Centre for Confidence and Well-being

Homepage > Blogs and Forum

I spoke on Saturday in Birmingham at the annual conference of the Association of School and College Leaders – one of the main trade unions for head  teachers.  At the beginning of my speech I said, and I meant it, that this was the most important speech I’ll give all year:  the topic I was speaking on - well-being in schools –  is not just important for them as a head teachers, it also goes to the very heart of the type of country we are, and want to become.

This centre is interested in real well-being. We are convinced by the research which tells us that pursuing materialistic goals (those based on appearance, money and possessions and fame) undermines well-being and that what is good for encouraging it is real relationships, family, work, fulfilling leisure and physical activity. A sense of meaning and purpose is also fundamentally important and this means serving a goal bigger than yourself. The more unequal societies are the more they compromise the well-being of those at the bottom. Although it is also true that the whole society suffers as pronounced inequality reduces trust and social capital. Much of what I describe in this paragraph is the type of society the UK is becoming – overly concerned with celebrity, tv and money; obese; unequal; and obsessed with ourselves and time for ‘me’. (Because I’m worth it.)  This culture envelops all of us -  not just Sharon Matthews but also Fred Goodwin.

When it come to young people the issue here is also about lack of physical activity, not enough time playing outdoors, too much time on screens, the influence of celebrity culture, a breakdown of family life and time spent with parents … .

Repeatedly I’m told by schools that one of the main shifts in society is the majority of parents now believe that it is a terrible thing if their child has a bad day or a bad experience. So everyday they have a queue of parents to complain about children not doing well in tests, not getting parts in the school play or falling out with friends. The subtext here is their child is the centre of the universe, no other child matters and their child can do no wrong. The teachers can see  that this is leading to a protective environment where there is a fear of challenging children in case the child has a negative experience and that this is undermining young people’s resilience. What is particularly worrying about this is that our young people are likely to face colossal challenges – melting polar ice caps, disturbed weather patterns, a debt mountain and insecure employment – yet we are bringing them up to believe it is a terrible thing if they don’t get the main part in the school play, fall out with friends, or lose at school sports (this is why many schools don’t have winners at school sports days).

If we inject into this an emphasis on happiness or even well-being I  don’t see how it is not going to make it worse.  Of course, psychological experts can then say ‘this is not what we mean by happiness’ and give their definition but the world doesn’t work like this. It is not sophisticated ideas that get transmitted through a culture but watered down versions. The part of my speech where I talked about the impact that self-esteem building by schools and parents is now having on young people has attracted a great deal of publicity. But I was really using it as an illustration of how psychological ideas can easily backfire. What I’m really concerned about is the next great psychological idea in the offing – SEAL (social and emotional aspects of learning). This is about emotional literacy and increasingly about happiness lessons. One of the strands of primary SEAL is called 'good to be me' and much of it is a focus on the self.

I’ve written two big papers outlining the shaky evidence base to much of this change and sounded various warnings which you can read. All I want to say here is that all this emphasis on feelings is, I believe, going to reinforce – not counteract - the narcissism of the age and is likely to undermine resilience further. The potential for ironic effects with psychological interventions, particularly mass psychological interventions – is enormous.

Another big issue at stake here is this: what is the appropriate role for schools and what for families? Historically the family has socialised children, been responsible for their health and well-being and taught them about life and how to handle it. Schools have been about education.  However, the Government (and this Government in particular) has increasingly stood this on its head. What was the Department for Education is now the Department for Children, Schools and Families. (Note the word order.) It is schools which the Government sees as the way to influence young people’s well-being and socialise them. The family is being put in the back seat. This is why schools are being saddled with more and more responsibilities and functions.  What doesn’t make sense about this is that schools only have young people for 15% of their time – schools can never replace the family, unless they become boarding schools. The attempt to make schools take over the function of the family will make some parents withdraw even more as the responsible people in the child’s life. Of course, this will encourage them not just to say 'och don’t worry about that, the school teaches them all about it' but also to conveniently blame the school if the child does anything problematic.

What’s more the Government is tackling the socialisation of children in exactly the same centralised way that it carries out other tasks – through tick boxes, learning outcomes, targets, goal setting etc. Our emotional lives  are the most intimate part of us but now young people’s emotions and feelings are to be the subject of professional control and scrutiny; young people’s personalities’ have to be moulded to what is considered suitable. There is a huge difference between giving young people information or access to some training, for example on assertiveness, which they can then decide to accept or reject and saying ‘you should be assertive and you need to set goals for becoming more so’.

I have never argued that no good work could happen under the SEAL banner but what I have argued, and still passionately believe, is that the SEAL vision for the formal teaching of every child (irrespective of need) from the age of 3-18, social and emotional skills (primarily about feelings) in a classroom with a professional, supported by a set of learning outcomes and an evaluation framework  is not a positive one. It is a distraction from the real, cultural challenges to young people’s well-being and, far from simply being a waste of money and time, it may actually make matters worse. This is indeed the real finding from the SEAL primary pilot.  

I concluded my talk yesterday by saying that schools are primarily about education. They should not be exam factories and they should be interested in the development and education of the whole child but this should be done in ways that are relevant to education not therapy, psychology, counselling or mental health work. Of course, children who need this type of support should get it but it should not be norm. If it does then the personalities of future children will be decided and moulded by professionals.

Unfortunately I did not have time yesterday to introduce the ASCL delegates to the Scottish economist John Kay’s great concept of ‘obliquity’. Echoing ancient wisdom he points out that goals are often best achieved through oblique, rather than direct methods’. He thinks we are in danger of forgetting this because we now live in world so dominated by management by objectives and centralised planning. Kay also rightly points out that the dominance of new fangled ideas also means that we are in danger of becoming arrogant and dismissive of traditional approaches. But often the traditional approach has evolved over centuries and contains within it the wisdom of decades if not centuries. Of course, teachers can improve their teaching and should think about adopting new methods. But we need to tread warily with this well-being agenda. What  I would select as the main things schools can do to foster well-being have an oblique, and old fashioned ring – encourage children to play outdoors; allow for more physical activity, music and art; give young people an all round education which encourages them to see all the wonderful experiences life has to offer and really challenges them. In creating a good climate for well-being good schools also reinforce positive ‘pro social values’ have clear rules and boundaries yet nonetheless genuinely respect each young person as an individual. Schools can also encourage well-being by fostering resilience and teaching them about the importance of society - they are not the centre of the universe and life is not all about them and how they feel.