The Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., has published a major paper that describes a new vision for American education.
Instead of focusing on goals like raising test scores, which narrows the curriculum and produces perverse results (like cheating, excessive test prep, and gaming the system), educators should be encouraged to emphasize the development of the whole child. This is not a new idea; its roots go back to the early twentieth century. But it is a research-based idea that promises to change the direction of education and to align teaching and learning with what is in the best interests of students and society.
The report was written by Elaine Weiss and Emma Garcia of EPI.
Here is the introduction.
Traits and skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, persistence, and self-control—which are often collectively called noncognitive skills, or social and emotional skills—are vitally important to children’s full development. They are linked to academic achievement, productivity and collegiality at work, positive health indicators, and civic participation, and are nurtured through life and school experiences. Developing these skills should thus be an explicit goal of public education. This can be achieved through research and policy initiatives involving better defining and measuring these skills; designing broader curricula to promote these skills; ensuring that teachers’ preparation and professional support are geared toward developing these skills in their students; revisiting school disciplinary policies, which are often at odds with the nurturing of these skills; and broadening assessment and accountability practices to make the development of the whole child central to education policy.
Introduction and key points
The importance of so-called noncognitive skills—which include abilities and traits such as critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, social skills, persistence, creativity, and self-control—manifests itself in multiple ways throughout our lives. For example, having greater focus as a student improves the acquisition of skills, and creativity is widely associated with artistic abilities. Persistence and communication skills are critical to success at work, and respect and tolerance contribute to strong social and civic relationships.
But support for noncognitive skills—also commonly referred to as social and emotional skills—extends far beyond this casual recognition of their impact. Empirical research finds clear connections between various noncognitive skills and positive life outcomes. Indeed, researchers have focused on assessing which skills matter and why, how they are measured, and how and when these skills are developed, including the mutually reinforcing development of noncognitive and cognitive abilities during students’ years in school.1
At the same time, there are clear challenges inherent in this work, including those associated with data availability (in terms of measurement, validity, and reliability), the difficulty of establishing causality, and the need to bridge gaps across various areas of research. This points to the need to exercise caution when designing education policies and practices that aim to nurture noncognitive skills. Nonetheless, given the crucial role that noncognitive skills play in supporting the development of cognitive skills—as well as the importance of noncognitive skills in their own right—this is an issue of great importance for policymakers.
Moreover, there is increased recognition, both domestically and internationally, that noncognitive skills are integral to a wider conceptualization of what it means to be an educated person. Indeed, UNESCO’s Incheon Declaration for Education 2030, which sets forth an international consensus on the new vision for education for the next 15 years, states, “Relevant learning outcomes must be well defined in cognitive and non-cognitive domains, and continually assessed as an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Quality education includes the development of those skills, values, attitudes and knowledge that enable citizens to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, make informed decisions and respond to local and global challenges.”2
This policy brief, which focuses on a set of skills that can and should be taught in schools, is based on a body of scholarly literature that tends to use the term “noncognitive skills” over others. James Heckman, a prominent, Nobel Prize–winning economist, has dubbed these skills “dark matter” in recognition of their varied nature and the challenge of accurately labeling them. Various fields and experts call them social and emotional skills, behavioral skills, inter- and intra-personal skills, and life skills, among other terms, but this brief does not aim to settle this issue. We therefore use noncognitive throughout in many places, as well as social and emotional skills and other terms.
This brief explains why it is so important that we incorporate these skills into the goals and components of public education, and lays out the steps necessary to make that happen.
This is a report that will gladden the hearts of most educators. It calls for a paradigm shift at a time when policymakers are realizing that the past fifteen years of testing, carrots and sticks, and other efforts to raise test scores, has produced negative consequences. It is time to take another look at our goals and our vision. This is indeed a worthy project.

Amen! One of the most hopeful things I have seen for “the classroom” though the huge issues loom large, but this is a light in the darkness….will follow and read more closely asap.
LikeLike
Well, sorry to say I posted my reply too quickly. Should never think/assume/hope there is a quick fix insight. Many excellent posts from the smart and thoughtful commenters here. “Light” referred to a possibility that we might be headed in a better direction….our focus, in opinion should always start with the child/learner/student.
