Is “therapy” an aim of education? In some ways that answer turns on the question of what we mean by “therapy” in education. Certainly, in recent years there has been a turn toward what some researchers call “non-cognitive virtues” such as self-esteem, grit and “pro-social behavior”. But there seems to be more to it than this. On the one hand, it seems clear that learners require some basic mental function and wellbeing in order to learn. Just as one requires food in order to be able to participate in sports, one needs a healthy mental state in order to expand one’s knowledge and understanding. But we would not say that food is the point of sports. Food is a means to engaging in sport. (I put hot-dog eating contests to the side, for now 🙂 It’s also the case that caring for the ‘self’ has long been a part of the Western tradition of education (see Mintz, 2009).
But the so-called “therapy” approach to education appears to take this a step further. On this view, the development and cultivation of positive mental functioning is not only means to education or a healthy practice, rather, it is the point and purpose of schooling. There is a sense in which this view has gone mainstream. Talk of positive psychology, social-emotional learning, wellbeing and pro-social interaction has had a greater and greater presence. Ecclestone’s paper, which serves as an introduction to our first debate, asks if this talk doesn’t eclipse a more fundamental task of education – to expand the knowledge and understanding of the learner. Is this something to be concerned about, or is the rise of therapy simply an evolution in our understanding of education? If education really is about therapy, what ought this mean for schools or universities?
Optional further reading in this debate:
MINTZ, A. (2009), Has Therapy Intruded into Education?. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43: 633–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00720.x
House, R., & Loewenthal, D. (2012). The Rise of Therapeutic Education: Beneficent, Uncertain, or Dangerous?. Self & Society, 39(3), 6-18.
Wright, K. (2008). Theorizing therapeutic culture Past influences, future directions. Journal of Sociology, 44(4), 321-336.
In his article Ecclestone states that his critics adhere to a belief in the “diminished self,” where we are all vulnerable and damaged, to some extent. So the idea of inclusion becomes rooted in a shared myth that we all have deep, underlying problems, and are all able to benefit from a therapeutic turn in the curriculum.
Similar to Ecclestone, I believe that this is a jaded view that ignores the needs of the human spirit to overcome challenges and adversity. As someone who takes pride in his independence and strength, I bemoan the idea that there are teachers who are instilling a victim mentality in their students, which I believe is contributing to the rise in a culture of hurt feelings, safe-spaces, and most likely a rise in mental issues in itself. Arguable the most dangerous aspect of this therapeutic turn is that it might cheapen the suffering of those who actually struggle with mental illness and emotional abuse, stamping them with a “welcome to the club” tag.
We have all dealt with suffering and hardship to some extent or another, and that is, in most cases, a positive thing. These experiences are the teachers of life, allowing us to reflect and adapt so that we don’t make the same mistakes in the future. Empowerment is always better than victimization, and strength is always better than weakness, and as such, I believe it is imperative that we set such an example to our students through our ethos and way of being.
Thanks for reading!
Education in BC has seen a powerful shift towards a collaborative approach to teaching and learning. Gone are the days of students sitting in rows completing text book questions individually and pulling students out of class to get one on one support in an isolated space. Rather, initiatives that promote collaboration and see teachers co-planning, co-teaching and differentiating lessons so that each learner can be engaged in a rich and authentic learning environment. Emotional health and emotional well-being are important in the collaborative classroom, and the terms used to describe those struggling with their emotional well-being are now coming up in everyday conversations. People throw emotional jargon and lables around with little understanding of their complexities or meaning, Ecclestone suggests, “The range of concerns and slipperiness of concepts such as emotional intelligence, well-being, emotional literacy and self-esteem have created something of an orthodoxy.” (P. 461). Teachers, parents and students are quick to blame one’s struggles to manage and cope with a challenging task or situation on such things as self-esteem or anxiety. Anxiety has become a word that teachers, parents and students quickly jump to when one encounters one of life’s many obstacles. Problem is, often, limited or no evidence is given to support the claims that are being made, as people do not truly understand the full context and meaning of these terms. Are we forgetting about building resiliency? The point being that emotional labels are being thrown around much too liberally, and we must be aware of the impacts this is having on our children and education. Ecclestone states that, “Interventions based on such beliefs create a popular view that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are all vulnerable and emotionally damaged by life events but that some groups and individuals are especially damaged. (P.464) Emotional well-being is important, and we will all have ups and downs, but to alter the face of educational policy on these premises is a scary thought. Schools and educational leaders must not overreact, as students, teachers and parents assault them with emotional jargon, or we will soon find our educational system returning to the archaic system it is in the midst of escaping. A system where students are being pulled from the classroom, or withdrawn from collaborative activities because they are unable to manage, is not the answer for everyone who encounters a emotional instability. There is a time and place that education needs to push students and build perseverance and grit. I am not suggesting that all cases of the emotional well-being are not valid, as there is definitely a place for this in education, as Hyland suggests, “Affective aspects of learning have a legitimate place in education.” However, youth must be supported in innovative ways that help them build the very skills they are lacking; one on one counseling outside of the classroom, is not always the answer. Ecclestone states, “Emotional interventions based on the diminished self distract professionals and students from educational experiences that encourage risk, challenge and discomfort as part of striving for autonomy.” The therapeutic turn we are seeing is has a lot of momentum, and education must not lose complete focus on knowledge and skills, as a result of reacting to the emotional well-being of today’s youth.
