How to Think, or What to Think?
I hear from many people that we, as a school, should be teaching students how to think rather than what to think. This is a popular phrase, and on the surface I think most people agree with it. Situationally, I believe both to be true - and I believe both are necessary.
As a college preparatory institution, our curriculum accomplishes two complementary educational goals: it builds a broad foundation of knowledge and academic skills for successful post-secondary study; and it develops in our students a propensity for academic engagement, exploration and expression.
In the average student's annual course schedule, they will take classes in science, math, languages and perhaps an economics class or two. Courses like this are taught as empirical subjects where students learn a set of information, like algebra, geometry, calculus, physics, biology, chemistry, programming, vocabulary and language structure, for example, which are taught as factual subject matter that is expected to be learned. In these cases, we are predominantly teaching students what to think.
In the humanities such as English literature, history, writing and the arts, students learn the skills and subtleties of interpretation, artistic expression and the celebration of the human experience. They focus on a blend of empirical and nonempirical subject matter such as historical facts, reading, logic, oration and composition, but it is also incumbent on these classes to teach a set of skills necessary for responsible citizenship and leadership in our society such as inquiry, research, analysis, presentation, rhetoric and debate. These latter nonempirical skills are at the heart of all academic pursuit, and they require that students have access to a broad range of material for them to explore. This is where we predominantly teach students how to think.
To accomplish this, we expose students to academic topics as broad and deep as the world is complicated, especially because we have students from more than 30 countries. On the political spectrum, for example, we expose students to topics as varied as democracy, communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism and even antiestablishmentarianism … just to name a few. We expose students to social and societal triumphs, tribulations and injustices, past and present and from as many perspectives as possible - and we encourage them to think critically about the causes, consequences and moral implications of those situations. We push students to learn as much as they can about all of the various perspectives on any given topic, whether they subscribe to it or not, so they are best informed to believe in and support what they choose - all under the expectation of civil discourse.
There is, however, one collection of beliefs that all students are indeed expected to accept and abide by to be members of the WMA community, regardless of any personal feelings to the contrary: our WMA Community Values. Our Community Values define who we are collectively, and what we expect from citizens of the Academy.
WMA Community Values
In This Community
we are thankful
we offer our assistance
we support one another
we respect our school, ourselves & others
we seek solutions rather than blame
we are friendly & courteous
we clean up after ourselves
we value our differences
we hold ourselves accountable
we win & lose with grace
we actively engage with one another
we apologize & forgive
we embrace learning
we challenge ourselves
we choose happiness
Advocates for students, not activists for causes.
With an emphasis on debate and civil discourse, we continuously work toward political neutrality as an institution. But, we would be remiss if we did not wrestle with potentially charged historical and contemporary issues with our students, as an educational exercise. We are also a global community of students, staff and families who all have their own opinions and leanings. This all makes neutrality a constant area of focus to maintain, but it also creates the most desirable learning environment because, since we will not always agree, it provides fertile ground for the central educational practice of civil discourse.
WMA is a place where we are allowed to have our own opinions and beliefs, and where it is acceptable not to agree. But, it is also a learning community where we are all expected to be respectful of one another and open to understanding the perspectives, the stories, of those who may not see things the way we do. And, perhaps most importantly, why others view things the way they do. This kind of open-minded inquiry is at the heart of our Mission.
This is not easy work. It would be easier to keep our heads down and plow forward with our own opinions without trying to understand others. Doing so, however, would be in direct opposition to the process of educating ourselves. Engaging respectfully with others through civil discourse, especially those with different perspectives, makes us stronger. Sometimes it reinforces for us our own beliefs, and sometimes it enlightens us with other ways of thinking and perhaps even causes us to change our minds. Both results are educationally advantageous.
In order to practice civil discourse and achieve a level of principled neutrality, educators must be willing to acknowledge the existence of their own inherent bias on any potentially divisive subject. Because of their position of authority in the classroom, they must actively counteract the possibility of their bias swaying their presentation of material toward their own beliefs. There are many ways to do this, but they all revolve around one central premise: the presentation and discussion of as many perspectives as possible on any one topic, very intentionally, in order to provide students the most well-rounded, engaging and formative learning experience possible.
Are We Really Willing to Consider Anything?
The short answer is Yes. We actually want students to consider anything and everything, to seek to understand both sides of any potentially divisive and non-empirical topic. BUT, there are certainly limits to what we are willing to have promoted in our community.
Our WMA Community Values define specific expectations of all members of the Academy and define us as a community. So, we must pair those expectations with our practice of civil discourse to understand its limitations.
Because our Values include the mutual respect of everyone within our community, regardless of race, color, religion, national or ethnic origin, gender identity or sexual orientation, and because discriminatory stances regarding these and similar topics are inherently disrespectful, there is a corresponding limit to what we are willing to tolerate, collectively, as acceptable boundaries for civil discourse and promotion within the community.
As a school, we condemn belief systems that, by definition, marginalize or dehumanize another person or group of people and send a message to them, intentionally or not, that they should not exist or should not be treated with equal rights and respect. To clarify:
- On one side of potentially discriminatory topics is the intent to maintain rights and opportunities for some people while restricting those rights and opportunities for others.
- On the other side is the intent toward equal rights and opportunities for all, without restricting the rights or opportunities of others.
On any such potentially discriminatory topic, WMA unequivocally embraces the latter position and decries the former. WMA is an intentionally inclusive community. This is why we condemn the promotion of any stance, even through the practice of civil discourse, that seeks to undermine our Community Values and our support of the equal treatment of all people regardless of race, color, religion, national or ethnic origin, gender identity or sexual orientation, etc. This does not mean we won’t talk about all sides of any topic. On the contrary, that is precisely what helps us provide the richest possible learning environment through which students can learn how to think. We want students to wrestle with challenging topics and multiple perspectives so they can learn more fully, develop their own beliefs and form their own opinions. The line between discussing a discriminatory subject and promoting a discriminatory stance, however, is real, and it is a line we at WMA are collectively unwilling to cross or to tolerate.