LikeLike
This is interesting, but how does it square with the research that indicates that these sorts of skills are content-based and not tranferrable from one area to another? I’m thinking of Dan WIllinham’s writings on critical thinking and your own work on the 21st Century skills stuff…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but this gives me a sick feeling. Not that I’m opposed to developing the whole child, but I get queasy when we start talking about “teaching” non-cognitive skills. This is how we end up with standardized “grit tests” tests and suchlike nonsense. Non-cognitive skills can’t be taught, they can only be nurtured. They are a by-product of interest, passion, respect, etc. When a person experiences intrinsic motivation, they will tend to work hard and persevere. When they feel that a teacher (or coach or whatever) cares about them personally they tend to persevere even if they don’t have intrinsic motivation. But teaching kids to “work hard, be nice” isn’t going to cut it. Even Paul Tough is finally recognizing this, albeit after he inflicted Duckworth and her “grit” on the nation.
LikeLike
“Non-cognitive skills can’t be taught, they can only be nurtured. They are a by-product of interest, passion, respect, etc.”
Beat me to the punch once again Dienne! Excellent commentary! Gracias.
I believe it is Ponderosa here that emphasizes and reiterates the need for content knowledge which forms the basis for those “non-cognitive skills” to develop. It is through the hard work and effort in learning the subject matter that one develops those skills.
Again, thanks for the wonderful comment!
LikeLike
Yes, Dienne, there is that. If you teach it they will want to assess it. A slippery slope.
And, content definitely matters as do skills. It is the make sure you are getting a bang for your buck that is a big part of the trouble and the vastness and scope of the country’s local conditions. Plus the % of time dictated to spend on various aspects as noted above….
LikeLike
I don’t really think most teachers teach the whole child through a discreet curriculum. They convey this message by creating a classroom that promotes curiosity, honors individual interests and talents and models positive behavior. In elementary school this may mean a teacher has a circle time in which manners, fairness, patience, perseverance, empathy, patience, non-violent conflict resolution are discussed. It may also mean that the teacher chooses read aloud books that promote a discussion of feelings, respect etc., any number of issues that explore issues about pro-social behavior. In secondary school, most students have already internalized socially appropriate behavior, but for those that have not, there should be guidance or counseling available to them. In our current climate of slashed budgets, these supportive services are often the first item trimmed from an austerity budget.
LikeLike
I completely agree Dienne. Should we teach the whole child? Yes, and if we weren’t so test focused on math and reading, with intensely high stakes involved (like here in Florida) teachers would be doing that. This “report” recommends metrics and basing an accountability system on such metrics. No Thank you. That is how we got into this mess in the first place. Adding high stakes accountability standards to non-cognitive skills is NOT the way to teach the Whole Child. It sounds like a disaster to me. Diane Ravitch, please take a closer read of this report.
LikeLike
Dienne, your instincts are right. What those of us in the classroom call the whole child is very different from “teaching” non-cognitive skills. Teachers are experts at intuitively knowing which students need what in these areas. We do not want or need any pre-packaged, online, programs. Get businesses out of our classrooms already.
Also, just wondering why economists have a voice in our classrooms?
I mean, I know the answer, but I am tired of it.
LikeLike
Pre-packaged, data driven programs would be a joke.
LikeLike
“Pre-packaged, data driven programs would be a joke.”
No argument there except verb tense. Such programs already exist – they *are* a joke. But they get used anyway.
LikeLike
Agree, agree. I am nervous too that they talk about continuously assessing and quantifying and having “accountability.”
We need fewer metrics and accountability systems imposed on students and teachers. How ’bout the metric is that visual arts, music, and pe classes, librarians and libraries, and free play time are provided at each school. And leaders are held accountable if students don’t get them? Or classes are capped at 20, so teacher has time to interact with each kid, and school districts and states held accountable if they don’t provide it….
LikeLike
Such a wonderful point. How do we get this out into the mainstream and to policymakers?
LikeLike
“Relevant learning outcomes must be well defined in cognitive and non-cognitive domains, and continually assessed as an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Quality education includes the development of those skills, values, attitudes and knowledge that enable citizens to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, make informed decisions and respond to local and global challenges.”
So English and Math 50%, the rest 50%, all by “High Stakes”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While our low-income schools suddenly forced science testing, there is nothing which suggests that history, geography, civics, or social studies matter….nevermind the arts.
LikeLike
I had the opportunity to attend the forum about this at the Economic Policy Institute this week. I am a retired elementary school teacher. I was delighted to hear that education policy should take the whole child into account. I was so glad to hear that students were being seen as more than test-taking, data-producing creatures. I was delighted to hear Elaine Weiss say that educators should be included when it comes to making decisions in education policy.
LikeLike
Diane: Thank you for posting this refreshing brief, which is “refreshing” for its tone of openness and for its call for a new paradigm that takes in stated whole-person education. Catherine
LikeLike
Effective education ‘reform’ is student-centered, not datapoint-centered… https://lucidwitness.com/2016/08/13/peek-inside-a-classroom-effective-education-reform/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good.
