to the soft skills that create enjoyment of life, richness of existence and social competence and the hard skills that enable employability and further education.
Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 AM
The debate described above is an artificial one: Improving student achievement and supporting the whole child go hand in hand. Kids simply won't achieve if we don't ensure they are healthy and safe, consider their social and emotional needs, tap into their interests, and demonstrate real world application of the knowledge and skills we want them to acquire.
It's true that educating the whole child takes a lot of work. That's why schools need to enter into strategic partnerships with community organizations, service agencies, and other groups. They also need to provide capacity-building professional development that is sustainable, customized, addresses specific student learning needs, engages educators in ongoing learning, and includes an evaluation component.
Jul 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM
I would agree with the posted comments that emphasis on student achievement is not mutually exclusive to emphasis on the whole child. We should be focusing on educating our children offering the rigor and support that they need in order to be successful. There is no need to exclude either position - rather include a combination of the two. It is when we "swing" too far in either direction that we do not meet the needs of our students.
Jul 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Hayes and other commentators are right on targe: the debate puts forth a false choice. Addressing the needs of children for social and emotional development, for example, improves academic performance, even on standardized achievement tests. Durlak and Weissberg's 2009 meta-analysis of 200+ studies found an 11% increase in such test scores among students who received social and emotional learning (SEL) programming. See http://casel.org/sel/meta.php for details.
Jul 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM
As several have pointed out, this is a false choice. There are many instructional experiences such as learning study skills, social skills, physical exercise and social emotional learning that all contributes to academic achievement. These skills are a means to an end of greater students engagement and learning. One way educators can blend aspects of both points of view is for the whole child advocates to become more data driven. This can be done without jumping off the deep end as we have done in reading and math. This lack of data emphasis has been one weakness in the whole child push by ASCD. The International Center has done some innovative thinking in this area with the creating of the Learning Criteria for 21st Century Learners which encourages school to set student learning indicators in Foundation Learning, Stretch Learning, Personal Skills and Learner Engagement. http://www.leadered.com/learningCriteria.html
Jul 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM
I agree with Hayes Mizell and other commentators that both views of learning need to be well integrated and implemented to meet the needs of today's students. I disagree that "The student achievement vs. whole child debate seems to be another case of educators having great difficulty holding two concepts in their heads at the same time, and reconciling them." Ask a teacher. This is exactly what every classroom practcitioner is doing every day, trying to reconcile the demands of the curriculum standards s/he is trying to implement with the diverse learning styles, special needs and unique abilities of each of the students in her or his presence. I do think finding and holding a balanced approach to planning and carrying out the daily work is a challenge for every teacher and administrator in the field today. I applaud NSDC,ASCD, CASEL, the Alliance for Childhood and others for helping to restore some balance to the conversation. Combining deep knowledge of child development with equal understanding of best instructional practices is a foundational formula we all should be able to advocate for and support together.
Jul 10, 2009 at 5:53 AM
Hayes Mizell's recent blog stimulated some interesting conversations. It is always valuable to examine the assumptions we associate with different ideas and perspectives. In this particular case what seems most important is as Hayes Mizell wrote: The truth is that both concepts are essential and there is evidence of that in many successful schools. In response to the Mizell blog: Melissa McCabe (ASCD, Whole Child Blog) wrote: improving student achievement and supporting the whole child experience go hand in hand... Instead of writing the script for a heated and artificial point-counterpoint debate that pits student achievement against the whole child, let's focus on creating an actionable master plan for systemic reform that improves student achievement and ultimately prepares students for meaningful employment, postsecondary education, and active participation as citizens. NSDC and ASCD share a deep understanding of and commitment to the essential role capacity building professional development plays in achieving these outcomes. We will continue to focus our efforts to advocate and advance the definition of professional development so that all educators and students have the support they need to succeed.
Stephanie Hirsh
Executive Director
Jul 10, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Education is the field of choice for those professionals who have a love of subject AND a desire to communicate this appreciation to the future. Numerous occupations offer a route to satisfy a specific focus. Successful chemists, engineers, nurses and conductors have all achieved academically in their field. Successful educators however combine their love of subject with a love for learning that feeds the well being of the total child.
Jul 10, 2009 at 7:37 AM
I totally agree that a quality education involves briding the beliefs of both camps. Just understanding the science of learning should help teachers understand that basic skills is not enough. Lack of emotional intelligence is causing havoc in our schools. If their not taught those hard and soft skills at home where will they get them. If we are going to prepare our students to become memebrs of a global society, we as teachers have to improve our skills so we can meet the demands of our new digital immigrants. Being able to do well on a test is just as important as wanting to do well.
Jul 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM
I have had the privilege of working in both camps. I served for 5 years as principal of a diverse, low socio-economic school and the vision was to educate the "whole child". We provided many extracurricular and tutorial opportunities for our students and professional development opportunities for faculty. We set high expectations for student achievement. However our test scores did not rise above the "acceptable" rating. Last year, I accepted the challenge of becoming principal of a first year "academically unacceptable" campus. We did not have the "luxury" of teaching to the "whole child" and offered extensive tutorials and assessments during the school day, after school, and on weekends. We looked at student data in every shape and form that it could be disaggregated. Everyone taught students in small groups, individually, and whole class depending upon the student academic needs. Scheduling, what and how subject matter was taught, and student groups changed and were driven by data. This was not an enjoyable experience for anyone involved but necessary to shed the "unacceptable" label. As a result the school has achieved "recognized" status. It is critical for both students and staff to enjoy their learning experiences and academic growth. There must be a balance to blend the two camps to keep everyone highly engaged, meeting student needs by studying the data, but yet maintaining everyone's physical, emotional, and personal goals and needs met.