A More Humanizing Education

Crafting Holistic Student Development

What does it mean to be fully human?  What does human nature consist of?  These might seem like random questions for a blog on remixing education, but I believe they are at the core of how we should think about any educational restructuring.  For millennia, philosophers have been contemplating these questions and coming up with various answers, but one thing remains consistent—humans are multifaceted and complex, with various dimensions that all need development in order to truly thrive. 

One of the answers to this question comes from the Christian Bible, in which humans are instructed to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30).  Let’s say that these four areas correspond roughly to the idea that being fully human then consists of relationships/community, internal reflection and mystery, intellect, and capacity for action/doing.  One doesn’t need to be Christian to appreciate the usefulness of this framework for understanding the inward and outward dimensions of human life.  One also mustn’t be a Christian to see that neglect of these various dimensions often leads to inhibited growth and an unhealthy life.  If I consistently engage in action, or doing work, and don’t reserve space to develop my reflective capacity, then I’m likely to shortchange my emotional growth and make decisions that don’t adequately account for my limitations.  Similarly, if I focus on action but don’t spend enough time engaging my mind in study, I will likely make uninformed decisions and act in ways that are literally thoughtless and possibly harmful.  And finally, if I focus on action to the detriment of relationships, I lose the valuable perspective and collaboration from others that I often need to be successful, happy, and empathic, as well as become aware of my own biases.  Development of all four areas are critical to having a well-balanced and healthy personhood.

My contention is that public education typically overemphasizes one area of humanity, the mind, for students, thus forming many individuals who believe that gaining more knowledge is the basis for a good life and a good career.  And even if this is not a consciously chosen belief, it’s one that structures how many are implicitly taught to live.  Developing character, virtue, and ethical action, while often historically espoused as a purpose of education, are now rarely codified and included as explicit objectives.  Cultivating imagination and creativity, or right-brain thinking, is lauded publicly, but course requirements and standardized assessments show how little our systems really value them.  And collaboration amongst students definitely continues to increase in emphasis, yet our classrooms remain siloed without adequate cross-curricular learning and our schools are still hyper-individualistic in performative assessments.  In short, most of our public education is still modeled in many ways on consumption—consuming information and spitting it back out. 

On the faculty and administrator side of things, development is not much better.  Teachers and administrators, especially in underserved schools, are usually so busy “doing” that they have little time for researching best practices (mind), reflecting on their own teaching and leading (soul), or collaborating with others (heart).  On both sides, if being fully human includes development of all four areas mentioned above, is it too strong to say that our systems are dehumanizing because they neglect this full development? 

There are some who will argue that they want schools to only focus on the mind because the other areas are better left to families, churches, etc.  I’m sympathetic in some ways to this argument because I do think that the development of character and values, for instance, are primarily the domain of these other institutions.  I do not think, however, that it is feasible or desired to only leave schools to deal strictly with the intellect because schools are also inherently sites of socialization.  There is no way to get around the fact that students engage with each other and with faculty in myriad ways for around 8 hours a day, so whether we like it or not, that socialization is heading in a particular direction—that is, to say, it’s not neutral.  I would rather schools intentionally develop these other areas in some ways, in partnership with families where appropriate, rather than ignore them and let implicit narratives and socialization proceed unexamined.  In any case, what I’m advocating is not any particular beliefs or values to indoctrinate students, but rather space and practices that allow for more full development.  And students, for their part, will likely welcome the more authentic and diverse experiences.

Putting it into Practice

To develop students more fully, a detailed, thoughtful plan should really be created.  Since there is not space for this here, I’ve included some initial suggestions to get started.  As you will see, most of what I recommend is at a systems level because teachers and administrators are frequently constrained by the policies and structures they inherit.  In case you didn’t already know, school reform is a broad issue, not limited to individual schools. 

Mind (intellect)-

Schools already emphasize intellectual development in many ways, but much of it is still too heavy on consumption.  Students need to be challenged to see multiple perspectives and ways of understanding things, ultimately parsing through information to come to their own conclusions.  This process has a basis in understanding “facts,” but facts are not the most important part of learning—questions are.  I advocate for cultivating curiosity through exposure and teaching students how to solve problems.  Many schools have problem-based and project-based learning approaches, which is more authentic to the real world.  This develops the mind more fully while also incorporating cross-curricular learning and collaboration.  The problem is this: state standards don’t typically value these modes of instruction and they definitely don’t have effective assessments for them.  Teachers can create novel ways to incorporate more project-based and problem-based learning, but it would be a lot easier if policies provided them more space for collaboration and showed that this type of learning was valued in how they assess.