Hyland’s reasons for shaping education systems that also include social emotional learning are reasonable and compelling. Schools today are tasked with “organizing [a] new learning model is the work of the 21st century” (Cookson, 2009, p.15). This is the challenge we are currently faced with as educators. Recent academic discourse has critiqued our current education system, claiming that we are left with the legacy of the industrial age which is “characterized by conformity, age cohorts, bells ringing to summon mass migrations and segregation of skills [that were] necessary for the workforce at that time” (We are the People, n.d.). This is a system that is no longer a ‘best fit’ situation for our students. In contemporary society, we do not know what specific skills children will need in the workforce when they become adults, however recent literature points to the “seven C’s” as essential skills students in the 21st century(Trilling & Fadel, 2009). These include skills of collaboration, teamwork and leadership, cross cultural understanding, and communications(Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Skills that have been formally identified as soft are as critical as any traditional knowledge-focused skills, and can be empowering in unison. Supporting the development of these types of social and emotional skills makes out learners prepared for the workplace, and the world beyond; the value inherent in this far outweighs the dangers presented by Ecclestone.
Ecclestone shares the danger of a single story(The Social Emotional Learning Story) and presents concerns about the potential pitfalls of deficit thinking when it comes to emotional health and potential social justice implications. Ecclestone(2007) warns about a potential to develop a “powerful cultural narrative about emotional vulnerability. The notion of a “diminished self” deficit perspective is concerning, given an educational system full of student descriptors(at risk, low self-esteem) focused on what is lacking(Ecclestone, 2007). The concern that such labels and conversations about deficits could become institutionalized and used to support exclusion both pessimistic and both entirely possible yet not at all for certain. Interventions and supports must be done in a way that is respectful, consultative, and does encourage the growth of stereotypes and assumptions about selected groups of people. The way we approach and discuss social emotional learning must be in partnership with the learners and communities support and in a way that fosters inclusion and respect of dignity. If the work is done via community and partner engagement, opportunities for new understanding and collective shaping of emotional-well being that focuses on empowerment, autonomy and resilience. Hyland(2011) would suggest that the shift to focus on emotional well being is indeed changing institutions and structures, but in an entirely different way than Ecclestone suggests by pointing to a shift to a “strong caring and nurturing ethos” that are a necessary counterbalance to the competitive, economic and managerialist ethos which has transformed institutions in recent decades”. Hyland might worry that a “radical impoverishment of education over the last three decades through obsession with standards, skills, competencies and narrow employability objectives” is a larger concern that outweighs the potential dangers that accompany investing in emotional well-being(Hyland, 2011). Ecclestone’s perspective serves to remind us of the need to be critical and reflective educators, and look be perpetually evaluative of our own practice; practice that supports emotional well-being is not exempt from critique, and it is this type of reflection that will positively guide the evolution of emotional learning.
The positioning of the Ecclestone piece is challenging: positioning knowledge and social learning as adversarial unnecessary. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Ecclestone almost seems to see the two as having distinctive aims, yet many researchers have found that preparing students for life success requires a broad, balanced education that both ensures their mastery of basic academic skills and also prepares them to become responsible adults(Payton, Weissberg, Durlak et al). Neither alone are the point or purpose of education, but support each other. What the world is looking for from our learners is shifting. Expanding the knowledge and understanding of the learner is something that can be supported by social emotional health. This is particularly critical in times of a changing and evolving economic, political and social reality – simply focusing on the drive to seek knowledge and understanding doesn’t addresses the need for the current traits such as creativity and collaboration that are needed to be successful in the world beyond school.
Reason vs. Rhetoric?
One important distinction that we make in public discourse (in politics, or policy, or culture and so on) is between the rhetoric of a claim and its justifiability. So, for example, when a politician claims that immigration threatens the very foundations of democratic life, we rightly see this, not as a claim to what is true, right, or actually the case, but an example of language that is designed to get us “on side” to their view (in this case, by using fear).
In short, rhetoric appeals to the emotions. Rational discourse, on the other hand, appeals to reason – our ability to be convinced on the basis of evidence and good arguments.
Even though a fundamental aim of inquiry is the pursuit of truth, academic/scholarly discourse is not immune to the use of rhetoric and the use of rhetoric can be found in most all the readings in this course.
Rhetoric is powerful and it can be useful in making an argument interesting and pleasurable to read. But it can be counter-productive in moving our understanding forward. For example, a current policy trend in school-based teaching is the “student-centered” approach. But note that challenging or questioning this approach is really tricky because of the very language used in describing it. Who really wants to say, “I’m questioning student-focused teaching”. (Or, I’m against “inclusion” or “collaboration”…and so on). You just come out sounding bad! This, even through the student-cenetred approach may mean many different things and not all of them well justified. I’m not claiming that SC teaching is bad, rather, we need to separate the (often emotionally-charged) language used to describe it from the reasons why it is worthwhile.
