The PHSE problem: why it isn’t working and what we need instead.

Zachary Reeves
Jul 20, 2017 · 41 min read

Recently a friend and I got into a discussion about education. As is often the way with me, the conversation veered toward my desire to see more emotional support offered in schools. Upon hearing my concerns my friend replied, ‘But, surely, that’s the parent’s job, isn’t it?’ To which I offered, ‘Well, why should it only be their responsibility?’

Consider this: In the UK, and many other countries, mathematics is seen to be a topic of such import that it is generally not thought sufficient to leave a child’s mathematical education up to the skills of the family alone, and thus we have maths teachers. And so, I ask, why should our emotions be any different? Surely emotional well-being is an important and complicated enough topic that it too shouldn’t be left to chance alone?

As things currently stand, schools are encouraged to fit PSHE (personal, social, health and economic education) into their curriculum where possible (1). However, the existing framework for actually doing this is minimal. So, throughout the course of this essay, when I come to speak of things like ‘emotional learning,’ what I refer to is a more structured version of PHSE, one in which guidelines for course content are specified within the curriculum, and where specific sessions are reserved uniquely for the purpose of the promotion of emotional well-being.

A model that I would personally promote, would be one in which schools are free to choose, hopefully from a wide selection of well researched techniques, exactly what the content of their sessions on emotional learning would look like. Thus, giving schools, teachers, and parents too, the ability to tailor their sessions to the specific needs of the specific pupils under their stewardship.

Thus, in the coming pages when I come to talk quite specifically about the benefits of certain techniques, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) or mindfulness, I’m not doing so to suggest that we should commit to these techniques, and these techniques alone. The techniques mentioned just happen to be relevant, and well researched, and thus appear as useful examples for this type of exploration. What I would really like to do is start a conversation, to get these kind of ideas into the public sphere, and to begin to open up people’s minds to the wide ranging possibilities of emotional learning.

This may sound reasonable enough so far, but what does the evidence say? Why, exactly, should we be encouraging ‘emotional learning?’ Isn’t the work being done already? Would programmes like this actually work? Would they be practical, or cost effective? And, crucially, what would these programmes actually look like?

These are the questions I will be looking at throughout this piece, and I hope that by doing so I can alleviate any pressing concerns, and, hopefully, inspire a belief in the potential benefits of emotional learning. I would like to begin this journey by offering some of my experiences of education to date.

Before I do this I would like to make it clear that when I describe experiences that are personal to me, whilst there may be parallels made between these experiences and the experiences of others, I do not do so to suggest that everyone’s experience of education (or life for that matter), is the same as mine, I do so simply to consider wider issues of which I have had some experience.

I was educated in Devon in a smallish suburban town near Plymouth. I attended a local primary and following this the town’s community college. The schools both had good reputations within the community and are currently rated by Ofsted as ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ respectively (2,3). Considering this, one could easily assume that I received a rather high quality education that, as the Depart of Education would claim, prepared me for ‘the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’ (1). And, in some ways it did; there were certainly aspects of my education that I enjoyed, things that I learnt that in some way helped me in later life. However, for every moment that seemed useful, there appeared several more that did not; many occasions where I felt shepherded by a disappointingly faceless system that didn’t appear to understand my needs. Furthermore, when I came to face a real and increasingly common ‘experience of later life,’ a period of struggle with my mental health, I felt almost woefully unprepared. And, I wonder, to what extent is this a shared view?

For me it was social anxiety; but for many others it is depression, generalised anxiety, substance abuse, mood disorders, eating disorders and a whole host of other issues. The World Health Organisation predicts that one in four people will develop one or more mental or behavioural disorders during their life time (4). Data also suggests that in the UK mental health problems are responsible for the largest burden of disease and have an estimated monetary cost of around £70 billion each year (5); and that’s without even beginning to consider the profound emotional and moral costs of such large scale human suffering.

Unfortunately, the situation isn’t predicted to improve either. Mental Health UK, for example, believe that by 2030 mental health problems will be the leading cause of mortality and morbidity globally (6).

Also, there is further evidence suggesting that children in schools are increasingly vulnerable to these problems too. Increased school and exam pressures, coupled with progressively more complicated social spheres, have been cited as common contributing factors to what are increasingly substantiated claims that mental health problems have increased among young people (7).

The latest estimates suggest that 1 in 10 children and young people are currently affected by mental health problems (8). The most recent data collected to create this estimate was undertaken in 2004 (9), and it is possible that this figure could have increased since. Indeed, ChildLine reported a 200 percent increase in counselling sessions related to exam stress between 2012–13 and 2013–14 (7). Similarly, in a survey carried out by the NUT, 76 percent of primary teachers and 94 percent of secondary teachers agreed that pupils in their schools had developed stress-related conditions around the time of SATs/public exams (7). There are even reports, and I have heard similar claims from friends working in primary education, that children as young as six are showing signs of mental distress due to pressure at school (10).

When one consider’s the rather bleak picture this paints, it is even more remarkable to find out that despite this, it is estimated that 75 percent of people with mental health problems receive no treatment at all, and 70 percent of children have not had appropriate interventions at a sufficiently early age (9). I fear that the lack of treatment could, in part, be due to a lack of understanding about, and the subsequent societal stigmas surrounding, mental health. A recent House of Commons report, that focused on improving access to mental health services, cited research from The Centre for Mental Health which found that it typically takes 10 years to move from the initial appearance of a mental health condition in a young person to the provision of effective support. This delay was due in part to low levels of mental health literacy among parents, who found it difficult to ‘know the difference between a mental health difficulty and ordinary childhood experiences.’ (11)

Considering this, it is not surprising that a recent study conducted by the BBC found that over half of teenagers try to manage alone when dealing with an episode of poor mental health (12). Arguably, this is due to a fear of stigma. And, one can understand why, particularly with data collected by the Nation Mental Health Development Unit suggesting that 87 percent of people with mental health problems have been affected by stigma and discrimination (13). The same collection also reports that one in eight people would not want to live next door to someone who has been mentally ill, and 15 percent of people believe that mental illness is caused by a lack of self-discipline and will-power (13).

Speaking from experience, I felt that my personal lack of understanding severely impacted my ability to relate to my anxiety in a skilful way. I remember that when I first experienced this anxiety I genuinely did not know what was happening to me. I felt nervous all the time, incredibly shy and withdrawn around people, and I just couldn’t figure out why. I didn’t have the language nor the understanding to see what this experience meant for me, why it might be happening, and what course of action to take next. And, on top of that, I felt ashamed. In my eyes I was weak and inept, and certainly not comfortable sharing this with others.