Developing the mind also means not just developing one part of it.  The arts have been sidelined for too long as underfunded and undervalued electives that students may or may not take.  Not all students are artistic in the same way, but all students can learn to develop their creativity and imagination through the arts.  It’s up to us to push that.  Emphasizing the arts undermines the notion that economics is the dominating factor for what schools should value.  It also exposes students to alternate means to convey truths and capture meaning, which can be very valuable in their own quest to make a better world.  Finally, the arts have also been shown to contribute to positive educational outcomes in general, whether through developing different neural pathways, encouraging greater school engagement, or helping students develop confidence.

Soul (reflection and mystery)-

Let’s face it, most individuals, young or old, don’t do well reserving time for internal reflection despite our knowledge that it’s necessary for growth.  We also understand that practices like journaling help us process our emotions and relate to others in healthier ways.  What I’m advocating for is simple—prioritize time and space for students and faculty to simply reflect, with guiding questions if necessary.  No need to share if it’s not wanted.  This goes against the idea that we constantly have to do something active in school.  No, we don’t.  And if this space and time are valued and structured effectively, my bet is that student behavior problems would decrease and achievement would actually increase.

Another element to the soul, however, is that we recognize and make space for mystery.  Mystery refers to the element of transcendence in our world—an acknowledgement of the things we cannot know or fully understand.  In an education system that prioritizes answers and knowing, we need to sit with ourselves and reflect on the mysteries in and around us.  This is spiritual in a sense, yes, but it need not be sectarian.  It’s important for students to acknowledge mystery and the limits of their knowledge and control, as this helps develop humility, awareness, and the ability to hold various ideas in tension. It also leads to a sense of awe and appreciation as they learn to reflect on the complexities of the world around them.  This sense of awe is so often what is lacking in consumer education, and helping bring it back could do wonders for student engagement.

Strength (action/doing)-

Students need space for actually doing hands-on learning, which many teachers know and already try to incorporate.  Career-technical education courses are also great for this.  My primary concern, once again, is that our siloed classrooms often don’t offer enough opportunity for truly meaningful action.  I think CTE courses should be more integrated into traditional school curriculum, just like the arts, such that students get more exposure to valuable trades, they learn how their math and science courses are directly applicable (taught in conjunction with those core teachers) in real life, and they gain needed critical thinking skills.  CTE courses are often thought of as classes where students who are less intellectual go.  I’m not suggesting that some students aren’t more prone to intellectual work versus working with their hands.  What I am suggesting, however, is that this area need not be dualistic—students can and should learn both hands on skills and critical thinking skills in the same space.  This is important for creating well-rounded citizens for a democratic society, as well as developing competent humans who can understand and appreciate the complexities of different fields and how everything works together.

Beyond traditional classroom space, what I believe needs to occur is also a greater emphasis on serving others as part of the “action” focus.  Many people in general are self-centered, but teenagers in particular struggle with seeing the world solely through their lens.  I think it’s important for schools to push back on this tendency by purposefully incorporating service learning activities.  Additionally, action-oriented education means that students can learn to solve community-related problems that affect those around them, ultimately combining problem-based learning with a localized approach focused on helping others. This approach forms habits for healthy individuals and helps expand their exposure and understanding of others.  It also emphasizes values that I do think are important for a democratic society and happy life—focusing on the common good rather than tribalism, and getting outside of ourselves rather than becoming more self-indulgent. 

Heart (relationships)-

Humans are social creatures, and schools are inherently sites of intense social interaction.  What is important, however, is the type of social interaction that schools intentionally build.  As I mentioned above, this primarily includes much collaborative work in classrooms and across disciplines, but it can also include appropriately tailored spaces for emotional growth.  I do not think students should be forced to share any emotions with others that they are not ready to share, but I think it’s healthy for schools to have some safe spaces for connecting with others on a deeper level and depending on each other for support.  Many schools also incorporate various practices from restorative justice to help develop healing and empathic relationships. 

The Teacher’s Role

In all of this, teachers must be trained extensively and consistently to implement effective cross-curricular, collaborative, action-oriented, reflective lessons.  This is not something that I have seen incorporated well into many school systems, and it involves restructuring system-wide values and evaluation systems as well as creatively reimagining courses, partnerships, and curriculum guides.  In short, it’s a massive undertaking.  I’m well aware that the ideas I’m proposing would take large shifts in how schools are run in order to implement them effectively, but changes can begin small.  For starters, I encourage educators to think intentionally about how they are cultivating each of these four areas in students. If there are windows to make changes here and there, then do so.  Here’s the kicker—to do any of these changes well, whether small or large, teachers and administrators need margin to fully think, reflect, collaborate, and act themselves.  Can it happen?  I think so, and I’m willing to bet that some priorities can shift in order to create this space.  Let’s get going.