Similarly, we need to tease out what parts of an arguments in educational discourse are based on reasons and what parts are just rhetoric.
As some have already pointed out, Ecclestone argues that the therapeutic ethos leads to what they term the “diminished self”. This is powerful language. But does the author provide a clear account of that this concept means and the reasons why this “self” is a bad state to be in? Is the any textual evidence to support the notion that this is not simply a matter of rhetoric?
The “diminished self, ” as suggested is a term that uses powerful language. Is this term rhetoric? Ecclestone refers to “empowerment” as rhetoric, (2007 p. 464). Is the similarly powerful term “diminished” not comparable? This word, that means “smaller than” provides a powerful image that provides an emotional response. The description of the “diminished self” that Ecclestone refers to does have validity, but I don’t see significant evidence and backing. This “preoccupation with risk, danger, and vulnerability… and the parallel erosion of belief in agency, resilience and collectice support to overcome problems” has come up in almost every diploma and masters course I have been in (Ecclestone, 2007 p. 464). It is certainly a subject to explore, discuss, and provide evidence on. My question is, that by putting this powerful imagery on the title, do we as readers demand less description and evidence? As a reader, I know what “diminished” means and I immediately picture the high emotion associated with the word. I can think of examples of what Ecclestone is describing and I start to agree, without demanding the same evidence that I might have if I had been presented with the information in a less emotionally provoking way.
Nice catch. So it appears that, even if E. has a good argument, she may be engaged in the same kind of rhetorical games as she claims the targets of her criticism are.
Pasi Sahlberg, author of Finnish Lessons, states “the aim of preprimary school in Finland is not “school readiness” but rather to “promote children’s growth into humane individuals and ethically responsible members of society by guiding them towards responsible action and compliance with generally accepted rules and towards appreciation for other people (National Board of Education, 2010)”. (p.52) Sahlberg also talks about changes to the education system being “grounded in research and implemented in collaboration by academics, policymakers, principals, and teachers” (p. 4). This idea of all partners working together to determine a clear aim of what school should be is not shared in Hyland’s article where “loss of academic freedom and autonomy as a result of the increasing influence of the state, industry and other outside agencies over what goes on in universities” (Hyland, p. 2). Hyland goes on to explain that there is a “rise of what he (Jarvis, 2000) describes as the ‘corporate university’ (p.52) which is unduly influenced by the needs of economic capital and the demands for employability skills at the expense of traditional goals.” Is the shift to competition in the global market creating the move toward therapeutic education where global employers are in need of employees without the traditional knowledge but instead, more engagement on “active citizenship duties and responsibilities” (Hyland, p. 5)? So the demand to teach to non-cognitive, affective domains may be driven by outside forces that schools and universities have no control over when the consultation process is weak.
Don’t forget, though that in Finland the policy and courses are determined by the municipality. While the society values education and pays its teachers a decent wage (though not as high as their doctors, which are paid far less than here, contrary to frequent memes) the municipality choose the specifics. (Sahlberg, 2011). This flexibility is important to note, because it reiterated the avoidance of a ‘one size fits all’ approach, as seems to be the model in the US. It is also interesting to note that Finland isn’t good at creating its own educational innovations, it just implements things that research reveals is good. A lot of their policy comes from Alberta, for example. When I discussed the structure of the current schools with a Finnish exchange student, it was just the same as when I attended school in Finland, back in the 80s before the reforms. It think practically speaking, most the changes have impacted the younger students more. At the high school level, the only change appears to be greater fluidity for students to move from / to the vocational stream to the academic stream.
Ecclestone’s final point that, “emotional interventions based on the diminished self distract professionals and students from educational experiences that encourage risk, challenge and discomfort as part of striving for autonomy” is what struck me most significantly this week (2007 p. 467). I teach in an alternate education setting where most of my students have been labeled as having “anxiety” or “behaviour challenges.” Their parents tell me that they don’t work well with peers, my students ask for work sheets instead of critical thinking activities and their behaviour plans allow for them to move to a private setting when they feel that they need to. Ecclestone does state that she is not rejecting “a need to address the emotional problems of a minority of students or dismiss the usefulness of therapeutic interventions in certain contexts.” (2007 p. 467) I agree that mental health diagnosis in a minority of students do require specialized programming. But, in a school where teaching staff is meeting once a month to discuss strategies to increase student resiliency, it is apparent that those challenging and risk taking educational experiences that Ecclestone discusses are needed and that the students I am working with are not used to or are very scared of trying them.
I found myself grumbling all the way through the Ecclestone article, writing uncomplimentary things in the margins. It seems to me that at the end of the article when she says what it isn’t (i.e. that ‘psychological insights into the relationship between self-concept, motivation, and achievement are not significant” nor to “dismiss the usefulness of therapeutic intervention”. (p. 467) because it seemed to met those were precisely what she was saying throughout.
I constantly found myself wondering if we really do ‘teach to the diminished self’ because I don’t think we do. I think we believe our students are capable, and we provide educational opportunities for them to demonstrate that.