I agree with the Mental Health Foundation’s statement that ‘by providing the right information, guidance and support in childhood and adolescence, the chances of developing mental health problems can be reduced for millions of people over a lifetime, with enormous benefits to the individuals directly affected, along with their families, friends and the communities they live in.’ (9) Essentially, what they are saying here is that preventative, as opposed to reactive strategies are an extremely important part of the puzzle. To some, this may seem obvious. Teach people about their mental health and of course they are going to be more resilient. For others, it may not seem so simple.

Fortunately there is a wide range of research surrounding the various societal benefits of preventative mental health strategies, particularity those introduced at an early age (4,8,14,15). Firstly, there is good evidence to suggest that these programs are effective in reducing the number of instances of mental health problems, and the severity of symptoms. Evidence collected by the World Health Organisation cites the success of a resilience building school-based program for secondary school children, with results showing that participants in the program had lower levels of depression and feelings of hopelessness in comparison to a control group (15).

A different study looked at the effectiveness of interventions such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, and family-based group intervention, when used with children aged 7–14, with the results showing a decrease in the development of anxiety disorders among children who had previously shown signs of anxious behaviour (15).

As one can imagine, a reduction in these symptoms can also have a positive effect on one’s ability to study and concentrate. Research from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) confirms this notion, stating that ‘a lot of the negative effects of anxiety appear to be caused by difficulties with controlling attention’ (16). They also say that ‘this suggests that training techniques designed to enhance attentional control — the ability to ignore distractions and to switch attention from one task to another — could help anxious students to achieve their academic potential’ (16).

A study looking at the Good Behaviour Game (GBG), a classroom-based behaviour management strategy that utilises social learning techniques, showed a reduction in ‘off-task’ behaviours as stated by independent observers following the intervention (17). These findings, considered alongside the above mentioned research from the ESRC, seem to confirm the cognate relationship between mental health and learning, as well as indicating the far reaching benefits of preventative programs designed to address these issues directly. Thus, emotional learning could, contrary to the beliefs of some, directly support, and not detract from, academic performance.

Further evidence suggests that these type of programs are effective at lowering instances of some wider societal issues that are known to be influenced by mental health, such as antisocial behaviour or substance abuse (4,14,15,17). The Perry Preschool Program in America selected 123, 4 year old children and, over a 1–2 year period, randomly assigned them to daily engagement with a specialised curriculum, in addition to weekly home visits by teachers. The risk factors being examined were poor academic performance, behavioural problems, and low levels of motivation. The program was shown to have positive effects on both academic performance and social adjustment. A follow up study, done when the same children were 19 years old, also showed positive results, recording comparatively lower levels of anti social behaviour and higher levels of social skill (15).

Another program, studied by Linda Bruene-Butler and her colleagues (15), looked at the impact of ‘improving social awareness’ and ‘social problem solving’ among children. Analysis found improvements in stress management, behaviour, and a decrease of mental illness in the participants after a six year follow up. Whilst the comparison group, not exposed to the program, showed increased levels of alcohol consumption and violent behaviour among men, and of cigarette smoking and vandalism among women (15).

There is even evidence to suggest that school-based education programs could reduce rates of suicide (9,15). A large scale study in Miami in which 330,000 children and teens were selected to be involved in a collection of preventative strategies, such as teacher training, parent education, stress management and a life-skills curriculum, specifically designed with reducing instances of suicide in mind, showed a 63 percent reduction in suicide rates and a 64 percent reduction in suicide attempts (15).

Furthermore, on top of the already substantial evidence suggesting the efficacy, both directly and non directly, of such programs, there is good reason to assert that they are cost effective too. A study conducted by the LSE found that for every pound spent on parenting programmes to prevent conduct disorder there was an estimated societal saving of eight pounds (9). The report also stated that the economic returns on school-based anti bullying and behaviour programs was even larger (9).

The Perry Preschool Project, mentioned earlier, found that associated benefits of the program accounted for a seven-fold return on the government’s initial investment (4). In addition, meta-analysis of over 50 studies of educational programs developed for 3–4 year olds from low income families in America, suggests that the average economic benefits to the child were estimated at $17,000, whilst the cost of the program was only $7,000 (14).

Another set of analysis looking at the Abecedarian Early Childhood project, an intensive intervention for children between the ages of 0 and 5, was even more impressive. The per-child benefits of the program calculated at $158,000 compared to costs of $63,000. The monetary benefits cited as being considered in terms of the child’s ‘cognitive abilities and education,’ in relation to ‘estimated impact on future earnings’ (14).

So, the evidence in support of prevention is strong; and, I would agree with Celine Domitrovich and her colleagues who argue, in their work on school-based prevention (17), that ‘the delivery of preventive interventions through schools is logical given the amount of time that children and youth spend in these settings, the important socializing influence that the institution exerts, and the comorbidity of learning and mental disorders’ (p.71). In addition, setting up integrated prevention strategies in schools would also allow for the programs to reach an extremely wide range of the population, regardless of circumstance; and, is something that could be consciously organised in a sustainable and streamlined manner that would reduce repetition, thus having the potential to lower the costs with regards to personnel and resources. (17)

Furthermore, there is a strong body of research that supports the idea that an increased knowledge of mental health problems, gained through various means, results in lower levels of stigma (13,15,18–21). Consequently, not only could these interventions be useful on a personal and societal level, as well as being cost effective, they might also be an influential tool in creating healthier understandings of mental health within society.

The latest National Curriculum document (22) states that the ‘curriculum is just one element in the education of every child. There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications’ (p.6). The document (22) also says that ‘all schools should make provision for personal, social, health and economic education (PHSE), drawing on good practice’ (p.5). Looking at these statements together, the message from the government is this: there is adequate free time within the school week to integrate PHSE into your students’ learning. With that in mind, one might reason that the questions raised in this essay are a little redundant. Surely the work is already being done?

I believe that there are two main reasons why this is not the case. Firstly, a lack of clarity with regard to what to actually teach, and secondly: time. In a recent publication titled ‘exam factories?’ commissioned by the National Union of Teachers (7), survey data indicates that 84 percent of teachers agree that ‘the focus on academic targets mean that the social and emotional aspects of education tend to be neglected’ (p.60). A further 93 percent agreeing that the same pressures meant there were ‘fewer opportunities for creative, investigative and practical activities.’ (p.47) Clearly there is a miscommunication going on here, but what could possibly account for discrepancies of this nature?

