More social media, more pornography, more social isolation and the uncertain future of a changed climate and dominant artificial intelligence: being a parent, or a child, can feel harder than ever.
In this context, it seems to make sense to bring a greater focus on wellbeing and mental health into schools. Meditation and mindfulness, which many adults engage in and derive great benefits from, seem like obvious tools to help young people navigate the world.
But are they? What if, in a well-meaning attempt to support children, we may actually be looking at the wrong supports?
Paul Downes is professor of psychology of education and director of the Educational Disadvantage Centre at DCU’s Institute of Education.
RM Block
“The basic problem with universal classroom wellbeing and mental health programmes is that they offer generic strategies that are not adapted to a student’s individual life experience and situation,” he says. “Generic wellbeing and mental health programmes are no substitute for specialist one-to-one emotional counsellors, though they have been the tickbox approach of the Department of Education since the flawed Wellbeing Framework 2018 that enables claims they are meaningfully engaging with mental health issues.”
Downey says that three successive Oireachtas education committee reports have recognised this “gaping hole” in the national wellbeing framework approach through the Oireachtas committee’s priority recommendation of specialist emotional counsellors in all primary and secondary schools. The Irish Council for Psychotherapy has also publicly called for such specialist one-to-one support in schools.
Numerous studies in the UK now suggest universal, large-scale mental health programmes in schools not only have limited efficacy in improving symptoms of depression and anxiety, but some may even increase mental health difficulties among young people.
Another large-scale study, published in the journal Evidence-Based Mental Health, says evidence that mindfulness in schools does not improve mental health.
“I have said it before, and it is worth repeating: not everyone needs mental health intervention, just as not everyone needs medical intervention,” says Dr Clare Finegan, who works in educational and psychotherapeutic settings.
“For decades, teachers, school guidance counsellors and specialised special educational needs staff have been embedding strategies such as ‘zones of regulation’ and ‘sensory circuits’ into their daily routine to support their emotional regulation.”
These strategies are not just used as an intervention, but regularly throughout the school day for children to grasp the concepts and use them when dysregulated.
“Professionals must consider what is within their ability and expertise to deliver while minimising any risk of harm to the child,” says Finegan. “Equally, consideration must be given to the agency of the child.”
Finegan says the benefits of self-regulation are well documented in research, and the incorporation of simple mindfulness techniques into a child’s day can help equip them with coping strategies. However, she says that not everyone welcomes intervention strategies, especially adolescents and very young children.
“There is the risk that increased self-awareness can expose human vulnerability and be untimely, problematic or inappropriate for some.”
Downes says breath and bodily awareness as well as relaxation approaches are helpful, as a transition strategy within the school day and as part of either social, personal and health education (SPHE) or wellbeing.
“My concern is with the cognitive strategies that can be tacked on to some meditation approaches, such as labelling some emotions as negative, that can bring a sense of guilt for a student feeling these emotions. Some of these cognitive wellbeing approaches – beyond meditation – talk of emotions being ‘managed’; that is, again, a problematic strategy of emotional disconnection.
“There is a missed opportunity for integration of the arts and wellbeing approaches in the curriculum as part of a personal self-expression and also social development focus.
“SPHE is an important curricular area but it is vital that here also teachers are not labelling emotions simplistically as negative or positive, as if they live in sealed compartments from each other. It is concerning if it falls on to peers to provide the main emotional support for students experiencing trauma and adverse childhood experiences.”
Finegan says a holistic programme that embeds distilled mindfulness techniques throughout the day could be a more suitable fit for the school context.
“It would mitigate complexity and risk in the often-challenging school setting,” she says. “Of course, hand-in-hand CPD training and supervision would be needed for school staff.
“It is great that there are positive, well-intentioned programmes in schools. But investment in training and independent evaluation, and in our existing special educational needs and trained guidance counsellors is needed.
“More formal mindfulness programmes should be left to those fully trained and who have resources to be able to fulfil what is required and what can be independently evaluated.
“We must always be mindful of whether any formal mindfulness intervention serves the best interest of the child and the class group, in the school context, and in that particular moment.”
Downes says his critique is not focused on meditation in schools, but instead on generic wellbeing programmes.
“These include a few cosmetic cognitive gimmicks that let the Department of Education off the hook for provision of proper specialist one-to-one counselling supports.
“Wellbeing classes and the wellbeing framework is a risible response to mental health needs of children and young people, both before and since the pandemic; it is risible but no one is laughing.”
The acid test for this Government, Downes says, is whether it will provide a phased strategy for proper specialist one-to-one counselling supports, starting in its new Deis strategy and, over time, across all schools.
[ How schools can be crucial in nurturing children’s mental healthOpens in new window ]
To its credit, the Department of Education has initiated strand one of a national pilot for such specialist one-to-one supports in response to the Oireachtas education committee reports’ priority recommendations.
“It is imperative that the whole-class programmes for wellbeing and mental health are exposed for what they are: a mere sticking plaster, a pseudo-response as a very poor substitute for specialist emotional counselling provision in schools,” says Downes.
Goldie Hawn’s mindfulness programme is delivered in Irish schools. Does it work?
One large-scale mental health programme delivered in schools in the State is called MindUP. A programme developed by a charity founded by Oscar-winning actor Goldie Hawn, many teachers in Ireland have been trained how to deliver it in their schools. The programme is built around breathing techniques; MindUp says its techniques “teach learners of all ages how to regulate emotions, calm the nervous system and choose kindness and gratitude daily”.
Many teachers say the programme works well for their classrooms, but this is anecdotal; no independent evaluation has taken place in the State, according to WhatWorks, an initiative of the Department of Children.
MindUP points to research supporting its claims, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education cites two studies pointing to benefits (see page 78 of the Harvard Graduate School of Education report, Navigating SEL from the Inside Out).
But critics say it could interfere with a child’s emotional regulation and development, particularly when practised on younger children.
One parent who criticises the independence of MindUP’s research and the limited scope of the Harvard study, says mindfulness promises more than it can deliver, while also questioning whether it is developmentally appropriate for children to analyse their own thoughts and feelings and whether this programme may cause them to “dissociate from their negative emotions”.
WhatWorks has given the programme an evidence rating of 2+, but it held back a rating of 3 “as its best evidence is not from a rigorously conducted randomised control trial or quasi-experimental design evaluation”, considered the highest-standard approaches to scientific evidence.