Facts are, we have a lot of damaged kids, and they need interventions. But that’s not because we’re treating them like victims. The real culprit is poverty and their parents’ education. In our community where StatsCan shows an average education level of junior high, and the is a preponderance of mental health issues, more than a quarter of our student body needs support. The school provides what it can (not enough), but does it thereby follow that this is part of a general ‘cultural narrative about emotional vulnerability and fragile subjectivity’ (p. 456). I don’t think so. I think it’s about poverty and I don’t think poverty is our cultural narrative.
I think you’re on to something about their being an unacknowledged social class element that may be underlying the therapy critique. But couldn’t you turn this around and claim this actually reinforces Ecclestone’s point? In other words, perhaps the focus on emotional wellbeing suggests a two-tired system, where the well-off get a serious academic education and the rest get some kind of emotional passification (don’t get angry, regulate your emotions…). I gather they don’t focus on emotional learning at elite institutions such as Eton, for example.
Learners who are in a positive space of emotional well-being will be better able to focus and engage in learning. To be distracted and/or troubled by things such as how much food may be in the fridge, or where you might have to move to because your mother or father cannot pay rent, will clearly consume the mind, limiting one’s ability to engage in his or her own learning. Social class may definitely play a role here, however, there is no rhyme or reason as to how all of this plays out. I work with a number of students who are “well-off” and struggle a great deal with their emotional well-being for all kinds of reasons. Overworked or career driven parents, who have no, or very limited, time for family, can have significant effects on a child’s well-being, for example. To pin the need for therapeutic education on the lower class, would not be an accurate representation of the issue. Looking at the data from my school, it is clear that emotional well-being may be a result of many variables, such as single parent homes, emotionally abusive homes and homes with poor family dynamic, for example. Simply sitting around the table at night with your family can have positive impacts on mental-wellness, whether you are eating KD or beef tenderloin. Is money the difference maker here? From my experience, those who struggle with emotional well-being come from all walks of life. Now, while elite institutions, such as Eton, may not focus on emotional learning, this does not mean that there may not be a plethora of emotions being buried, rather, they are simply not getting dealt with.
I am glad that I was not the only person who was grumbly while reading Ecclestone’s article. I found myself having to walk away from it, and continue reading at a later time. I do believe that the education system is shifting to teaching to the “diminished self” because we are told that we are helping society that way. However, I believe we are only helping society in creating a working class that will only be able to complete lower end jobs.
I also agree that there are a lot of damaged students, and they do need interventions. However, I think the interventions need to build resilience like Hyland mentioned. If, as educators, we focus on raising self esteem, what will happen when the students are graduated and have to face a society where they will not adapt jobs to meet the social and emotional learning of the worker?
In my educational journey for my masters, I am realizing how important Parenting classes are, and how they do not exist. I think it would be more beneficial to spend money teaching parents the importance of creating confidence in their child, and show parents how to raise a child; rather than try and rectify the problem years later (which if you look at the imprinting years of a child from 0-5…. it is really hard to change a child’s identity and self worth after this time frame).
It is hard for me to word this correctly, but I believe if the government spent money on teaching citizens how to parent, it would allow for less damaged students. thus allowing students the ability to learn at a higher education level; giving the students an opportunity to attain higher paying jobs. I believe when this happens poverty will be reduced.
I really like the points that Nathen and Roxanne raise. Thinking about teaching to the diminished self is reactionary. Teachers are trying to increase a child’s self-esteem and self-worth, not matter the family income. Some children are not getting the support they need from home for different reasons and not knowing how to parent or working hard and long hours are just a couple of the reasons why. I watched a news cast that explained how the Tulane University School of Medicine is teaching their doctors in training how to cook healthy meals. They are creating a new breed of doctors that can help their patients how to cook well instead of just says that they need to eat better. Training doctors differently is more proactive. This would similar to giving parents more tools in parenting in order to help their children in life. A more proactive approach so that teachers could be less reactive in their approach.
Just want to point out Erica’s close textual reading of Ecclestone paper (nice work!): to the critic who would say that Ecclestone doesn’t want us to care about the emotional issues of students, there is textual support to counter this claim. Reading carefully is key and we will see in the next pair of readings what happens when a critic does not read a paper carefully enough…
Also, just to see if others may follow you on this point: there is some bite, I think, to E.’s concern that too strong a focus on therapy may come at a cost to the developing autonomy of the student. Note that she isn’t necessarily claiming that teachers in, say, BC do this. Her concern is that a general shift in educational policy and practice from a concern for autonomy to emotional wellbeing may be a problem. There is a difference, she thinks, between teaching students to take control of their emotions and understand them in order to lead self-determined lives and having them believe that such feelings require special sheltering of some kind.
As an aside, I do wonder that if she is indeed correct, how much this really has to do more with the educational influence of larger cultural forces than with school-based education alone.