It has widely been argued that the driving force behind the prioritising of academic performance in schools dates back to the 1980’s (7,23). Successive changes in legislature eventually led to the Education Reform Act 1988, which brought with it changes in structure, the creation of a national curriculum and national testing (23). Four years later the system was strengthened following the creation of Ofsted and the implementation of a brand new national inspection regime. This meant that schools were to be inspected regularly and reports were to be made public, along with the additional publication of academic performance tables (23). The educational market place was born.

Fast forward to the present day and the changes continue. An increase in the amount of data collected, greater pressures placed on the achievement of standardised targets, specification on which subjects have what meaning in the context of league tables, phonics tests for 6 year olds, a focus on attainment gaps between particular groups of pupils, and an increasing in the rigour and quantity of exams have all been cited as important factors behind the recent strengthening of these measures (7). Furthermore, penalties for schools not making the grade have increased as well. Teacher’s are subject to performance related pay and schools seen as ‘failing’ can expect written warnings from the government, inspections, removals of staff or even closure (7).

One teacher writes (7), ‘I am totally exhausted all the time. I work 60–70 hours a week just to keep up with what I am expected to do…. The pressure put upon teachers to provide accountability for so many factors is unmanageable and seemingly pointless. Many teachers in my workplace are feeling permanently stressed and demoralised. More of us are looking to leave as more and more workload is being given with no regard to its impact on teachers or the children’ (p.32). And, bringing it back to my experience once more, I can certainly relate to this kind of testimony.

Since leaving university I have spent most of my working life in education. I have worked in primary schools on a voluntary basis, trained as an EFL teacher and taught abroad, and spent 2 years as an assistant at a specialist SEN school. I have had the privilege of working with some extremely dedicated and skilled people within the profession, and some wonderful students, both of whom who have taught me a great deal. At it’s best it is a truly joyful pursuit, full of vibrancy and depth; and it is quite possible that I will take the next step and train to become a teacher, however, my experiences thus far have left me a little reluctant.

To my eye, the teachers I worked with, whilst committed to their students, were tired and frustrated. The workload was vast and stifling. So much of what we did felt extremely pointless. Stuff that did not appear to have any positive effect on the actual day to day running of the classroom. In fact, it tended to have the opposite effect. We spent so much time doing paper work that we didn’t have enough time to really dedicate ourselves to the more practical tasks of lesson planning and resource making. In addition, the pressure to teach curriculum content increased steadily too. It felt at times as though we were target focused, not pupil focused; as it should have been. Speaking for myself, I knew we could have given the students so much more had we had the time and freedom to do so. So, if these accountability measures seem to be causing so much trouble, why keep them?

One of the central ideas behind accountability measures, particularly with regard to high stakes testing, is that they improve attainment (7). The notion is that by introducing systems that rank school’s by their respective scores on standardised national tests, and by holding these school’s accountable if they fail to meet the standards set, that this will provide sufficient incentive for teachers and schools to work hard to keep their standards, or rather test scores, up. And, interestingly enough, there is evidence to suggest that high stakes testing does seem to result in a general increase in test scores (7,24). But, I might ask, at what cost?

It is suggested that the main reason that high stakes testing appears to improve test scores is that it results in teachers focusing their teaching very closely on the content of the test (10,26). This leads, naturally, to a narrowing of the curriculum. Meaning that, whilst test scores may have improved, the overall knowledge of the students won’t have (7,24).

In America, who, due to the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act of 2001, have a very similar system of accountability (7), a study was conducted across 18 different states that concluded that whilst test scores went up in light of these changes, there was no evidence to suggest an increase in student learning as a whole (24). Similarly, in this country, in 2008, the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee (25) stated that “a variety of classroom practices aimed at improving test results has distorted the education of some children, which may leave them unprepared for higher education and employment” (p.3).

Some very interesting research published in the Journal of Chiropractic Education in 2013 explores this notion further (26). The study followed 259 students who were divided into two groups, a test group and a self-assessment group. Each group then used their respective study technique to prepare for 3 formal exams of increasing difficultly. I understand that it seems a little odd to test the efficacy of testing as a means of preparing for more testing, but the results are illuminating non the less. They found no significant difference in test scores between the two groups, although it was noted that the self-assessment group met a higher percentage of criteria than the quiz group.

However, they did find that the self assessment group performed better on case discussions, the majority of students agreed that the self-assessment process fostered critical thinking skills, and 90 percent of the group, compared to 50 percent of the test group, developed confidence in their ability to become independent learners after the teaching was finished (26).

They also concluded that ‘students in the self-assessment group do not just learn the answers to the questions, they put the information into a larger context, making sure that they understand the connection between self-assessment and the goal of better learning and retention of course material’ (p.114). Where as ‘when students use tests as a learning tool, they are more focused on the specific answers, the styles of questions, and the amount of time spent on the test’ (p.114).

To sum up, there is little evidence to suggest that standardised testing is more useful than other forms of reflection in terms of fostering progress among students, nor that is as effective at encouraging self motivation and critical thinking, and, as mentioned earlier, it is directly associated with stress and poor mental health among students and teachers. So, if pressurised testing is perhaps not as effective in these areas as thought, is it at least a useful tool in terms of offering an understanding of the quality of education a school provides?

It is thought that, at best, test results provide us with a relative understanding of a child’s progress in a certain subject (27). Not a complete picture, but an idea of some areas of strength and weakness. To this end, I think testing can be useful. But, only if the findings are understood in respect of their inherent limitations. However, in terms of measuring a school’s progress as a whole, and in relation to the progress of other schools, I’m not so sure.

One of the first and major drawbacks of a test, and this was somewhat mentioned earlier, is that a test can only cover a relatively small amount of course content; because if a test were to actually cover the full range of knowledge and skills within a course, it would be far too long (27). Thus, if a teacher were to spend time covering course content that did not appear in the exam, in terms of test results, that teaching would, essentially, not count. How then is that a fair marker of the overall quality of teaching? To my eye, it isn’t. It is perhaps a fair marker of the teacher, or the school’s ability to recognise what content will appear in a test, and then focus on that content. But that isn’t education, is it? That is simply preparation.

