Understanding the Whole Child: Critiques of Traditional Education Methods and the Growing Importance of Social and Emotional Learning in Modern Schools | Bajan Beacon
Understanding the Whole Child: Critiques of Traditional Education Methods and the Growing Importance of Social and Emotional Learning in Modern Schools
This article explores the concept of educating the 'whole child' based on John Dewey's ideas, addressing criticisms of teaching solely subjects, and the role of teachers in social and emotional learning.
The idea of educating the ‘whole child’ derives from early 20th century thinker John Dewey whose ideas dominated educational theory and practice for decades. One of the criticisms often levelled against teachers here and elsewhere is that they are teaching the subject and not the child. In some cases, this may be a legitimate critique but very often persons who make the accusation have only a vague notion of what they mean. We build schools not only to enhance children’s cognitive development but hopefully to inculcate the social skills needed for society’s betterment. To some degree, the current psycho-social pathologies that have become characteristic of contemporary Barbados may indicate that formal schooling is not the saving grace we thought it would be. The question is why.
With the breakdown in the home and family structures and the ostensible decline in the efficacy of the Church, teachers are being increasingly asked to fill the void in children’s lives. In the once touted teacher appraisal scheme, teachers were to be graded on the extent to which they were providing ‘pastoral care’ to students. The whole elaborately articulated appraisal scheme came to nought. What is termed Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is now considered intrinsic to the school curriculum and understandably so. However, parents still want to see their children pass seemingly all-important exams, be it the BSSEE or CSEC or CAPE – which includes the consuming imperative of winning a Scholarship or Exhibition, sometimes not for the scholarship but more for the scholarship money. The syllabus which is increasingly overburdened with subject content has to be covered. It could be most embarrassing if candidates emerge from an exam room to complain that the teacher didn’t cover this or that topic which came on the question paper. Critics of SEL contend that it can become a distraction from serious academic pursuit leading to schools’ increasing failure to make children literate and numerate and overtime producing increasingly mediocre academic outcomes. Generally speaking, children attend school from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday to Friday with two breaks each day. This may not allow for coverage of everything that is crammed into the curriculum. One is amazed when one hears the number of topics that some persons want to see included in the syllabi, often taught as separate subjects and at an early age. Some of this amounts to pedagogical malpractice. However, it is my considered opinion that formal schooling which is compulsory from age 5 to 16 must return to real effective learning and give up on sometimes meaningless certification.
The Economist of July 13, 2024, which has consumed much of my reading of late, expresses some scepticism about SEL which the writer describes as being ‘as fuzzy as it is ubiquitous’, and ‘bundling good sense with some quackery’. Among the psycho-social outcomes that SEL is expected to inculcate in children are optimism, empathy, critical thought, moral sensibility, emotional stability and of course resilience. No one with a right mind would question the validity of these attributes which teachers and schools should seek to nurture. However, to believe that teachers can successfully imbue them all in children in a classroom setting would be extremely naive. As The Economist correspondent observes, ‘all kinds of spurious ideas are riding in on the coattails of SEL’. The capacity of a school to enhance social and emotional learning in children depends on the collective ethos the school represents. I never fail to quote R.V. Goodridge’s notion that a school teaches values by the standards it upholds. The operative word there is upholds. A school culture characterised by violence, bullying, thievery, gambling and blatant disrespect for teachers cannot enhance children’s social and emotional wellbeing. Regrettably, in Barbados today it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to any standard. On some occasions, when teachers try to intervene in children’s misconduct they are met by opposition from equally delinquent parents.
It must be obvious to even the most intellectually complacent that the issues that are presenting in children today cannot be dealt with in the context of what used to be called ‘the hidden curriculum’. They require more direct intervention, sometimes harsh interventions. What is questionable is what intervention would best serve to realistically counter the pejorative influences in the wider society. There are so many negative influences and influencers that it is difficult to see a drastic turnaround in the conditions of many of our young people male and female. It was long recognised that it is the wider community and the wider culture that also educates children and young adults. The informal or non-formal education or what the ancient Greeks called the ‘paideia’ not only educates, but it forcefully educates to increasingly wrong ends, running interference with what even the best schools and the better teachers are trying to do. The so-called ZR culture which for some unknown reason has gone unchecked for decades has wrought untold damage on generations of school children. In addition, the drug culture, the ghetto culture out of the US and Jamaica with their subcultural and counter cultural appeal have wreaked havoc on the learning and behavioural ethos in schools across the region. But who really cares when there is money to be made?
Persons who talk glibly about educating the whole child often ignore the reality of how children themselves have changed over the decades. A teaching colleague once observed that teachers have lost the ability to positively influence children in the ways they used to. The reality is that many – not all – young people are now less susceptible to parental and teacher influence. Many children are growing up into adulthood and adult life earlier than they did in a kinder gentler time. Teachers today have to be careful how they try to intervene in children’s personal lives. A child seen crying on a school compound asked the other girls in the class why the child was crying. The teacher was told that the girl’s boyfriend had a case in court and might be sent to jail. Another teacher was told that a student was displaying marks on her body that looked suspicious. The teacher noted that she might have fallen or something, to which the concerned teacher suggested that a lot more might be going on. The other teacher let it be known that if the suspicion was true, that would be a sordid matter in which he did not want to be involved.
Remember the student who refused to pick up a piece of paper when asked to do so by a teacher? At a Speech Day, a principal noted that students were increasingly refusing to carry out orders given by teachers. Of course you know that when the judicial system gets its act together, an alleged deadly incident at a school should one day come before the courts.
One awaits the Great Transformation.
Ralph Jemmott is a respected, retired educator and a commentator on social issues.