Part of Ecclestone’s argument lies in the actions of both the media and government promoting ideals of the diminished self. She cites articles published in Psychologies, “an up-market women’s magazine”, “autobiographies of famous, successful people” and “celebrities who promote their emotional difficulties”(p. 456). She uses these to set the stage for “developing an argument that a powerful cultural narrative about emotional vulnerability and a fragile subjectivity is increasingly evident”(p. 456). These narratives aren’t founded in logic and research they are merely the outcomes of a capitalistic society. Mass media routinely prays on the insecurities of the consumer to increase profits. I wonder if these shifts in educational policy are mainly due to the actions of politicians, and thereby the governments they form, desires to become re-elected. If supporting emotional well being is seen as being popular in the public eye, politicians would be foolish to not support it. Perhaps far too often we assume that politicians will make decisions rooted in research and academia as opposed to their own best interest.
One valid point that Ecclestone makes is that there needs to be more research “to explore the subtle, complex ways in which education plays a central role in creating and reproducing particular subjectivities” (2007 p. 456). We, as educators, forget the amount of power we wield. Not only do students look up to us as figures full of knowledge and experience (in comparison the them), but often, so do parents. When Ecclestone brings forth the examples of ‘diminished self’ pulled from , she is pointing out how so many of those beliefs are embedded in our society now, and guess what, we are all exposed to it. So when this ‘rhetoric’ starts becoming apart of the educators vocabulary it is easy to see how it can be passed on to our students and parents as truth. When a student has a hard time writing test, we jump on the assumption that he must have anxiety. If a student is overly active they must have AD(H)D. What needs to be taken into account is that we are teachers and we are not trained to diagnose nor treat any of these issues, well I am not at least. Ecclestone may not have a lot a research backing up her claims, but she is stating that we need to be careful and look into how the idea of self-esteem is being addressed within the educational system . Are we building students up or are we unintentionally tearing them down?
Sorry, missed a word, that confusing sentence should read : When Ecclestone brings forth examples of ‘diminished self’ pulled from the headlines,
I agree with Amanda that we do need to be careful of the labels we are placing on students today. As Eccelstone points out, labels like, “… vulnerable learners…fragile identities…low self-esteemers” (p. 455) are being used in assessment of our students. When we use these terms and others such as; ‘anxious’, ‘over active (ADHD)’, ‘unable to focus’ are we truly trained to be commenting, observing and diagnosing or are we simply making a judgment call based on personal experiences. As Amanda has stated, I too feel that I am not sufficiently trained in this department.
Parents look to us for guidance, for support, to do right by their child and students take their cues on how to treat each other in our classrooms from how we treat them. The inclusion of programs such as Zones of Regulation and Mind Up has made me more aware of self and of the need to check in with my emotional self. Is this such a bad thing to ask students to do? My point being that I find myself agreeing with Hyland when he states that “integration of educational and therapeutic processes through the use of psychodynamic notions can be empowering for learners and teacher alike.” (Hyland, p. 6).
Therapy relieves tension and can be source of healing and joy. Should school be a source of healing for many students? Sometimes, the simple kind gesture of greeting a student with a warm “hello” or a high-five in the morning is the only positive interaction a student receives in the day. The Education Act states that teachers are substitute parents and should be kind and judicious. Would kindness therapy in the school system benefit students?
“The extent to which affective goals concerned with emotional, social and psychological growth in learners has influenced educational activity has been grossly exaggerated” (Hyland, p. 9). This statement can be viewed as objectionable in relation to the revised B.C. curriculum which is being phased into elementary schools across B.C. this year.
“Core competencies are sets of intellectual, personal, and social and emotional proficiencies that all students need to develop in order to engage in deep learning and life-long learning…….. Personal and social competency encompasses the abilities students need to thrive as individuals, to understand and care about themselves and others, and to find and achieve their purposes in the world.” (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/competencies).
Soft skills, grit, personal and social skills are of paramount importance in the revised B.C. curriculum according the ministry website.
The revised curriculum is an example of how our educational policy is catching up to what a lot of teachers have been doing for years. I agree that kindness, feelings of self-worth and interest are all key components to helping students learn. I become a bit leery when we start talking about being therapeutic in how Ecclestone has defined it, “activity that focuses on perceived emotional problems” (Hyland, 2011, p. 4). I don’t know about others, but I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea of possibly moving from an educator role where I help students feel proud and teach them to be mindful of themselves and others into the role of therapist, where I have absolutely no training. It sometimes seems that because schools are a place where large groups of children congregate for several hours a day it must be a good place to implement all the new ideas that arise, but often it is decided without taking into consideration the time limits of our days/years and what we are actually trained to do.
But isn’t this just a common sense way to approach all humans? These competencies simply identify skills. They don’t point to our students being ‘diminished’ and in need of therapy. They just identify life skills. I agree with Hyland (and you) that the ‘problem’ (as identified by Ecclestone) is exaggerated.
I think you may be quite right about the form and focus of the new BC curr. It may indeed be therapeutic. However, does that fact that a curriculum is approved by the state mean that it is good/well-justified/sufficient?
I think, as Jeremy pointed out in an earlier post, that we cannot always trust that simply because the government/political leaders set up policy that it is always “good/well-justified/sufficient”. Many teachers in our province have been in conflict with our government for quite a while now over such “policies” that the government would argue are well justified and yet, those of us who are on the front lines, in the classrooms, working with these policies can point out the many flaws.