Another key drawback of standardised testing as a comparative tool is that it fails to recognise the other elements that effect a child’s progress; ie their natural aptitudes, out of school learning or home life (27). For various reasons there are correlations between higher socio-economic status and academic performance in children (28–31). Therefore, if one is to compare two schools, one from a lower socio-economic area, and one from a higher socio economic area, using the same yardstick, a standardised national test, then one is to completely ignore the inherent bias of doing so. Is it fair to compare the results of a child whose family can afford to pay for a private tutor, against a child whose family cannot? And, furthermore, to then use the results of such a comparison to suggest some inherent difference in the quality of education that their respective schools supply, with no acknowledgement of external factors, is questionable to say the least.

For me, perhaps the most interesting drawback of standardised testing is that is does nothing to represent other, non academic, areas of learning that are occurring (27). There is a growing understanding among educators asserting that there are various forms of intelligence (27). The Department of Education itself states that ‘the national curriculum is just one element in the education of every child’ (22). But, yet, standardised testing offers no representation of these other elements.

Daniel Goleman (32), in his seminal book ‘Emotional Intelligence,’ argues, among other things, that IQ alone does little to predict the life outcomes of people with relatively equal prospects. He cites a study that followed 95 Harvard students from the 1940’s, when, he argues, people with a wider spread of IQs attended Harvard, from schooling into middle age. The results found that the highest scoring students, in terms of test results, were not particularly more successful than their lower scoring peers in terms of salary or job status, nor did they have ‘the most happiness with friendships, family, and romantic relationships’ (p.35).

In the same book, he describes a different but similar study, following the progress of 450 boys from the Harvard area. Though, not from the prodigious college this time but from a less affluent area near by. Again the study found that IQ did little to predict their success. There was a general link between IQ and prosperity, as there can be, however ‘abilities such as being able to handle frustrations, control emotions, and get on with other people made the greater difference’ (p.35).

To reiterate, I do think that certain forms of testing can be useful. They can offer us relative understandings of a few key areas of strength and weakness within a subject. However, the current pressure and importance being placed on the results of standardised testing is not at all useful. In fact, I would argue that it is extremely damaging; and, as we have seen, there is a good deal of evidence to support this claim.

I would like to mention that standardised testing is not the only accountability measure worth our scrutiny. As touched on earlier, greater requirements with regard to tracking progress more generally, increased safeguarding responsibilities, and many other recent changes have, according to teachers, had an overall negative impact on the profession (7). However, I chose to focus on testing specifically as it has perhaps the greatest direct impact on pupils and their mental health. The idea that I want to communicate here is that not only is emotional learning so important, but also that other pressures mean that it is often overlooked, and that these pressures, particularly with regard to high stakes testing, clearly need to be reconsidered.

I say ‘reconsidered,’ but perhaps ‘adjusted’ is a better word. If testing causes such trouble in schools, for teachers and pupils alike, and we know that it’s efficacy is limited, and, we also know that emotional learning is very valuable, then the idea of scheduling emotional learning sessions into a school timetable, at the expense of a few (I will explore the numbers later) hours of tested material, seems quite logical.

So, taking that all in, where does this leave us? For me, it leaves us at a very critical time in terms of our ability to act and influence these issues. The time is right. Growing support from experts and research, apparent dissatisfaction within the profession, and recent attention being given to mental health issues within the media, mean that it could be a very pertinent time to make changes. But, what, exactly, should be done?

Potential Concerns

Before I launch into my ideas of how to make these changes, I feel it necessary to address some important concerns that people may have about this process. One concern that I would particularly like to address relates back to the conversation I had with my friend at the beginning of this essay. If you remember, his answer to my thoughts on the need for emotional learning were ‘but that’s the parents job, isn’t it?’ To me, this represents a key barrier to the progression of this process. The idea that it is not the duty of a school to offer emotional support or guidance, that this is the sole responsibility of the family.

One fear might be that offering emotional learning in schools might in some way be a criticism of the family’s ability to do so. I would first like to recognise that this is a complex and nuanced issue, but not one that should be abandoned simply because it has the potential to be difficult; and, I hope that exploring this issue further will offer some form of reassurance.

Firstly, I would like to assert that mental health is an incredibly complicated subject, and one that has only recently become the subject of mainstream attention (33,34). Our understanding is growing, but in truth we have much to learn. Perhaps this is because mental health is distinct from other medical sciences in that the problems do not necessarily correlate with neat, packable diagnosis. As in, where as a physical illness may be directly related to the presence of a certain pathogen for example, a mental illness could have any number of sources; and, whilst we can make assumptions about relationships to key life events or circumstances, the truth is rarely that simple (34).

So, this in mind, I would like to suggest that when dealing with a subject as complicated as the emotional learning of a child, why should it be seen as anything but sensible to seek help? Particularly given that that help is likely to be carried out by someone with appropriate training and sufficient experience within the field.

Secondly, I would like to assert that these programs, rather than hindering the work of parents, could have a positive impact on the cohesion of the family unit as a whole. Data suggests that 68% of women and 57% of men with mental health problems are parents (6). There may, of course, be many reasons for an imbalance of this kind, but I don’t think it is inappropriate to suggest that it could, in part, be related to the stresses involved in raising children.

Evidence cited earlier suggests that preventative strategies have been seen to reduce rates of antisocial behaviour (4,14,15,17). Behavioural problems in children are generally thought to be causal agents of stress, and are therefore directly linked to the stress levels of parents (35). In addition, longitudinal studies have alluded to the reciprocal nature of behavioural problems in children and parent’s stress; in other words, behavioural problems in children increase parent’s stress, and then parent’s stress further increases behavioural problems, and this relationship continues thus as a kind of viscous cycle (35).

In 2008 a study of 13,228 fathers found that severe paternal postnatal depression correlated with emotional and behavioural issues in their children (9). Furthermore, studies, looking at maternal mental health this time, suggest that increased support, in the form of home visits by a nurse during the period of pregnancy, and for 2 years after, were seen to relate to reduced rates of smoking and better social support for mothers, reduced child abuse, better adjustment to working life, and better academic achievement in children (15).

The next potential concern that I would like to address is what I see as a rather alarming concern arising in certain areas of the public sphere; it is the idea that modern approaches to education, or rather society in general, are in some way ‘soft,’ and that they contribute directly to a perceived lack of resilience among the current generation (to reference the term ‘generation snowflake’ (36), for example), simultaneously detracting from traditional and more hard-line academic, and societal approaches.

