For a school to advertise that it teaches the “whole child” is virtually meaningless. What school would aim to teach only a part of a child?
The issue is what we mean by wholeness. And it’s clear that there may be radically differing conceptions of wholeness. To a materialist, teaching the whole child may involve little more than sophisticated programming and manipulation; what else are we to do with matter? On the other hand, a radical spiritualist, who sees the physical world as an illusion, or even as evil, may ignore a child’s body and may ignore engagement with obviously material aspects of the world.
Scott Forbes argues, in “What Holistic Education Claims About Itself,” “that holistic education has as a goal that students develop to the highest extent thought possible for a human (Ultimacy), and that to achieve this a kind of knowledge associated with wisdom (Sagacious Competence) needs to be learned.” (Forbes: What Holistic Education Claims About Itself)
So when I read in Education Week that the “Needs of ‘Whole Child’ May Factor in ESEA Renewal: Wide Range of Supports, Services, and Enrichment Seen as Vital but Costly” (EdWeek: ESEA Renewal), I’m interested to see what this means. And what it means is this: schools should find ways to “…include dental and mental health, as well as programs aimed at providing prekindergarten and library services, summer and after-school enrichment, mentoring, college counseling, and increased parent and community involvement. The whole-child concept can also refer to making sure schools attend to students’ nonacademic interests, through programs such as the arts and physical education.”
Wow. Although each of these things is probably good for education, they hardly rise, collectively, to the level of Forbes’ argument or to what almost anyone actually means by or thinks about the “whole child” or holistic education.
It may look like I’ve jumped from “wholeness” to “holistic education,” but, according to EdWeek, “witnesses at last week’s ESEA hearing argued that programs aimed at a ‘holistic approach’ to education have to be part of the mix if schools are truly going to boost student achievement.” In the context of the article, it’s clear that “holism” has here been reduced to children’s health and social needs.
ESEA, by the way, refers to the Congressional Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the most recent version of which is known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The Act is up for renewal. Inclusion of larger concerns than standardized test scores and academic achievement is clearly in the best interests of students, teachers, schools, and society. But to blur the line between healthy things like libraries, physical education, and dental care and deep educational questions about what it means to be a complete human being does service to neither the whole child nor holistic education.