Because the top-down corruption model of deform hurts the most vulnerable. Look at what they do, not what they claim to do. Or sometimes, listen to people like Peter Cunningham: ignore poverty. Looks like Cuomo is following up on that.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/advocates-blame-gov-cuomo-all-time-high-homelessness-article-1.2766182?client=safari
LikeLike
Critical thinking is a non-cognitive skill? Huh?
LikeLike
I am also queasy about the promotion of ideas by economists.
This paper is really about accountability and issues in testing (measuring, assessing) skills of students. The skills are dubbed “non-cognitive,” with not much appreciation for the ridicule-worthy confusion of skills (mentioned 204 times) and dispositions (attitudes, values, character traits mentioned 3 times). This paper also reflects a desire to measure “school climate” by the degree to which these skills are present in students.
The citations of exemplary practices are really troublesome. The authors praise for California CORE District’s “School Quality Improvement Index” illustrates how the “whole child” focus is easily replaced by a preoccupation with accountability.
The “School Quality Improvement Index” is a maze of metrics, with various weightings of these, including surveys of parents, instructional personnel, non instructional personnel, and students. All of the VAM measures of “academic growth” (meaning gains in test scores) are retained. If you have not seen this incredibly elaborate scheme for evaluation take a long look here http://coredistricts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CORE-Introduction-to-the-Index-Reports-Presentation-v5.10.8.15.pdf
This paper also cites the work of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). CASEL served as a consultant in setting up SEL standards for the state of Illinois. CASEL also provides a rating service for various tests of SEL. The upshot seems to be that attention to the “whole child” will end with the same old regime of standards, with benchmarks, and testing. In Illinois “The standards describe the content and skills for students in grades K – 12 for social and emotional learning. Each standard includes five benchmark levels that describe what students should know and be able to do in early elementary (grades K – 3), late elementary (grades 4 – 5), middle/junior high (grades 6-8), early high school (grades 9-10), and late high school (grades 11-12). These standards build on the Illinois Social/Emotional Development Standards of the Illinois Early Learning Standards.” http://www.isbe.net/ils/social_emotional/standards.htm
I think that the phrase “whole child” becomes problematic when it is used as a cover for expanded testing and surveillance of teachers, principals, parents, students. Here is a clear case of that mischief from USDE’s preliminary work on surveys which, if refined, might satisfy ESSA’s provision for an alternative assessment for accountability. https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls
See some of the specific survey items in table 25 here https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/Appendix_D_2015_EDSCLS_Pilot_Test_Report %281%29.pdf
Meanwhile, some different talk about re-envisioning education and also enhanced digital learning is promoted by Learning & the Brain®.
Consider the title of this Boston Conference in November: “Empowered Minds: Using Brain Science to Educate Ethical 21st Century Citizens and Problem Solvers.” The conference introduction says;
“In today’s complex, 21st Century world, it is essential for students to be engaged and ethical learners, thinkers, and citizens. Mind, brain and developmental research has found that students who feel valued and empowered are more likely to be actively engaged in school and their community, perform better academically, have more positive social-ethical behaviors and are more likely to be active citizens. Educators can improve school and civic engagement by empowering students through a sense of meaning and purpose, by giving them a choice and voice in their learning, by promoting real-world problem solving, and by providing opportunities for them to feel valued by contributing to civic, community, environmental and global projects. Discover how to empower students to be engaged learners, ethical citizens, and world problem solvers.”
Howard Gardner will be on deck with a presentation titled: “Beyond Wit and Grit: Can We Raise Good Citizens?” Joel Westheimer is asking: What Kind of Citizens? Educating Our Children for the Common Good Engaged, Empowered Minds: Using Brain Science To Educate Ethical 21St Century Citizens And Problem Solvers
http://www.learningandthebrain.com/Event-340/Engaged%2C-Empowered-Minds%3A/
Learning & the Brain® sponsors three multi-day conferences a year, a one-day symposium in New York City, five hands-on summer institutes, and many one-day seminars. In addition, through the Learning & the Brain® Foundation, Public Information Resources, Inc. supports upcoming and senior researchers in the field of neuroeducation. Learning & the Brain® also sponsors the online Learning & the Brain® Society and an online store. http://www.learningandthebrain.com/about-us Over 300 speakers and producers of inservice programs and workshops are promoting brain-based ideas about learning with an aura that suggests the brain explains the mind and all that matters in education. The conference lectures are for sale in several formats. There are fees for the inservice programs.
In any case, the academic regime is still in place with ESSA and teachers are being asked to address social-emotional skills and or social-ethical behaviors of students and school climate.