I think a good analogy to make here is that of the ‘war on drugs’ in America. As the use of drugs became an increasing problem in America over the course of the 20th century, leaders such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan decided that the best course of action was to get tough. The results being increased police powers and harsher penalties for drug use or involvement. Despite an enormous investment of both money and resources, the problem didn’t go away. In fact, it appeared to get worse. An estimated $1 trillion spent in prevention (37), and yet recent estimates suggest that the US has the highest overall drug use globally (38,39). The hard-line approach was not as effective as hoped.

An interesting example from California explores the notion further (40). Law enforcement officials from the area decided to tackle gang activity by increasing penalties for young people allegedly connected to known gangs. The results were unimpressive. While the prison population increased significantly, there was no reduction in gang activity in the intended areas. Furthermore, gang activity in the prison system became such a big issue that gang affiliation must now be considered before assigning prisoners to their intended prison (40).

The same idea appears to ring true in schools as well. Corporal punishment, I suppose the antithesis of this ‘soft’ approach, has been shown in research to correlate with an increase in defiance toward parents and authorities, poorer quality of relationships, increased likelihood of hitting a partner or spouse themselves, an increase in instances of mental health problems, and lower levels of empathy (41,42).

Strict, but less extreme, methods of discipline, such as ‘zero tolerance’ policies that advocate expulsions or removals from class have also been seen in research to correlate to negative outcomes (43). Whist suspended or removed from class, students are at a significantly higher risk of falling behind academically, dropping out of schools, and coming into contact with the law (43).

To me, this notion makes a lot of sense. A harsher, more punitive school system only serves to increase the distance between the powerful authorities (the school) and the powerless subjects (the student). Creating an environment that increases dissatisfaction and decreases the sense of connection between the pupil and the school. And, interestingly, this sense of connection, or ‘connectedness’ (44), has been shown in evidence to correlate with positive effects on both academic performance and behaviour (44). So, considering the evidence, it seems increasingly untenable to support the idea that tougher approaches are needed to address the issues affecting our schools today.

And, to be clear, this is not to promote a system without rules or any form of discipline, rather it is to argue against the idea that supportive strategies are ‘soft’ and need be replaced with more disciplinarian practices.

The final issue I would like to address in this regard is perhaps a little more complicated. It is the assumption, on my behalf, that there may be a concern among families that structured emotional learning would impose a certain moral or ethical narrative upon children. In order to address this concern I would like to use the example of mindfulness and it’s current use in schools. I will look at mindfulness in more detail later on, but for now I would like to focus more on it’s presentation than it’s benefits.

Mindfulness originated from Buddhist philosophy and practices of meditation. It is the idea that by paying attention to our experience in certain ways for certain reasons we can learn to live in present moment and reduce the tendency to fall into patterns of negative thinking. In recent years the practice has been secularised and simplified to fit a modern audience (45). The Mindfulness in Schools Project (MiSP) is one of a few projects looking to introduce mindfulness practice into schools. Their website states that the aim of their classroom based programs is to ‘introduce young people to the potential benefits of mindfulness in the safety of the school classroom’ (45). Note that they are not looking to indoctrinate anyone, or to impose any overarching world view, they are simply looking to introduce people to some techniques for maintaining well being, which they are free to adopt or not, as the case may be. It is also worth understanding that, having been stripped of it’s religious connotations, mindfulness practice would not in anyway contradict any religious or non-religious world views.

It is my belief that if the right amount of planning and organisation went into the implementation of emotional learning, then all of the teaching could be presented in this way. Simply as ideas and techniques for healthier understandings of life; concepts that complement, not contradict, any wider beliefs about the world.

I hope that this exploration has offered some reassurance to any pressing concerns about the presentation of emotional learning; and, now, I will explore, in more detail, my own ideas about specific areas of focus for this pursuit.

I would like to see the implementation of three key areas of emotional study: Communication Studies, Resilience, and Affective Science. Broadly speaking, Communication Studies would deal with the art of effective communication, involving listening exercises, compassion cultivation, empathetic understanding, and appropriate communication; Resilience would offer techniques for dealing with mental distress, such as mindfulness and CBT; and, Affective science, or the study of emotions, would involve discussion groups, emotional study, group counselling and support.

I have chosen to focus on these three areas specifically because I believe that they would offer a comprehensive and functional understanding of key aspects of emotional well being, they could be easily taught, and they would fit neatly into a school curriculum.

As said before, although I am being quite specific here about what I think should be introduced, I do believe that schools themselves should have the ability to decide the finer details of what is taught. I’m simply suggesting a framework within which they would have the power to tailor the programs to the needs of their pupils. Again, this is about starting conversations, not about the creation of prescriptive, stifling curriculums.

Communication Studies

I mentioned earlier that one of the aspects of Communication Studies could be compassion cultivation. CCT, or Compassion Cultivation Training, is a technique for doing just that. It is an 8 week classroom based course designed to strengthen the qualities of ‘compassion, empathy and kindness’ (46).

This may sound appealing, but can those kind of qualities really be taught? A recent study found that in healthy young adults compassion training increased altruistic behaviours, a trend that was also associated with changes in brain activation in regions associated with social competence (47). The conclusion: ‘these results suggest that compassion can be cultivated with training, where greater altruistic behaviour may emerge from increased engagement in neural systems implicated in understanding the suffering of others, executive and emotional control, and reward processing’ (p.1171).

Other studies, looking this time at the results of empathy training, show similar results (48). A plethora of different reports indicated that increased levels of empathy were associated with ‘prosocial behaviours’ (p.4), the ability to ‘establish and maintain friendships’(p.13), increased satisfaction in romantic partnerships, and an improved quality of family relationships (48). The findings also suggest that ‘empathy training programs are effective in increasing empathy’ (p.4). Therefore, when you consider this alongside evidence that suggests that a lack of social connection is a greater risk to health than obesity, smoking, and high blood pressure (49), the argument in support of teaching empathy in schools is strong.

In terms of presenting teaching on effective communication, I would like to offer, among others, the model of NVC, or Non Violent Communication. Non Violent Communication is essentially a tool of empathetic communication that relies on interacting in ways that respects your needs and the needs of others (50). This is in no way a panacea, and there is a need for more empirical research measuring it’s efficacy, however there are some early signs of promise.

A study following the success of a program called ‘smile keepers,’ which was carried out among 2500 teachers in Serbia and Montenegro, and was designed to help children cope with emotional experience, part of which was an introduction to NVC, indicated that after the program children were ‘less afraid to express their emotions, less fearful, passive, tense…On the other side, they are…more confident, open minded, free, sensitive, persistent, joyful, sociable, imaginative, curious and independent’ (51). These results are anecdotal, and thus have their limitations, but they do offer some understanding of the ability to teach these processes and the potential benefits available by doing so.

