The whole child approach is the latest buzz phrase in education and its ideas are being implemented in schools across the country. Like many recent developmental educational philosophies, the contemporary whole child approach provides dubious benefits to children, is difficult to define, and is difficult to explain. This article will attempt to provide clarity. The whole child approach to education was developed by Edith Ackermann, who was born in Switzerland in 1946. Aspects of the whole child approach have long been successfully implemented into various educational programs, most notably the Waldorf style of education. Unfortunately, like many other legitimate ideas, central planners have usurped this philosophy and re-imagined it into a one-size-fits-all approach that relegates the family to a subservient position behind the school, healthcare providers, and social service providers.
The main idea of a whole child approach to education is to shift the focus of education away from academics and toward other aspects of a child’s well-being. These include aspects for which schools have not traditionally been responsible: mental health, emotional health, and physical health. The whole child approach is supported by the CDC, state governments, teacher unions, the United Nations, and companies that develop school curriculum.
Implementing a whole child approach to education enables schools to provide counseling services, including those that keep secrets like gender transition information from parents. It enables schools to provide medical services, including immunizations. Furthermore, it emphasizes social-emotional learning (SEL) programs which have been accused of being a backdoor to introduce and propagate divisive issues like critical race theory.
The following excerpt defines the minimum requirement for health services offered in school facilities through the Michigan Child and Adolescent Health Center Program.
According to the Sprouts video, the whole child approach involves teaching kids to use their minds and bodies, to help them develop an identity to be proud of. “There are many aspects of human potential that grades can’t measure.” Kids are emotional and need to develop an understanding of morality and social problems, and are concerned with belonging. They do not hide the fact that they attempt to shift education away from academics and towards other aspects of a child’s well-being.
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) is another organization that advocates for a whole child approach to education.
According to ASCD, the whole child approach “Recasts the definition of a successful learner from one whose achievement is measured solely by academic tests to one who is: Knowledgeable, emotionally and physically healthy, civically inspired, engaged in the arts, prepared for work and economic self-sufficiency, and ready for the world.”
Here are some articles from the ASCD blog.
The last article listed, 4 Ways to Advocate This Summer, suggests asking your congressional representative to cosponsor Whole Child Legislation. Does this seem like a conflict of interest to you?
Whole Child is a term usurped by the left and like their other buzz words such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, they make it difficult to define. This is by design. They do not want transparency and they do not want you to understand their motives. They avoid defining terms and change definitions as much as possible to suit their needs and to keep their agenda moving forward. If you understand their other woke educational terms, and how the ideas are implemented, you are already familiar with their patterns. The Whole Child Approach follows leftist misdirection in terminology just like their other education related buzz words. It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but time will prove that it is not good for children and their academic achievement. It amounts to nothing more than the latest power grab of a collectivist ideology.