Are schools focusing too much on feelings?

By Nicola Woolcock Education Correspondent

How would you respond if your child refused to eat her vegetables with the words: “Mummy, I feel very uncomfortable having to eat all these peas”. ?

This is a question that Dennis Hayes, visiting professor at Oxford Brookes University is trying to grapple with. He is concerned that schools are focusing too much on social education rather than the old fashioned business of teaching children facts.

Lessons in “happiness” or Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL), that teach children to explore their emotions, now run in three fifths of primary schools. And they are now being rolled out to secondary schools.

SEAL has the enthusiastic support of ministers, who are currently exploring whether pupils should be assessed at school on their personal development as well as their academic achievements.

As a mark in how far this approach to learning has gone already, schools in Birmingham were told earlier this year that happiness in the classroom should be treated with the same importance as academic achievement.

But Professor Hayes does not approve. Indeed, he believes that teaching emotional lessons in school, gets in the way of learning and represents a form of child abuse that manipulates pupils into being victims.

He told a recent gathering of educationalists in London organised by the Westminster Education Forum that schools are in danger of becoming “social work centres staffed by psychiatrists brainwashing pupils”.

Millions of pounds, he says, are being spent on protecting children from bullying, teaching them to respect others and coaching them in “proper emotions”, such as empathy not anger.

“This is a heartless denial of a real education for children,” he says. “Also it’s manipulative - a form of child abuse: getting children to feel the right emotions and learn the emotional scripts.
“One mother told me that her son had learnt the ‘dealing with potentially abusive situation’ scripts so well that at dinner he said, ‘Mummy, I feel very uncomfortable having to eat all these peas’.”

Professor Hayes, who is co-author of a book called The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, believes that such tactics exacerbate problems by making children oversensitive.

“It makes matters worse,” he says. “Take bullying as an example. The more you talk about bullying, the more it sensitises people to every social slight, and the more it becomes a problem - but one created by adult intervention.

“Training pupils to be happy is a self-destructive policy and a self-defeating concern. Happiness is a by-product of other achievements.

“We need to get back to what education means, giving young people a grounding in disciplines that structure human knowledge and understanding, rather than patronising them and letting them talk about what they want.”

Ministers are convinced that teaching children to express their emotions boosts concentration and motivation. But my guess is that some parents might have a sneaking suspicion that the Prof is on to something.

Comments

[LM]

Kim, I think Seb's comments were a little strident, but what I read into his comment about fun / learning / bilge was that he was saying that it's bilge to believe that fun equals learning. And I think that's true (more so the older you get, mind). I do think that most younger children, though, learn while they're having fun, but they can also learn without having fun. The two are not synonymous, and that's how I read Seb's comment.

[Kim]

Andy, I don't think I misrepresented the tenor of Seb's remarks. Sadly, he hasn't come back to tell us whether he thinks children can learn while they're having fun or not. Seb's remarks were extremely strongly worded, e.g. "The hippies may all be OAPs, but the drivel they used to spout appears to be resurrected afresh with every generation of educationalists." or "We don't have, as one journalist said, the worst education in the world. We barely have education at all."

My remarks, by comparison, were fairly mildly worded, I think.

[Andy]

Seb says: "A tutor of mine in the Department of Education once told me that 'if they're having fun, they're learning'. Bilge."

Kim says: "I find your idea that introducing fun into learning is 'bilge' somewhat odd"

Kim, that may be your idea of what his idea is, but it's a long way from what he actually said.

I really should have got used to the blogworld by now, but it still disappoints me that so many forums just wind up as point scoring exercises (maybe I'm trying to score points myself by pointing this out?).

Take the above quotes: people who are, broadly, arguing in favour of the "touchy-feely" paradigm are going on as if traditional academic teaching was done by robots for robots; similarly, the "rigorous academic" lobby are pretty much implying that modern schools aren't bothering to teach kids to read.

If you can't conduct a debate without exaggerating and misrepresenting the views of people who disagree with you, you're showing neither academic rigour nor emotional literacy. Although I could recommend a career in politics...

Anyway, I'm only really hanging around here as a work avoidance tactic, time to get on with planning for the inspector's visit (definitely neither academic rigour nor emotional literacy, "is your paperwork up to scratch?" is the only outcome they're interested in assessing)

[mumoftwo]

Oh, I'm not against team work, sharing and empathy, don't get me wrong, I just think it was the over-emphasis in the introductory presentation on these at the expense of more conventional learning attainments like reading, writing, numeracy, languages which I found a little odd, to the point where every parent in the room was obviously thinking the same thing and was too embarassed to ask things like 'will my child learn to read?' to the teachers... To me, social skills are to be developed through interacting with others in a learning situation, rather than taught directly in classes: much as happens in my own work, where I don't need to be taught directly about feelings and empathy, but they arise naturally out of the good ethos of the place (and disciplinary procedures if these are breached).