Really, more than simply the success of NVC, this study shows the possibilities of wider programs focusing on the teaching of effective communication. After all, the curriculum itself states that ‘pupils should be taught to speak clearly and convey ideas confidently.’ (22) So, why don’t we actually directly teach them how to do this? Rather than assuming that they will simply pick up the skills they need as a by product of other learning.

Resilience

I see Resilience as the subject that gives students the practical tools to work effectively with their own mental health. As I mentioned previously, one technique that has received some attention in schools is mindfulness. The research in favour is quite compelling.

In 2013 a test was conducted featuring 273 people who had completed an online mindfulness course called ‘Be Mindful,’ the results showed a 58 percent reduction in anxiety, a 57 percent reduction in depression levels, and a 40 percent decrease in stress levels compared to a control group (52). A further study, looking specifically at how effective mindfulness would be in preventing depressive relapse, found that after an 8 week mindfulness program relapse rate was at 37 precent, compared to 66 percent for those who did not attend the course (53).

There is also evidence to suggest that mindfulness practice is related to wider associated benefits, such as growth in brain regions correlated with attention and sensory processing (54), and more robust immune responses characterised by increased production of antibodies (55).

Classically, the hole in the data has been in relation to whether the benefits seen in adults would transfer on to similar benefits in children. Intuitively you would expect that as long as the message could be communicated effectively, the results would be the same. The data is growing and increasingly it appears that our intuition is correct. After a 6 week study, looking at the benefits of mindfulness training for anxious children, teachers reported improvements in academic functioning and a decrease in symptoms of anxiety (56). Another study involving a 12 week program of breath awareness and yoga carried out among elementary schools students showed decreased test anxiety and increased attention and social skills when compared to controls (57).

This flurry of research and media attention, coupled with a great deal of hard work, has led to the creation of MiSP, mentioned earlier. The program is still establishing itself, but the early signs are promising (58,59). However, I feel that whilst this program is necessary and exciting, a more structured and integrated learning of mindfulness could be greatly beneficial and would also be likely to reach a far wider audience.

Another tool that I mentioned earlier was CBT, or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. CBT is a talking therapy which seeks to help the receiver by changing the way they think and behave (60). Traditionally the therapy is conducted on a one to one basis, however it can also be delivered in groups and it is being trailed in schools too (61). Again, this is an intervention backed up by some good research (62). As mentioned previously, it has been seen to correlate with reductions in anxiety disorders among children who already show sings of anxious behaviours (15). In addition, the research also shows a good deal of success when working with anxiety more generally, it also shows positive correlations when dealing with depression, substance reliance and a whole host of similar problems (62).

I understand that these are just two ideas, or techniques, among many. However, again, the key thing to take away here is not that these techniques are the only relevant methods, rather it is to understand that techniques of this kind appear to be effective; and, interestingly, some have already been trailed in schools and thus a framework for classroom based applications is preexisting.

Affective Science

Affective science, or the study of emotions, would be a broad subject, covering many things, with the aim of better understanding our moods in mind. One core practice could be group counselling sessions. Schools are already encouraged to provide counselling services, although some do struggle to do so (63). However, unfortunately, again this tends to fall into the category of reactive, and not proactive action. I would like to suggest a more proactive model, where support is provided before an issue occurs, in the form of scheduled, regular classroom based group counselling sessions.

There is quite a lot of evidence suggesting that counselling is an effective reactive treatment for a number of conditions (64), but is there any evidence of it’s efficacy as a proactive measure? And, could it actually work in schools?

A very interesting study from 1996 looked at 142 elementary school children from two different schools who were struggling in both reading and maths (65). The group was divided into two and while both received extra academic support, one group also received a weekly 45 minute group counselling session. Results showed progress in all measured areas (self esteem, locus of control, social status, and academic achievements) for the group who received counselling, compared to the control group for whom there was no significant different between pre and post measures. Furthermore, the findings appeared to sustain when a third assessment was undertaken 6 to 12 months later (65).

Another key area of focus for affective science would be learning about emotional states themselves. We have seen previously how a lack of mental health literacy can have a negative impact at various levels, and when you consider this alongside evidence that positively relates emotional intelligence to happiness (66), it seems to me that teaching children more about the nature of their emotions makes a lot of sense.

I would personally suggest lessons focusing on different emotional states, their physiology, and known causes and coping strategies. Perhaps this learning could also be taken into a wider context and pupils could read novels that deal with similar issues, relate the information to stories in the news or media, and discuss their own relevant experiences.

Practicalities

I would, now, like to take the time to consider some of the more practical implications. Firstly, how exactly would these programs fit into a school day? A typical week in secondary school consists of 22.5 hours of teacher led contact time (67). Initially, I would suggest that, in this context, a good place to start would be 3 hours of emotional learning per week, 1 hour per subject (Communication Studies, Resilience, Affective Science.) This would, as mentioned previously, come at a cost of a reduction of 3 hours per week to the academic subjects. However, when you consider that this is just 13 percent of the available contact hours, in conjunction with the various perceived benefits of this kind of teaching, it seems like a sacrifice worth making.

I would suggest implementing a similar ratio in primary schools too, although, obviously, the method of teaching would have to be altered. It may be more beneficial for primary school children to receive this information in smaller chunks, perhaps through shorter, more regular sessions (something in the region of 15–25 minutes per day). This could result in a similar amount of time spent on the lessons, around 3 hours, but the spread of time would be different.

It is worth mentioning that timetables do differ in primary schools, with the BBC estimating that on average teacher’s spend 19 hours on timetabled teaching (68). Therefore, the same 3 hours in primary would be a larger percentage of the school week, when compared to secondary. However, it still only weighs in at around 16 percent of the timetabled content, and thus would be a small price to pay. Also, considering the evidence presented earlier that cited the specific benefits of early years interventions, it would seem that any divergence is justified.

Another important practical implication is cost. I’m not going to deny that creating and staffing programs like this would be expensive. But, I will say, I believe that it is a price worth paying.