Chris raises a good point, and I propose Ecclestone would argue that state approval does not mean a curriculum is well-justified. While it may be nice to think politicians and the state have the public’s best interest in mind, there always exists motive behind actions. Ecclestone summarizes several studies done in the UK and the US when she writes, “studies […] show that emotional vulnerability and well-being are crucial strands in creating new bonds between State agencies and the public.” (p.463) She goes on to state, “Discourses of personalisation therefore offer an emotionally tuned notion of ‘engagement’ as part of securing ‘the public’s buy-in to our [the State’s] vision’.” (p.464) In other words, the State has reasons, other than attending to the emotional well-being of its citizens, to promote a focus on emotion well-being.
Ecclestone states, “It is a joint responsibility between teachers and parents; the painful reality is that many parents are not in the best state of mind – mentally ill, abusers, in marriage break-ups, whereas teachers can nurture” (p. 460). This idea of teachers being better than parents is insulting as many teachers are parents and could have gone through many of the issues that parents of students we are teaching have gone through. Teacher have a nurturing nature, of course, but there is no counselor training in the teacher education programs. If we take the ideas that everyone has some emotional disturbance in their lives then shouldn’t teachers be included in this?
Excellent use of textual support in developing a critical point! But is Ecclestone really saying that teachers are better than parents on the whole? I gather that one of the reasons we have public schools is because we cannot assume that all parents will always be in a position to offer children the kind of education they need (for whatever reason). This means that parents are not a sufficient source of educational support. But this doesn’t mean that teachers are better, rather, the state has a responsibility to ensure that all children have an equal shot at whatever they need in order to live well. (As usual, I’m not offering the last word on this, just wondering if it changes your sense of the critique you offer in any way).
I agree with you very much, we shouldn’t say teachers are the sole responsible person simply because parents may be experiencing hardships in life. To be honest and open, I became a teacher when I was 23 years old and I taught grade 12 students during my first year… some of the students were 18 or 19, being only a few years older than them and with the lack of experience in life (I ask my parents what to do half of the time…), I couldn’t claim to be someone who can take on the legacy!
Due to the nature of my teaching (int’l school in China) job, I can relate to the statement although I don’t personally agree with it. Teachers are held as a highly respected and reputable occupation in China, it is expected that teachers do not only teach the child the knowledge but also “take care” of them in many other ways (e.g. did they eat lunch, are they having emotional breakups, which universities are they applying and which programs are they interested in, what are their future plans, etc.). If the children get into trouble (e.g. fighting or skipping classes), then parents will blame the teachers because they think that it’s the teachers’ responsibilities for not “looking after them”. Again, it’s something that is happening out there although I disagree with it very much.
Lynda, I really appreciate your insight into a different context for seeing teachers as “nurturers”. It would be ideal if we could apply these kinds if arguments universally, but the reality is different cultures are going to place a different emphasis on the importance of the well being model or the knowledge model. I too, like Maureen was quite caught off guard by Ecclestone’s comment about teachers being the most dependable support system for students. I am not a parent, nor am I a teacher, but I know my mother would be equally struck by this statement. As Maureen mentioned, the lack of training that teachers receive when it comes to counselling I think is really important when it comes to considering the level of implementing therapeutic resources and programs in schools. If this rise in therapeutic education continues, I definitely think this kind of training must be available to teachers and with much consideration to what else is expected of our teachers already. I also don’t necessarily agree that parents are not a sufficient source of educational support, but I know I would need statistical evidence of homeschool students to counter that. Quite a few people I work with have chosen to homeschool their children because of a lot of the similar concerns we have addressed already in this course.
As Ecclestone notes in her article, there has absolutely been a cultural shift in society’s acknowledgement and awareness of mental health. For example, next Friday night a former CFL player is coming to the Vernon community to speak about his experience with mental health challenges. As more and more instances arise where individuals describe having contemplated suicide, but have reached out instead, I can only think that this shift is a positive one. It is important to note, however, that clinical mental health issues are very different from self-esteem and developing social/emotional awareness. In our school district, concerns of clinical significance are referred to pediatricians and local mental health clinicians. This is far beyond the professional and ethical scope of the classroom teacher.
While programs that support social/emotional skills are made available to teachers, and can be justified through the curriculum, they are not mandated. Professional autonomy trumps the policy-driven programs that Ecclestone refers to. Some of these programs currently used in elementary schools are: MindUp (cognitive neuroscience, positive psychology and mindful awareness training used to inform and develop social and emotional skills), FRIENDS for Life (an anxiety prevention program that is intended to build student resiliency and coping skills) and the Zones of Regulation (a framework for developing and promoting self-regulation awareness and associated tools). These programs can be implemented with populations as young as pre-school age. With each of these programs, they do not over-ride the aims of education. Instead, they act as a means to achieving educational goals. While direct teaching of these lessons may initially occur throughout the school week, students independently apply their acquired social/emotional skills and knowledge in order to access and be engaged with the academic skills and knowledge set out in the curriculum.