Plus, as the professor says, the more you go on about something, the more attention you draw to it, which can be counter-productive. For example, I don't want my children to be put up on the exceptionally patronising 'diversity' board at school for children from different ethnic groups and nationalities, I want them to see true equality between ethnicities where the teacher treats them simply as learners first. I don't think any amount of 'diversity' boards, or touchy-feely chairs where children without friends can sit actually helps children get on better. Modelling equality and respect from the top down and expecting it from the ground up is what is required, but that is usually evidenced in actions, not taught out loud in special 'sharing' sessions. I would also add that the one thing which has been shown to stop difficult young children from turning into anti-social adults is literacy and numeracy: without it you can't take part in society and don't have equal chances. My daughter's school haven't sent home a reading book in a week, it's just as well I've taught her myself, but it shouldn't be like that.

[Kim]

Seb, so what's your experience of primary schools, then? Because it sounds very different from mine. OF course, it could be that the primary schools you are familiar with are different from the ones I'm familiar with. That could explain it, couldn't it?

I find your idea that introducing fun into learning is "bilge" somewhat odd, though. Children seem to learn best when they're enjoying themselves, and not so well when they're having a miserable or boring time. I'd have thought this idea was fairly uncontroversial, but there you go, apparently not.

But again, all I can say is from my own experience:

1. Schools are spending a lot of time on maths and literacy - indeed they are obliged to do so by the National Curriculum.

2. Schools spend a good part of the school day teaching things like science and history - again, they are obliged to do so by the National Curriculum.

3. In the schools I know, classes are quiet and orderly but the teachers do their best to make the work interesting and engaging.

4. In the schools I know, teachers encourage children to show consideration to the feelings of other children and children who behave badly are disciplined.

It's a very far cry from the picture that you are painting.

[George]

SEB: I am not sure we are saying different things....
You write that parents want their kids to be literate, numerate, well-behaved and employable. I agree.
Although I believe that there are other school functions to include, the "well behaved and employable" part means that schools have to inculcate values and develop individuals who will be able to lead and also to work with others.
I would also would want them to be able to take complex problems, reflect on them, analyse them, think about them and be able to propose solutions.
A bit like this problem regarding the functions of a school...

[seb]

George. Didn't get your point at all. What is this about 'skills, ideas and attitudes'? Touchyfeelyism gone mad? No, this is not what parents want, not the incredibly pissed-off and worried parents I have to deal with. They want their kids to be literate, numerate, well-behaved and employable. The hippies may all be OAPs, but the drivel they used to spout appears to be resurrected afresh with every generation of educationalists.

[Ortelius]

I remember sitting in a coffee shop recently, where some awful harpy, monitoring her son's homework, insist that he write down "how he felt" in a given situation. The kid was bored and resentful - as many boys would be with this senseless and ultimately destructive feminization of education. The sooner we redress the gender balance in teaching - particularly at primary level, so that kids can learn benign, outward-looking male characteristics instead of this self-indulgent examination of the inner world, the less remedial work university tutors will have to do for students who haven't mastered the basics.

[seb]

MUMOFTWO's experience equates with mine. And, Kim, not only have I seen more of British schools than you, I expect, ever will, I spend my evenings tutoring children who ought to be able to spell and ought to be able to do basic arithmetic but can't because of the utterly, unspeakably awful school lessons they attend. I asked my son what his primary school lessons were like - panemonium or orderly learning? He replied 'pandemonium'. Certainly, a lot of effort is being invested in numeracy and literacy, but what's the point of any of it in an environment that's little different from the monkey house at a zoo? A tutor of mine in the Department of Education once told me that 'if they're having fun, they're learning'. Bilge. Would you like your doctor to be someone who spent seven years 'having fun' in medical school rather than studying? No. He'd kill you quicker than cure you.

[Glen Thomas]

I can often spot children who have had councelling for behavioural or anger management problems, as they start using the language of therapists to try and trump disciplinary efforts in school:

"You're undermining my sense of self-control" or "I have a right not to be made upset by you" and my personal favourite: "I have a right to express my feelings and you're not listening to me."

Children learn how to deal with problems by experiencing and dealing with problems: 'training' helps very little, and I have yet to seen any quality research which suggests that it is a good use of their time at school.

Glen Thomas

Education blog at http://gcthomas.blogspot.com

[Kim]

Well said, K. I really think that people like Seb and John Cornford can't have gone anywhere near a school for years, they have such a misplaced idea of what goes on in them. I have a close connection with two primary schools, and in both I see teachers working very hard to teach literacy and numeracy, as well as the other subjects on the national curriculum; and I see them working hard to instill in children a sense of right and wrong and the need to treat each other with courtesy and consideration. I have no idea why this should be regarded as infantilisation or woolly-headedness. Why not visit some primary schools and take a look at what actually happens?

