“Take the Test” Action in Providence Sparks Dialogue
by Dana Bennis in Blog
Last weekend, the Providence Student Union (PSU) held a "Take the Test" action, where several dozen community leaders, policy-makers, scientists, and professors took an abbreviated form of the Math NECAP exam, the passing of which is required to earn a high school diploma in Rhode Island. From the PSU press release announcing the event (thanks to Diane Ravitch for posted it in full):
“We expect this event to prove that people are more than test scores,” said Leexammarie Nieves, a sophomore at Central High School and a member of PSU. “We also want these community leaders to get a sense of what students are going through with this new policy.”
One of the test-takers was RI Senator Gayle Goldin (D), whose reaction was described by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post blog The Answer Sheet:
She said the test questions don’t “capture the depth of thought and critical thinking and creativity which is what I think we
Mission Hill: All learning is social and emotional!
by Sabrina Stevens in Blog
“Could something as non-academic as the social-emotional well-being of children have an effect on something as academic as the study of science or math?”
“Academics don’t exist in a vacuum. Yet a frequently held belief is that schools have to choose between children learning emotional literacy, or learning to read a book. Schools like Mission Hill realize that this is a false choice.”
Most folks reading this probably already agree with and understand this, so I won’t go very deep into explaining, as others already have, why taking social-emotional learning seriously is important to academics.
But to take this point a step further: I find myself questioning why so many members of our society presume that social-emotional learning and academic learning are, or should be, separate things.
Why do so many of us, even those who take social-emotional learning seriously, subordinate it to “academic” learning? Why do we feel it necessary to use academic success as a justification for our attempts to teach children how to be kinder, fairer, happier people?
And when did it stop being obvious that things like kindness, fairness, happiness and compassion are valuable and worthy in their own right?
But to take this point a step further: I find myself questioning why so many members of our society presume that social-emotional learning and academic learning are, or should be, separate things.
Why do so many of us, even those who take social-emotional learning seriously, subordinate it to “academic” learning? Why do we feel it necessary to use academic success as a justification for our attempts to teach children how to be kinder, fairer, happier people?
And when did it stop being obvious that things like kindness, fairness, happiness and compassion are valuable and worthy in their own right?
The truth is, an “academics-first” approach to teaching and raising children is kind of backwards. The things we really want and need in life—the material things that help us survive, the social relationships and the personal fulfillment that make survival possible and worthwhile—are actually the most important. The skills we learn and the work we do are only important because they help us to secure what really matters to us.
In other words, academics are important because they support our physical, social and emotional lives, and thus our survival. So to define the value of social and emotional learning based on the extent to which we can prove it enhances academic learning is
