We should treat students as whole people: Brain science proves it

Among elites in education, the urgency to improve academic achievement has stoked a raging debate between two extremes. On one side was rigorous cognitive and academic development; on the other were students’ so-called noncognitive skills and the physical, social, and emotional needs of the “whole” child.

To many teachers, the debate was silly—because they knew the answer was “both.” Now, science is on their side (Shelton, 2018).

Teachers, like parents, saw children’s daily life experience—and thus their learning experience—as a story weaving emotions, relationships, and ideas from home, neighborhood, and school. Skilled teachers weave those threads into tapestries of learning every day, but they also have often yearned for schools—and policy approaches—that understand that complex reality. The self-evident truth, in this view, is that children’s learning and growth does not occur in a vacuum, but instead at the messy, vibrant intersection of academic, social, and emotional development, helped (or hindered) by the quality of students’ relationships and the contexts in which they live and learn.

Now, comes encouragement from a pair of review articles (Cantor, et al., 2018; Osher, et al., 2018) that take an extraordinarily ambitious look at the science of learning and development. These reports, which aggregate hundreds of pieces of scholarship, lay the groundwork for a generational change in school design and practice by all manner of youth serving professionals and organizations. These reports offer reason for enormous optimism about what is possible for all children, and especially those who have faced adversity and trauma.

The articles by Pamela Cantor, David Osher, Todd Rose, Juliette Berg, and Lily Steyer were supported in part by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, whose education work I lead. The studies draw on neuro-, cognitive-, and behavioral-science and bring together research on the state of the art in research on learning and development; two topics that we oddly and unfortunately separate in education, despite the urging of experts as far back as pioneers Jean Piaget and, more recently, James Comer, starting more than half a century ago.

The articles by Cantor, et al. (2018) and by Osher, et al. (2018) offer powerful support for beliefs that many teachers and parents have held intuitively, and that have informed the work of practitioners like Maria Montessori. Among these beliefs are the understanding that the context of learning and relationships cannot be disentangled from how learning works and that the emotional is fundamentally intertwined with the cognitive.

The findings are perhaps best understood through four specific insights highlighted in a talk given by Pamela Cantor in 2017:

• Malleability: Genes are not destiny. Our developing brains are largely shaped by our context and interactions; a process that continues over years.

• Context: Family, relationships, and lived experiences shape the physiological structure of our brains over time. Healthy amounts of challenge and adversity promote growth; but so-called “toxic stress” takes a toll on the connections between the hemispheres of our brain.

• Continuum: While we have become familiar with the exponential development of the brain for young children, it continues throughout life. The explosion of brain growth into early adulthood and in adolescence, in particular, requires a more intentional approach to supporting that development than happens today.

• Integration: Over time, different parts of the brain should develop more complex interconnections supporting the development of the whole person; and positive and negative emotional experiences can greatly influence that process. Yet, adverse effects of negative experiences and stress can be buffered and reversed by trusting human relationships. Children who have faced adversity, and whose brains lag in development, can recover, if schools recognize these dynamics and take action.

What are the implications?

The biggest take-away for me from the Cantor et al. (2018) and the Osher et al. (2018) articles is the optimism engendered by making clear how much more is possible in education when we begin to apply this growing understanding of the science underpinning learning and development to the ways we engage and support children and the learning environments we create for them. These lessons are universal and apply to every child (and indeed are often intrinsic in the schooling and lives of the most privileged). But the greatest payoff will be for students who have grown up facing poverty, trauma, violence, or other adversity, because this new understanding sheds so much light both on the physiological consequences of stress and trauma, and the ability to buffer and undo that harm.

The implications of this research for school design are far-reaching, and will take years, perhaps decades, to realize for all children. Among those implications: children need to learn in an atmosphere of real safety, because scientists and practitioners understand so clearly now the impact of stress on learning. Students thrive on relationships and thus need teachers who see knowing and caring about them as just as important as teaching them content. Students need to experience a sequence of learning that fits their individual, nonlinear developmental paths, both academic and nonacademic (but, this point does not mean students should learn individually). School buildings and schedules need to be designed with the understanding that it is the entire experience—not just classroom instruction—that informs learning. All students benefit from greater attention to a set of competencies and mindsets that today live under the polysemic heading of “social-emotional learning” and students who have experienced trauma will benefit particularly. That is a project that takes a paragraph to describe and a generation to achieve.

The Science of Learning and Development work found in the articles by Cantor et al. (2018) and by Osher, et al. (2018) represents a starting point for a generation of research and development, of ensuring every educator understands the implications of this science for children’s development and for practice, and every school embodies the kind of environment that power learning and growth. Perhaps what is more important than what the science affirms are the myths it destroys. The most important point here is that the science makes it clear that genes are not destiny—experiences and relationships matter much more. Brain development does not stop at Age 5; a fact with truly massive implications for school and system design. The impacts of poverty and trauma can be mitigated and reversed. These findings consign to the scientific scrap heap fatalistic and racist assumptions regarding which children have the potential and ability to excel. We at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative are thrilled to help move this work forward in partnership with others who see the potential to unlock limitless latent potential.

In the place of flawed assumptions, the science of learning and development offers an empirical view regarding how we can do better for all children—and how we can take giant steps toward equity for children who have faced trauma and challenge. To borrow Dr. Cantor’s words, it is science that offers “a palpable feeling of promise, of hope, of optimism, of possibility.”