Not a Soapbox, a Healthbox

Recently while watching a recorded talk about practical wisdom and it's potential to aid us in our repair of often broken institutions, the speaker mentioned the capacity available to jazz musicians of improvisation, novelty, and foresight to see upcoming issues. These "jazz musicians" are so well connected to the attitudes of their peers and contemporaries that they can effectively address community issues without seeming disingenuous. Educators have the same capacity born to them as do jazz musicians, we just need the opportunity (freedom) to implement dynamic lesson plans and challenge students to use their moral will and moral skills in the classroom. We cannot do this when burdened by overzealous rule-makers who do not know the benefits of dynamic activities in a challenging classroom.

The life of the classroom is at stake. An institution on to itself, the classroom is either a place where students are engaged and interested in the work, or students are disinterested and instead are negatively affecting the productivity of the classroom and teaching all others (including the teacher) how not to benefit in that laboratory of creativity and original thought.

The circumstance in the classroom is clear, the students and I can either pull content from their experience and match it with appropriate content forming a relevant and informative exercise of our practical wisdom and foresight, or I can deliver prearranged content that takes nothing from their experience, but instead intends to deposit it "into them". This philosophy requires students to see the value of the information and implement it without any outside leadership. I think the flaw in this mentality is obvious as it neglects student motivation--why are they doing the right thing when they think the right thing makes them an outcast and even they might not have the skills to perform what is being asked. Connecting nutrition to their lives and building the case for it's worth to them requires their input as well not just the input of the USDA. That kind of leadership transforms the students into philosophical thinkers/actors; Just what we need for the future.

Opposite a powerful student-center pedagogy is a teaching style with USDA content at the center and no independent thought. This top-down pedagogy forces the students to sit, listen, and regurgitate. When what they want to be doing is moving, talking, and creating. Asking students to stand up and speak for themselves, from their own experiences, challenging them to think critically about how their approach to nutrition could be better, and even the social impact of their nutrition beliefs makes the classroom far more dramatic and intense.

We cannot expect students to change their behaviors to a more healthy mode simply by providing nutrition content, for the simple reason that they already know most of what we tell them. They easily riddle off for me the usual nutrition catch phrases: "eat more fruits and veggies", "calcium for strong bones and teeth", "oil is not a food group", what we need is for them to care about their own health/nutrition. So, we need to respect their perspectives and simply provide an engaging platform from which they can advocate for themselves. Beyond such classroom advocacy they need leadership opportunities to practice their nutrition interests.