Meanwhile we have presidential candidates accusing each other of being bigots.
LikeLike
Lots to think about in Laura Chapman’s note. Two things, however. First, Laura says: “I am also queasy about the promotion of ideas by economists.” “Queasy,” yes. However, I was at first glad to see some crossover between fields where, in many cases, fields become and remain relatively siloed in their thinking. But on the other side of the argument, many economists are concerned about the relationship between the economy (and capitalism) and its integrative relationship with all forms of (generally stated) a democratic “culture,” including education. Lately: you might want to view the video on C-SPAN’s BookTV.org, the interview and talk by James Stone who talks about his book entitled: “Five Easy Theses . . . .” This talk (and I presume the book) develops the history behind, and the “larger view” that encapsulates all of the arguments going forward, in their specifics, on this site.
Secondly, while I am glad to see movements towards educating of the whole child, I think the focus on (1) brains (rather than minds); and the philosophically-threaded relationship between that and (with you and others here) (2) a reduced (and positivist) understanding and implementation of ‘measuring,’ are way off course. I found hope in the openness of some parts of the paper and, again, the call for a new paradigm.
Your response calls for much more thought and I appreciate its points made. However, and without writing a tome here or in other parts of the blog (not the place), and though I sympathize greatly with references to “having a heart attack” while reading it, I think we all, including those who wrote the paper, are necessarily trying to fix the plane while it’s in flight. With that in mind, such a paper deserves an open and dialectical, rather than a reactive and/or polemical response. I’m happy that your note suggests the former in several of your points. Catherine
LikeLike
The writers of the EPI report are not economists
LikeLike
Hello Diane: Thank you for the correction–not economists, but from the Economic Policy Institute;and they cite many other kinds of frameworks. Also, my response was to the comment: “I am also queasy about the promotion of ideas by economists.”
I appreciate being able to read such a well-informed blog. Catherine
LikeLike
Economists or not, the fascination with “measurement” and data goes on. Someone chooses a surrogate behavior to represent perseverance and tests/collects data on their ability to improve that behavior through “teaching.” Whose behavioral definition of “persistence” is going to be the definitive one and how its occurrence will be encouraged should be of great concern. Measurement immediately implies that we have some static characteristic that we can define and influence through some standardized instructional practice.
LikeLike
To ToOldToTeach comments about the intentions behind measuring: “Measurement immediately implies that we have some static characteristic that we can define and influence through some standardized instructional practice.”
Yes, and there’s more: The further intention is to exactly PREDICT behaviors and outcomes of both student and teacher (think of the political and moral implications of THAT nugget set of assumptions). Human beings (including researchers) are developmental and historical (not static, on principle), and we have and regularly use intellectual and executive functions to create our world under a qualitative principle (not predictable, but certainly prone to influence–on whole-child principles, we are social, collaborative, and responsive to those around us–we form and like to live in communities).
But if measurable data–data that acts like the data of the natural and physical sciences–is the only significant (measurable) data, all other data is ruled out of court, and those data fields lose their significance to the hegemony of the natural and physical sciences. This is why the movement itself towards understanding the whole child is a breakthrough of sorts; though, again, it seems to be couched still in the paradigmatic expectations and methods of verification that, if not changed to meet the exigencies of the newly significant whole-child data, as you and others suggest, would channel the research and resultant policy to the same lockstep expectations–and disappointments. That’s why I think the writers’ call for a new paradigm was so hopeful.
Concretely, what a child learns and how they develop in the classroom as a “whole child” is formative of and constantly flows into the qualitative aspects of their entire life’s journey. As example, they become researchers and policy-makers, and not to mention they are better informed to make choices that make them upstanding, responsible family members and citizens.
But under the extremely limited data-to-results significance paradigm, all that doesn’t matter (about funding education) because it doesn’t show up on a test, and cannot be exactly predicted, in,the third grade. From there looms the science of statistics, which though extremely helpful in many regards, tends to eliminate the student that falls outside the norm. Though that’s where we find creativity and love, these students are not statistically significant. And if they are poor, forget it. Under that paradigm, failure and frustration on several levels, is built-in.
Catherine .
LikeLike
I read this post and nearly had a heart attack thinking that now they want to measure the whole child. Do these people ever make a judgement without consulting some source of numerical data? Why do we need numerical surrogates for every aspect of human behavior? As if we haven’t diminished enough children by reducing their academic performance to numerical labels? Do we really need to rank children by empathy, perseverance, or patience for instance? Thank you everyone for chiming in before I went into full cardiac arrest.
LikeLike