Government sources state that there are 8.4 million pupils in our schools (69). They also say that the average class size is 20.4 pupils per class in secondary, 27.1 in primary (70), and 27.4 in infant schools (69). So, to be generous, let’s use the lowest score, 20.4, to get an idea of the amount of classes these pupils are divided in to. 8.4 million pupils divided into groups of 20.4 leaves us with 411,765 classes in the UK. Let’s say a teacher can teach 5 classes per day. There are 5 days in a school week, and thus one teacher could cover 25 classes per week and, therefore, 25 classes total. This is understanding that whilst a teacher may move between different classes, one teacher could only cover a maximum of 25 classes at any given time. One teacher per 25 classes would leave us with 16,471 teachers needed to assign one teacher to each set of 25 classes. If we needed three teachers per 25 classes, one for each proposed discipline (Communication Studies, Resilience, Affective Science), that would leave us needing 65,884 teachers to staff the program. If each teacher earned £34,000 (a government ‘overestimate’ of the average UK teacher’s wage (71)), then the overall cost of staffing the program would be £2.24 billion. That certainly seems like a big enough number, but when you consider that this is only 3.2 percent of the estimated £70 billion cost of mental health to the UK (5), it doesn’t quite seem so daunting.

These are, of course, just estimates and there would surely be other associated costs, like research and training, for example. But, in terms of an investment, the logic seems sound. The benefits would appear to out way the costs. In addition to the financial incentives, there may also be other related improvements for teachers. 3 hours less teaching per week would help to slightly reduce workload; there is a possibility that increased mental health support could improve behaviour among students; it would take some of the pressure off of teacher’s to balance PHSE and course content; and, hopefully, it would lead to healthier understandings of mental health within schools, which could improve not only the students’, but also the teachers’ access to relevant support.

Conclusions

I hope that some of the information presented here has been illuminating. Even if you are not entirely convinced, I would like to think that the process of coming to that conclusion has been fruitful in itself. The more that these messages are heard and discussed, the more traction they will gain; and, the more traction they gain, the more likely it is that we will arrive at solutions that work for everyone.

I would also like to acknowledge that the ideas presented above are in no way a panacea. My pedagogical ideal is far from what I present in this essay. However, it is a really good place to start.

Furthermore, for these ideas to be truly effective, I think they would have to be coupled with wider reform. I suggest reviewing the systems of accountability in this country; putting less pressure on testing and exam performance; increasing the decision making power of the school; addressing the ‘punitive’ view of Ofsted (7) by developing a more reciprocal method of feedback; increasing the use of self-assessment and other means of reflection; decrease the workload of teachers by reviewing the efficacy of current methods of tracking progress; rethink the current prioritisation of Maths and English and develop systems that understand the multifaceted nature of intelligence and the myriad skills needed in the modern world; and, critically, increase funding and reduce class size. Put simply, make schools into environments that are conducive to good mental health.

That is not to say that introducing emotional learning would not have benefits in of itself, I’m sure that it would. Rather, it is to recognise that these benefits would be greatly increased if we also dealt with some of the factors causing the problems in the first place.

I do, to some extent, lament the need to argue the practicalities on an issue like this. To me, it is a real shame that nowadays a robust moral argument is rarely enough. After all, there are millions of people suffering in this country, literally millions, and many more worldwide; so, I ask, why don’t we act, and act fast? Let’s set an example and show people that we care, we care about mental health and we care about creating a better future for our children.

Bibliography

(1) Department for Education. ‘Statutory guidance National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4’. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4 [Accessed 22 June 2017].

(2) Ofsted. Reports. Available from: https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/113254 [Accessed 23 June 2017].

(3) Ofsted. Reports. Available from: https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/136336 [Accessed 23 June 2017].

(4) Hosman C, Jane-Llopis E, Saxena S, (ed.) Prevention of Mental Disorders: Effective Interventions and Policy Options. World Health Organisation. Summary report, 2004.

(5) OECD (ed.) Mental Health and Work: United Kingdom. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014.

(6) Mental Health Foundation. Fundamental Facts About Mental Health 2016. Mental Health Foundation: London. Summary Report, 2016.

(7) Hutchings M. Exam Factories?: The impact of accountability measures on children and young people. National Union of Teachers. Summary Report, 2015.

(8) Mental Health Foundation. Executive Summary: Fundamental Facts about Mental Health 2015. Mental Health Foundation: London. Summary Report, 2015.

(9) Mental Health Foundation. Fundamental Facts about Mental Health 2015. Mental Health Foundation: London. Summary Report, 2015.

(10) Burns J. Children as young as six ‘stressed’ about exams and tests. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35940084.

(11) House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. Improving Access to Mental Health Services. House of Commons. Report Number: 16, 2016.

(12) ComRes. BBC School Report Mental Health Survey (11–16 year-olds). BBC School Report. Summary Report, 2017.

(13) National Mental Health Development Unit. Stigma and Discrimination in Mental Health. NMHDU. Summary Report, 2010.

(14) National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.

(15) World Health Organisation. Prevention and Promotion in Mental Health. WHO. Summary Report, 2002.

(16) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Anxiety’s Hidden Cost in Academic Performance. Science Daily. 2009. Available from: from http//www.science daily.com releases.

(17) Domitrovich C (et al.) Integrated Models of School-Based Prevention: Logic and Theory. Psychology in the Schools. 2010; 47(1): 71–88.

(18) Pinfold V (et al.) Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination: evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2003; 182(4): 342–346.

(19) Rusch N, Evans-Lacko SE, Henderson C, Flach C, Thornicroft G. Knowledge and attitudes as predictors of intentions to seek help for and disclose a mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 2011; 62(6):675–678.

(20) Thornicroft G, Rose D, Kassam A, Sartorius N. Stigma: ignorance, prejudice or discrimination? The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;190(3):192–193.

(21) Jorm A F, Christensen H, Griffiths K M. The impact of beyondblue: the national depression initiative on the Australian public’s recognition of depression and beliefs about treatments. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2005;39:248–254.

(22) Department for Education. DFE-00177–2013. The National

Curriculum in England: Framework Document. London: Department for Education; 2013.

(23)Gilbert C. Towards a self-improving system: the role of school accountability. National College for School Leadership. Summary Report, 2012.

(24) Amrein A, Berliner D. High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2002;10(18):1–74.

(25) Children, Schools and Families Committee. Testing and Assessment. House of Commons. Report Number: 3, 2008.

(26) Xiaohua H, Canty A. Comparison of the Efficacy of Test-Driven Learning Versus Self-Assessment Learning. The Journal of Chiropractic Education. 2013;27(2):110–115.

(27) Popham W J. Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality. Using Standards and Assessments. 1999;56(6):8–15.

