Why it is worthwhile teaching children well-being
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Anthony Seldon
EVERYONE is suddenly talking about the teaching of happiness, well-being or "positive psychology". When my school, Wellington College, announced last year it was to teach happiness, in partnership with the new Institute of Well-being at the University of Cambridge, it aroused admiration and ire in equal measure. From September, South Tyneside will begin teaching children aged between 10 and 14 skills to ward off depression. David Cameron, leader of Britain's Conservatives, announced last month that his party is going to deliver the "politics of happiness". At Harvard, classes in happiness have proved the most popular choice among undergraduates. Geelong Grammar School in Australia starts teaching well-being from the next academic year. Floods of businesses, including McKinsey, are asking how they can teach well-being to their employees.
The rightwing UK press and the Campaign for Real Education have reacted apoplectically, arguing that this is replacing traditional education with psycho-babble and liberal mush. A recent editorial comment in the Financial Times also said well-being cannot and should not be taught. A London headmaster was quoted recently in these columns saying teaching happiness was "impractical and undesirable" and asked: "If we are to have lessons on happiness, which subjects are to be dropped from the curriculum?"
So can happiness or well-being be taught? Enormous strides have been made in the 10 years since Professor Martin Seligman of Pennsylvania University founded the "positive psychology" discipline. Hitherto, academic psychology had primarily been devoted to understanding the causes of mental illness and aberration: he stood psychology on its head and asked what the factors are that lead to happy and successful lives. The research evidence is clear: children (and adults) can be taught emotional resilience, self-control (the lack of which leads to much mental illness), the habits of optimism, handling negative thoughts and much else besides. The young can also learn how to form positive relationships and avoid negative ones. Empirical studies clearly show the young can be taught how to "run" their bodies optimally through proper relaxation, breathing, diet and exercise. Three sessions of exercise a week have more enduring effects on body chemistry than Prozac.
Sceptics need to study the evidence. It is true that teaching psychological skills does take some classroom time. But schools are full of wasted time and conflict over priorities. Children learn better and time is used more productively when they are calm and settled.
But should the subject be taught? My answer as a headmaster is yes, for two reasons. Mental illness, depression, acute anxiety and suicide are growing with increased affluence. The cosy belief with which we all grew up - that increased prosperity would lead to increased happiness - is a chimera. Depression and hyper-anxiety among the young at school and university (and among their teachers) have reached epidemic proportions. A Harley Street psychiatrist last year reported that he was seeing five distressed children from just one class from a highly academic "successful" London school. Is it surprising that at university so many find it difficult to cope? Recent US studies show 45 per cent of undergraduates display serious signs of depression.
This is madness. The skills of well-being should be taught because the evidence shows that they help children to develop the resilience to cope with the inevitable difficulties they will face. At present, they go on to university and work often without even the rudiments of understanding of how to master their own minds, emotions and bodies. It is not only about avoiding stress. Teaching these psychological skills allows all to enhance their appreciation and enjoyment of life. The teaching of "mindfulness", the ability to focus purely on what is before one, is just one of the skills. Research shows that happier people are less prone to physical and mental illness and have enhanced productivity. It makes economic as well as educational sense.
Ultimately, one must ask: what is the purpose of education and of government policy? Many would say it is the maximisation of exam and economic performance respectively. Ten years ago, the Gradgrind theory - that nothing should get in the way of toil and sweat - was just about respectable. Now we know more. Psychologically healthy schools and workplaces enhance academic performance and economic productivity. It is time for the detractors to catch up.
(The writer is master of WellingtonCollege and biographer of Tony Blair. FT Syndication Service)
EVERYONE is suddenly talking about the teaching of happiness, well-being or "positive psychology". When my school, Wellington College, announced last year it was to teach happiness, in partnership with the new Institute of Well-being at the University of Cambridge, it aroused admiration and ire in equal measure. From September, South Tyneside will begin teaching children aged between 10 and 14 skills to ward off depression. David Cameron, leader of Britain's Conservatives, announced last month that his party is going to deliver the "politics of happiness". At Harvard, classes in happiness have proved the most popular choice among undergraduates. Geelong Grammar School in Australia starts teaching well-being from the next academic year. Floods of businesses, including McKinsey, are asking how they can teach well-being to their employees.
The rightwing UK press and the Campaign for Real Education have reacted apoplectically, arguing that this is replacing traditional education with psycho-babble and liberal mush. A recent editorial comment in the Financial Times also said well-being cannot and should not be taught. A London headmaster was quoted recently in these columns saying teaching happiness was "impractical and undesirable" and asked: "If we are to have lessons on happiness, which subjects are to be dropped from the curriculum?"
So can happiness or well-being be taught? Enormous strides have been made in the 10 years since Professor Martin Seligman of Pennsylvania University founded the "positive psychology" discipline. Hitherto, academic psychology had primarily been devoted to understanding the causes of mental illness and aberration: he stood psychology on its head and asked what the factors are that lead to happy and successful lives. The research evidence is clear: children (and adults) can be taught emotional resilience, self-control (the lack of which leads to much mental illness), the habits of optimism, handling negative thoughts and much else besides. The young can also learn how to form positive relationships and avoid negative ones. Empirical studies clearly show the young can be taught how to "run" their bodies optimally through proper relaxation, breathing, diet and exercise. Three sessions of exercise a week have more enduring effects on body chemistry than Prozac.
Sceptics need to study the evidence. It is true that teaching psychological skills does take some classroom time. But schools are full of wasted time and conflict over priorities. Children learn better and time is used more productively when they are calm and settled.
But should the subject be taught? My answer as a headmaster is yes, for two reasons. Mental illness, depression, acute anxiety and suicide are growing with increased affluence. The cosy belief with which we all grew up - that increased prosperity would lead to increased happiness - is a chimera. Depression and hyper-anxiety among the young at school and university (and among their teachers) have reached epidemic proportions. A Harley Street psychiatrist last year reported that he was seeing five distressed children from just one class from a highly academic "successful" London school. Is it surprising that at university so many find it difficult to cope? Recent US studies show 45 per cent of undergraduates display serious signs of depression.
This is madness. The skills of well-being should be taught because the evidence shows that they help children to develop the resilience to cope with the inevitable difficulties they will face. At present, they go on to university and work often without even the rudiments of understanding of how to master their own minds, emotions and bodies. It is not only about avoiding stress. Teaching these psychological skills allows all to enhance their appreciation and enjoyment of life. The teaching of "mindfulness", the ability to focus purely on what is before one, is just one of the skills. Research shows that happier people are less prone to physical and mental illness and have enhanced productivity. It makes economic as well as educational sense.
Ultimately, one must ask: what is the purpose of education and of government policy? Many would say it is the maximisation of exam and economic performance respectively. Ten years ago, the Gradgrind theory - that nothing should get in the way of toil and sweat - was just about respectable. Now we know more. Psychologically healthy schools and workplaces enhance academic performance and economic productivity. It is time for the detractors to catch up.
(The writer is master of WellingtonCollege and biographer of Tony Blair. FT Syndication Service)