[K]

As a primary school teacher I find that a siginficant amount of my time, and consequently the class's time, can be spent on resolving "emotional" problems and conlicts.
It is good time management to have some social education time with a class, to teach them how best to sort out these problems on their own. It is not brainwashing.They simply don't know how to do it without help. Isn't most behaviour learned?
This approach greatly reduces the time I need to spend intervening and allows me to focus on teaching "facts". It helps the children to become more independent too.

[seb]

And the infantilisation of British education is supposed to be news? The abandonment of real education for a substitute based on surrogate parenthood and emotional coddling has been with us, dumbing down the kids, for years. I hope people take note of Professor Hayes's findings. Is it on the internet? I also recommend Mark Taylor's piece on 'personalised education' [an oxymoron every bit as splendid as 'stalinist econonomic efficiency'] based on his talk to the Manifesto Club on 16th September 2006. Read it and weep. We don't have, as one journalist said, the worst education in the world. We barely have education at all.

[George]

Yes and no. This is a huge topic to do with the purpose of education.
There is not just one purpose - if you say it is to learn facts (what a way of putting it, Nicola Woolcock!), perhaps then this is a hugely narrow and insufficient purpose - don't bother to have schools.
If it is about developing skills, ideas, attitudes whilst learning a whole range of important stuff that forms part of the sum total of what we know as a culture or society, then that is closer to what we should want.
Part of this is also to develop strong individuals who are able to work in teams, to be leaders, to be responsible and to be outstanding in any of a multitude of aspects which determine us as humans.

[john cornford]

They are. Does anyone outside these woolly-heads really think the world outside is going to consider these misled kids' "feelings" ? Its tough out there and getting tougher. Its totally correct to say these kids are being abused - the worst kind along with religious brainwashing and letting free into the wild an animal treated as a household pet. I feel sorry for them.

[john cornford]

They are. Does anyone outside these woolly-heads really think the world outside is going to consider these misled kids' "feelings" ? Its tough out there and getting tougher. Its totally correct to say these kids are being abused - the worst kind along with religious brainwashing and letting free into the wild an animal treated as a household pet. I feel sorry for them.

[JOHN ANTHONY]

mum of two; but sense of confidence, independence that's what are important to young children, they form the basis of all of life's achievements. Reading comes later. We put children in formal school situations very early, test them and wonder why ten years later we have angry adolescents who had instruction but no guidance. I know what u r trying to say over indulgent emotions, but you throw the baby out...

[Rickyuk]

Taught in 3/5ths of primary schools? I don't believe it. As chair of governors at a primary school I know that it's the National Curriculum that consumes almost every minute in a school - 2 hours a day on numeracy and literacy alone. Many of the behavioural difficultis in school however stem from emotional problems so dealing with this seems a positive response.

[Kim]

I haven't noticed any of this. As far as I can tell, primary schools spend huge amounts of time teaching children literacy and maths and very little on the emotional stuff.

Aren't we being contradictory here? Responses to other blog posts have shown that we are concerned about bad behaviour and bullying amongst children. Surely it's a good idea, therefore, to educate children in emotional literacy? To help them learn qualities of empathy and kindness?

[Hol]

You garner social education everywhere and in everything you do(well, you do if you're paying attention) 24/7 and 365 days a year. Life is social education.

However, there's only one place that these kids get an academic education and only certain times it's open, so why they're trying to be the school of life instead of plain old school I'm not sure. They need to teach academics, the social stuff's already covered.

[mumoftwo]

Totally agree, went for a recent parents evening and all the 'outcomes' that were discussed (admittedly in the reception year) were touchy-feely ones like respect, working with others, social skills, empathy. It was left to one brave soul to put up her hand and ask 'and what about outcomes in reading and writing' as if she was saying something really taboo (to which the answer was 'everyone's different' which of course is never the answer in emotional literacy, where everyone must have the same calm empathic response to people annoying them!) I utterly agree with Professor Hayes, it's poor education to make these emotional states the goals of the whole enterprise, sharing and caring should be the by-products. Plus as he rightly says, being happy and satisfied usually comes when you have achieved something, like when you've worked out a particularly difficult maths problem, or found an engineering solution to your toilet roll bridge, not as an end in itself.

[Whimsey]

"How would you respond if your child refused to eat her vegetables with the words: “Mummy, I feel very uncomfortable having to eat all these peas”."

Me, I'd say, 'Well, poppet, you'll feel more than uncomfortable if you get bowel cancer from insufficient fibre in your diet......'

(But I'd then say, providing you agree to eat some equivalent form of equally nutritive veg, you can swap it for the peas. Seems fair enough.)