(28) Okioga C K. The Impact of Students’ Socio-economic Background on Academic Performance in Universities: a Case of Students in Kisii University College. American International Journal of Social Science. 2013;2(2):38–46.

(29) Sirin S. Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research. Review of Educational Research. 2005;75(3):417–453.

(30) Ahmar F, Anwar E. Socio Economic Status and its Relation to Academic Achievement of Higher Secondary School Students. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS). 2013;13(6):13–20.

(31) Nawaz K, Shahzad S, Shahzada G, Rukhsar M. Relationship between Parents’ Socio-Economic Status and their Children Academic Performance. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2013;5(2):58–65.

(32) Goleman D. Emotional Intelligence. London: BloomsburyPublishing; 1996.

(33) Frank R, Glied S. Mental Health In The Mainstream Of Health Care. Health Affiars. 2007;26(6):1539–1541.

(34) Rankin J. Mental Health in the Mainstream. Institute for Public Policy Research. Summary Report, 2005.

(35) Neece C, Green S, Baker B. Parenting Stress and Child Behaviour Problems: A Transactional Relationship Across Time. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2012;117(1):48–66.

(36) Redfern C. Generation Snowflake… hysterical cry babies or millennial activists society needs right now? We find out. Available from: https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3224797/truth-generation-snowflake-hysterical-cry-babies-millennial-activists/ [Accessed 30th June 2017].

(37) Mendoza M. U.S drug war has met none of its goals. Available from: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37134751/ns/us_news-security/t/us-drug-war-has-met-none-its-goals/#.WWD6YMaZPVo.

(38) Degenhardt L, Chiu W-T, Sampson N, Kessler RC, Anthony JC, Angermeyer M, et al. Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med. 2008;5(7): e141. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141

(39) World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. World Health Organisation. Summary Report, 2008.

(40) Noguera P. Preventing and Producing Violence: A Critical Analysis of Responses to School Violence. Harvard Educational Review. 1995;65(2):189–212.

(41) Gershoff E T. Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviours and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128(4):539–579.

(42) Mental Health America. Position Statement 45: Discipline and Positive Behaviour Support in Schools. Available from: http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/discipline-schools.

(43) Morgan E, Salomon N, Plotkin M, Cohen R. The School Discipline Consensus Report: Strategies from the Field to Keep Students Engaged in School and Out of the Juvenile Justice System. New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Summary Report, 2014.

(44) Committee on School Health. School Based Mental Health Services. Pediatrics. 2004:113(6);1839–1845.

(45) MBSR-Mindfulness. PAWS B MINDFULNESS FOR CHILDREN. Available from: https://www.mbsr-mindfulness.com/paws-b.

(46) THE CENTER FOR COMPASSION AND ALTRUISM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION. About Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT). Available from: http://ccare.stanford.edu/education/about-compassion-cultivation-training-cct/.

(47) Weng H, Fox A, Shackman A, Stodola D, Caldwell J, Olson M, Rogers G, Davidson R. Compassion training alters altruism and neural responses to suffering. Psychological Science. 2013:24(7);1171–1180.

(48) Butters R P. A Meta-Analysis of Empathy Training Programs For Client Populations. Utah: University of Utah; 2010.

(49) House J S, Landis K R, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988:241(4865);540–545.

(50) The Center for Non Violent Communication. What is NVC. Available from: https://www.cnvc.org/about/what-is-nvc.html.

(51) The Center for Non Violent Communication. NVC in Schools in Serbia and Montenegro. Available from: https://www.cnvc.org/about-us/projects/nvc-schools/nvc-schools-serbia-and-montenegro/nvc-schools-serbia-and-montenegro.

(52) Krusche A, Cyhlarova E, Williams J M G. Mindfulness online: an evaluation of the feasibility of a web-based mindfulness course for stress, anxiety and depression. BMJ Open. 2013:3(11):1–10. Available from: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/3/11/e003498.full.pdf.

(53) Teasdale J (et al.) Prevention of Relapse/Recurrence in Major Depression by Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy. Journal of Counselling and Clinical Psychology. 2000;68(4):615–623.

(54) Lazar S (et al.) Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness. NeuroReport. 2005;16(17): 1893–1897.

(55) Davidson R (et al.) Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003;65: 564–570.

(56) Semple R, Reid E, Miller L. Treating Anxiety with Mindfulness: An Open Trial of Mindfulness Training for Anxious Children. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy. (2005);19(4): 379–392.

(57) Napoli M, Krech P, Holley L.. Mindfulness Training for Elementary School Students: The Attention Academy. Journal of Applied School Psychology. 2005;21(1):99–125.

(58) Kuyken W, Weare K, Ukoumunne O, Vicary R, Motton N, Burnett R, Cullen C, Hennelly S, Huppert F. Effectiveness of the Mindfulness in Schools Programme: non-randomised controlled feasibility study. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2013;203(2):126–131.

(59) Huppert F, Johnson D. A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools; the importance of practice for an impact on well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2010; 5(4); 264–274.

(60) NHS. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Available from: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cognitive-behavioural-therapy/Pages/Introduction.aspx.

(61) Stallard P, Skryabina E, Taylor G, Phillips R, Daniels H, Anderson R, Simpson N. Classroom-based cognitive behaviour therapy (FRIENDS): a cluster randomised controlled trial to Prevent Anxiety in Children through Education in Schools (PACES). The Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(3):185–192.

(62) Hofmann S, Asnaani A, Vonk I, Sawyer A, Fang A. The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2012;36(5):427–440.

(63) BACP. School-based counselling — what is it and why we need it. BACP. Summary Report, 2013.

(64) BACP. Evidence for counselling and psychotherapy. BACP. Summary Report, 2013.

(65) Shechtman Z, Gilat I, Fos L, Flasher A. Brief group therapy with low-achieving elementary school children. Journal of Counselling Psychology. 1996;43(4):376–382.

(66) Furnham A, Petrides K. Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behaviour and Personality: An international journal. 2003; 31(8): 815–824.

(67) NUT. Teachers’ working time and duties: an NUT guide. Summary Report, 2010.

(68) BBC. What hours do teachers really work? Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27087942.

(69) Department for Education. Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2015. Summary Report, 2015.

(70) Department for Education. Education in the media: 10 March 2017. Available from:https://dfemedia.blog.gov.uk/2017/03/10/education-in-the-media-10-march-2017/

(71) BBC. Teachers ‘£34,000 pay’ defended. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7372058.stm.

(72) House of Commons Education and Health Committees. Children and young people’s mental health — the role of education. Report number: 1, 2017.

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade