Low-Stress High Schools?

The NY Times ran an article on Oct. 29 entitled "Less Homework, More Yoga, From a Principal Who Hates Stress" about overachieving high school students and new programs to counteract stress in schools like Needham H.S.

I have mixed feelings about it; I would generally agree that it's a good idea to give students tools and tips on how to manage stress, but I don't know how effective it can be when overachieving students see it as just another mandatory thing they need to squeeze in with the rest of their activities.

Most of us can remember being in that situation - working hard in school, applying to college, taking AP classes, being on school newspaper, captaining a sports team, taking instrument lessons, trying to cram everything in, and make time to hang out with friends. An additional yoga class would definitely be compounding the problem.

However, it sounds like administrators might actually cut some of the standard coursework to make way for "de-stress" sessions, which sounds like a ludicrous idea.

“You run out of time,” said Max Hekler, an English teacher. “You can’t teach ‘The Odyssey.’ Something has to go."

I think students should spend their time learning things they might not be exposed to or learn later in life (ie, The Odyssey). It's a lot easier to learn how to deal with stress later in life than to take the time to understand the allegory in a major piece of literature.

I also tend to think that maybe "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to stress. Students might not feel stressed, but well-intentioned administrators may be labeling it as such and manufacturing it. It's like when a baby falls - it takes cues from the reactions of others to react and show signs of pain. If the adults are smiling and supportive, the baby is fine, but if the parents gasp and rush to their side to mollycoddle them, the baby senses something is wrong and starts to cry. Similarly, I didn't think high school was stressful because everyone around me (other overachievers) were also busy and on a path of achievement. I'm not sure if we knew it was stressful, or if that knowledge would have changed how we acted.

I don't know enough about these de-stress programs, but I hope they aren't inadvertently promoting a "wimpy" attitude. The article mentions classes that have no grades and not publishing the list of seniors and where they're going to college, both as a response to the stress that it causes among students (some of whom have lied about where they're going to college!?!).

But what about the kids that can handle the stress? Are they forced to take yoga instead of reading The Odyssey? Isn't high school a good predictor of how people will handle stress in the future? I feel like they might self-select out of situations if they don't enjoy it or can't handle it. What's next, athletic competitions where no-one keeps score?

My primary concern is that stress becomes an excuse for students and fosters the dangerous attitude of learned helplessness. I think healthy competition and busy schedules push students to learn valuable lessons like hard work pays off, discipline builds character, how bounce-back after failure, managing time and priorities, goal-setting, etc. I wouldn't want stress to become another "crutch" for students like some of the learning disabilities and ADD/ADHD have become in many cases.

Maybe I'm just being skeptical... After all, I think yoga is a great thing to teach young adults, and am a big fan of keeping things in perspective and taking a step back to reflect. Hopefully these programs become wildly successful at balancing achievement and stress, without softening these overachievers too much.

• What do you think? Please comment...
  

Is Balance Really Possible?

As overachievers, we have high expectations for the idea of balance in our lives. Because we believe we can do everything, balance for us is when all areas of our lives are operating at 100%. We don't really understand that balance might mean sacrificing a little to make sure we're not driving ourselves crazy.

I went for a jog today and of course I couldn't help thinking that I should go running more often. I beat myself up for a few minutes about not being disciplined enough to wake up early every morning. Then I thought about all the other things that I wanted to incorporate - eating healthier, getting more work done during the day, learning to speed read, sort through my bills when I get them (instead of letting them pile up), spend more time with family, etc.

There's so much to do just to try to stay on top of everything and "in balance". But how to accomplish all this? Something's gotta give - sleep less, work longer hours, take time away from my hobbies or friends, ...? But then I'm not in balance anymore and am stressed trying to do everything.

I started thinking that there were 2 models for thinking about balance, just like there are different approaches to filling your car with gas - the "Top Off" method or the "Almost to E" method.

I know I usually let my car (and areas of my life) get almost to Empty and then head to the station to replenish. This has taken the form of sending a bunch of "How've you been?" emails in one day, or running everyday for a week, or eating an entire head of lettuce in one sitting (true!). But I find that I'm swinging to extremes in different areas of my life in a strange attempt to maintain a balance on a longer time-frame (e.g. over a few consecutive months).

I admire the people who take the "Top Off" approach - it seems like they're balancing their lives on more of a daily basis. It takes a lot more discipline to keep all aspects of life in check - i.e. talking to your friends/family every week, consistently eating healthy, working an extra hour here and there, etc. Maybe these types of people are naturally more regimented and organized, or perhaps just more realistic about how much they should bite off at one time.

It reminds me of an article I read in Fast Company, entitled "Balance is Bunk". It's an interesting read, albeit a bit long. The basic premise is that balance is nearly impossible and it's better if we stop trying to reach this unattainable idea of "balance" and just be happy with how we do things. Being from the "Almost to E" camp I might have to agree :)

• Are you an "Almost to E" or "Top Off" type of person? Is balance really possible? (...please comment!)