Ecclestone makes sweeping generalizations about revealing vulnerabilities as deficiencies, legitimizing beliefs about the diminished self, and therapy as focusing on these ideas as well as the past. Yes, students may have a difficult home life. Yes, they may be faced with challenges, but what are they going to choose to think, feel, and do to be successful? How are they going to choose to move forward? These programs, should teachers choose to implement them, can help students access curriculum and positively contribute to society. Self-esteem is promoted not through an absence of challenges, but rather the direct head on facing of challenges, resulting in a promoted state of resiliency. In the classroom, this can be observed through persistence through difficult tasks, improved school attendance, confidence and participation in academics, and a multitude of other ways. For these reasons, the implications of emotional well-being can not be denied in the educational setting.
I couldn’t agree any more than I already have. You are absolutely right about the benefits of having programs that actually support students’ emotional well being. Students from less affluent regions are likely to get more out of these programs than from a textbook. I also think that students can only learn with better focus and concentration only when they are emotionally stable. They are more willing to exert effort and to try in school when they feel that someone out there cares about them as an individual human being and not just a “55% student”. Helping them build a stronger sense of confidence, self-esteem, emotional maturity will lead to better abilities to establish friendships and connections as well as their abilities to cope with emotional problems in life.
I agree with that Self-esteem is promoted not through an absence of challenges, but rather the direct head on facing of challenges. If they will get all the help when they have emotional difficulties, If emotional well-being is the prominent goal of education rather than teaching them how to think and deal with all the problems, how could they be successful after their graduation? what if they need to face to those emotional difficulties alone one day?
The rise of ‘therapy’ in our classrooms is simply education evolving, our clients have changed. Ecclestone even points out in her argument against ‘therapy’ a number of factors, whether evidence based or theoretical, that have changed the dynamic of education; ‘the pressures of modern life creating childhoods that are ‘toxic’ (459), ‘the rise of Gardner’s idea about multiple intelligence, thereby enabling a more ‘diverse’ and ‘inclusive’ educational system’ (462) and the push for personalized learning and self assessment (462). Some form of social emotional education has always been in place to support learning, Ecclestone writes, ‘that emotional aspects of learning and experience and taking account of student’s needs are important’ (467). We all have some form of ‘therapy’ in our classroom, however I hesitate to believe we are moving to the pessimistic view of the ‘diminished self’ and “distracting students from educational experiences that encourage risk, challenge and discomforts as part of striving for autonomy” (Ecclestone, 2007, p.467). In fact I believe we are laying important foundations for authentic educational experiences filled with risks, challenges and potential.
This is well written and you re making clear references to the text. Well done. Just a quick follow-up: when we say that something is ‘evolving’ we sometimes mean we are moving in the right direction (we don’t usually talk about evolving ‘backwards’.)
When you say that education is evolving, what general standards do you have in view (i.e. what things do you think that schooling may do a better job of now than in the past?). I think this is an important question because you may have picked up on something that speak to some of the dispute between Ecclestone and Hyland.
I wonder if the shift in BC, and other places, to personalization can be seen as an evolution linked to therapeutic aims. I don’t know that we are doing a universally brilliant job of personalization yet – it’s incredibly messy and challenges the current factory model that schools still exhibit, but I wonder if it suggests an evolution of thinking. It pairs with a shift to a focus on emotional well-being in the sense that it is demanding that we meet our learners where they are at and grow from there- that speaks to a variety of entrance points of learners reach the system at. If we commit to personalization, I would cautiously make the assumption that for those students whose critical social emotional(or even physical!) needs aren’t being met would require scaffolding and support in these areas, and that the level of support(or intervention) would be personalized and tailored to meet unique needs. While I don’t know that we have evolved as schools to be more effective in managing emotional well-being, I think general attitudes and values of educational systems are evolving their mindsets, and the amount of value they place supporting learners in this area. Perhaps Ecclestone would even argue that we are devolving in this sense, and delving into a realm of deficits that are largely out of our control anyway. Maybe seeing education as therapeutic through the lens of personalization, as opposed to generalization, would decrease the potential for the gloomy and visceral image of the diminished self Ecclestone presents.
How has education evolved? What do I think has changed for the positive? I have been considering this question for over a week now and after reading Ecclestone and Hyland for the umpteenth time, I would argue it is ‘engagement’. The shift, even if subtle, to emotional learning gives all learners the opportunity to take part in learning, a reason to be engaged in the process. It must be noted that both Hyland and Ecclestone write about engagement in emotional learning, however neither feels that engagement in education is evolving in a positive direction.
Hyland explains that the obsession with ‘standard testing, skills, competencies and narrow employability objectives (the economizing of education) over the last three decades has led to learning that is grossly deficient in precisely the affective area; it does not connect or engage sufficiently with the emotions, values and wider interests which learners bring with them’ (p.7). On the opposite side of the spectrum Ecclestone argues that engagement is a product of personalized learning and acts as a ‘buy in’ that allows for the state to push through reforms because the public believes their emotional needs are being met (p. 462).
