THE concept of well-being has come to dominate the public and political agenda globally. It has also become almost a universal aim for education systems. Specifically, student well-being can be located at the centre of policy, curriculum, and pedagogy. It鈥檚 hard to dismiss well-being as an educational holy grail.
But what exactly is well-being?
Collins Dictionary defines it as 鈥榯he condition of being content, healthy, or successful.鈥� The Oxford English Dictionary has a similar understanding as it refers to 鈥榯he state of being healthy, happy, or prosperous.鈥� Two common synonyms for well-being are welfare and wellness. The Oxford Dictionary emphasises physical, psychological, and moral 鈥榳elfare.鈥�
It鈥檚 common to link well-being to health. However, a website called Better Health by the Victorian government in Australia notes that wellbeing is not just the absence of disease or illness. It鈥檚 about happiness and life satisfaction, which is elaborated as how we feel about ourselves and our lives.
Well-being is a multi-faceted concept. Researchers in different fields have tried to identify its various dimensions. These include physical, social, emotional, material, and cognitive features.
As education is essentially about and for students鈥� well-being, this goal is probably beyond question. How can we not ensure students鈥� welfare now and into the future? What can we aim for, if not their wellness?
Student well-being may not be challenged, but that does not necessarily mean it鈥檚 adequate as the goal of education.
The new national curriculum in Bangladesh serves as a case. This curriculum is deemed innovative in many ways. In fact, it seeks to achieve a paradigm shift in education, as noted by some observers. This sea-changing curriculum was rolled out in schools in early 2023 as part of a steady implementation process.
The competency-based curriculum seeks to ensure experiential education for students. Both are new ideas that are rationalised by referring to student well-being, both explicitly and implicitly.
In my view, student well-being informs the new curriculum in two ways. First, it is introduced as a new curriculum area, together with digital technology and life and livelihood. Well, it鈥檚 not entirely new, as it actually rebrands health and physical education. The renaming has added new significance to the old 鈥� and much neglected 鈥� learning area. The new subject is addressed to Year 6 students in the following way: 鈥楢ll of us want to stay well and healthy. We do many things for our well-being! As we need to take care of our physical health, we also need to take care of our mental health. Besides, we need to be safe from diseases and other health hazards. In this chapter, we will start a journey towards well-being. This will be a journey towards staying healthy, happy, and safe. In this journey, we will identify the ways of our well-being and practice them throughout life.鈥�
The second way of establishing the well-being-curriculum connection is more pervasive. The radical changes that have been brought to the new curriculum are in the interest of student well-being, first and foremost. For example, students will be turned into 鈥榮mart citizens鈥� in a 鈥榮mart Bangladesh.鈥� Whatever these political slogans mean, they are presumed to refer to good outcomes. These are about students鈥� future well-being. The world of work is changing rapidly due to new technology, including robotics and artificial intelligence. Pursuing old, achievement-focused learning in such a changing time may be a disservice to students and the nation. Similarly, students need to be rescued from the age-old rote learning culture. The new assessment will save them from unhealthy competition and the tyranny of number production. They will now study problems, projects, and experiences. They will work with fellow students and teachers, not just in the dreary environment of the classroom but also in the open air. Such curricular innovations gain legitimacy from a student well-being perspective. As both approaches are apparently essential, curriculum reforms aimed at student well-being are commendable. However, the well-being story does not end here.
In a journal article titled 鈥楾he paradox of student well-being in Singapore,鈥� Pak Tee Ng from the National Institute of Education provides a critical assessment of student well-being in relation to curriculum and other education reforms. He seems to suggest that it鈥檚 not student well-being that has defined the Singapore education system. This NIE educator notes two paradoxes about Singapore education. One, Singapore is both 鈥榓n academic pressure cooker鈥� for students as well as an 鈥榦asis for childhood鈥�. Secondly, instead of pursuing student well-being as an education goal, Singapore 鈥榟as focused its attention on improving the 鈥渨ell-being鈥� of the schooling system so that students can learn meaningfully and joyfully.鈥� The ever-changing education system in Singapore is captured by the notion of 鈥榟olistic education.鈥� This goal drives the whole system鈥� not the partial goal of student well-being.
Interestingly, this Singaporean educator notes that 鈥榌a] narrow focus on student well-being may actually mean that there is a need to examine the wellness of the schooling system!鈥� We can extract from this paradox that even targeting student well-being may be inappropriate if there are systemic issues. On the other hand, if the system works well, student well-being will follow almost naturally.
Knowing that Singapore is often taken as a model by other education systems, Ng suggests ways to achieve systemic well-being. As he notes unequivocally, 鈥楾o do so requires a combination of meaningful curriculum, engaging pedagogies, competent teachers, opportunities to apply knowledge and skills in real life, and educational pathways that suit the aptitude of the students.鈥�
My reading of the many expert opinions on the new curriculum in Bangladesh points to this paradox of student and systemic well-being. While student well-being as an agenda item is commendable, the reforms have bypassed (or, shall we say, ignored?) systemic questions. Student well-being has been foregrounded as an ideal, but it is unclear how this goal can be reached without addressing systemic concerns. The suppression of even academic debates on curriculum is evidence for wrapping reforms in mystery and mythmaking.
Professor Manzoor Ahmed from BRAC University is one of the leading commentators on the new curriculum. In an article on November 6, 2023, in an English daily, he discusses whether to view the new curriculum as 鈥榓 great opportunity鈥� or 鈥榓 looming disaster.鈥� He wrote: 鈥楾hey need to consider the realities with respect to teachers, schools, and students鈥� circumstances and try to match reform objectives with the capacity of the majority of schools to deliver the results.鈥�
This can be read as a systemic well-being question. Professor Ahmed is probably concerned that, given the history of curriculum reforms in the country, the issues that he flags will never receive due attention from policymakers. Therefore, one may be inclined to agree with his conclusion that the new curriculum represents gambling with children鈥檚 future: 鈥楾he ambitions of the new curriculum are commendable, but aiming too high too fast without creating the essential conditions for success is extracting a high price by endangering our children鈥檚 future.鈥�
Do you ask: How can a curriculum that is so driven by student well-being endanger students鈥� future? Well, this is the paradox of Bangladeshi education in a regime that is defined more by rhetoric than by substance.
听
Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world.