As we continue to educate in the midst of a pandemic should we prioritize student well being and their mental health or the curriculum and traditional course work?
These are the kinds of questions in education that I find extremely frustrating because of course the choice is not really one or the other.
It was reassuring listening to Linda Darling-Hammond speak last week at the annual AASA National Conference on Education. She spoke about how the focused commitment to social emotional learning will lead to other improved education outcomes, and as we support the well being of our students, this is actually also part of the academic agenda. These important elements of our system are not siloed off, they are interconnected.
It was the second time at the conference I heard a strong argument around the rejection of false choices. In remarks at the start of the conference, AASA President Kristi Wilson spoke about a new school being built in her home district in Arizona that has a joint focus on STEM and the humanities. She spoke about rejecting the notion that if you were committed to future technologies including coding and computers you did so at the expense of history or critical thinking.
The challenge of false choices is something I see all the time with education. Just jump onto edu-Twitter and there will be many experts telling you that in education you have to choose between X or Y. It is really reflective of the larger challenge we seem to be facing in our world where so much of what we do has become polarized. If you believe in a strong arts program, you can’t be committed to high academic achievement. If you think having students digitally connected you are somehow opposed to getting students outside and engaging more closely with our planet. It is really hurting our system – we want to simplify discussions. If the new principal is a former basketball coach they must not value the arts. Or if they taught senior math and science they will not support the humanities.
It is not a choice for education to be about preparing students for a world of work or life as a contributing citizen. It has always been both and so much more. Those who perpetuate false choices from inside and outside our system do so with the goal of dividing education advocates. Our system has always had multiple goals and social, emotional and academic development do not come at the expense of each other.
We need not have “Pepsi or Coke” debates in education and we should be wary of those who want to perpetuate false choices in our system.
cultureofyes.ca 
Thank you! You are spot on. It doesn’t have to be an either or argument, we lose when we go this way.
Thanks Krisi – and thanks for your great talk at AASA. Once we are allowed to travel again and your school opens, it is definitely one I would be curious to visit.
I feel I have this conversation, or challenge with many new iDEC parents who assume technology is our only focus. While I do want our school to be well known and respected for our digital focus, showcasing the many other areas of learning, supports and teacher expertise is very important in my role.
Thanks Trevor – this is a good example. I remember early days of iDEC and the belief that all the sudden we were going to stop doing literacy or numeracy or not care about social responsibility because it was now a “tech school”. Regardless of the particular signature, schools do not narrowly focus on one thing at the expense of others – they do though, like in your school with technology often use the point of focus as an entry point to the many other areas that will be covered.