As for myself, at a classroom level ‘engagement through the affective domain’ has been a positive result of inclusion and needs to be considered iat all levels of learning. As Hyland writes, “For learners, young or old, who achieved little at school and associate learning with anxiety, grief and failure, a concern with foundational skills attitudes and motivations may be exactly what is called for at this stage” (p.8).
Hyland’s Response: How doe he Response to the Critique of the”Therapeutic Turn”?
In the introduction to his book, Hyland offers something of a response to Ecclestone’s paper. He claims that “the so-called therapeutic turn is no more than a proper concern with the affective dimension of learning” (2011, p. 3). He then goes on to explain why he believes that the critique of therapeutic education is mistaken. What reasons does he give for his position/counter-argument? Is he actually giving reasons or simply making assertions (assertions are statements that don’t have reasons to support them)?
In the last twenty years education discourse and research has shifted from a prescription-based approach to a more adaptive and inclusive model. In Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Sahlberg outlines how this approached evolved and became one of the driving forces of modern educational practice. In view of this pedagogical shift are we then, as educators, primed and ready to understand and adopt the idea that we are, in fact, practitioners of the holistic educational shift? Are we responsible for educating “the whole child” are is that the role of our society?
Any educator worth their salt will probably tell you that we are, in fact, responsible for moulding our society. Not only is this our role as teachers but it is also a philosophical responsibility. I believe, more than anything that it is important to equalize the classroom as much as possible. This means that regardless of what each child is experiencing outside the classroom, we must attempt to ensure that these experiences do not influence their ability to learn.
Wright’s article touches on the hesitation that many may have on the role of this therapeutic approach to education. One of the key points of opposition is that it distorts the pre-existing structures of our education system – structures that have stood in place for centuries (Wright, 323). Although this may be valid, it does spur the question “Isn’t the fundamental role of education to prepare our youth to function socially in public and in private?” The world has become more interconnected and more and more issues that would have been buried in the past are now coming to light. One only has to think about the time when counselling became the norm in schools and when children were encouraged to seek help when in distress. We cannot even begin to imagine our school system without these supports because they have become a part of existence – not just in schools but in society itself.
Well-adjusted and well-articulated children do well because they are encouraged to ask questions and seek guidance. These children are products of a society that values social and cultural engagement. Therapy in education is not a bad idea and it is not a signal of the degradation of boundaries. I view it as a channel of understanding that exists both for learning and teaching.
Great comments Danai. I think any kind of curriculum or educational aims that differ from what has been in place for centuries is bound to receive an reaction or create some hesitation. Your point about “well-adjusted and well-articulated children do well because they are encouraged to ask questions and seek guidance” made me consider context. I agree with you that this is something our society and schools value and encourage. Not knowing a lot about international education policies and systems myself, I am curious if this was encouraged at the boarding school you attended? Or perhaps you might know more from your international students about other countries. I am curious what Tian’s thoughts are on this as well. I would be interested to hear IF and to what extent other education systems in other countries are too experiencing shits in modern educational practices and therapeutic education.
Ecclestone’s main idea is that there is a tremendous amount of focus and attention paid to the emotional well-being of our students. In BC or in any provinces in Canada, labelling students as the “at risk learners”, “low self-esteemers” are very common. I do also recognize that this labelling and attention has translated into common practices and beliefs, for example, teachers are asked to be sensitive and caring towards these students’ feelings, do not ask challenging questions or putting them on the spot, and some may even feel that we are pampering them! The talk about depression, emotional intelligence, sense of belonging, self esteem is all over the media (TV, newspaper, magazines, etc.). However, I think it’s still very important for our education system to recognize the significance of non-cognitive trainings and traits.
As mentioned in the paper, “people’s perception of their ability to cope with the problems of life is shaped by the particular account that their culture offers about the nature of human potential” (Furedi, 2003, p. 113). I think by ignoring the emotional well-being of our students in our education system, students with weaker abilities to cope with emotional problems would likely to display a variety of emotional behavior problems and as a result, they are more likely to perform poorly in school, drop out of school, become emotionally vulnerable and even engage in violent acts. On the other hands, students with better abilities and greater emotional maturity level to cope with emotional problems would have minimal difficulties succeeding in school and or in life. However, they aren’t the entire population and there is no harm by teaching them to care for one another and to help them improve their emotional intelligence.
Moreover, by focussing on cognitive trainings of knowledge and understanding, we are discriminating and hurting those who may not be gifted in academic courses but are talented in sports or cooking! Students are likely to be trained as the test taker and do not receive the benefit of attending school, making friends, sharing toys and food, working with others, becoming more creative with project ideas, etc. The shift of focus from non cognitive to cognitive skills will create a more competitive environment, students are prone to become more goal driven and mark oriented. They will be immersed in studying, become more egocentric, unable to work as a team player. I’m not arguing for an education system that is completely dominated by the non-cognitive elements, however I think our curriculum hasn’t over done it and should continue to strive for a balance between the two traits.
“Pressures of modern life are creating a childhood that is toxic for the majority of children, leading to a host of mental health problems.” (Palmer, 2006 as cited in Eccelstone) One only has to watch the news and see how many young people are committing suicide, turning to drugs and alcohol or seeing violence as a solution to their problems. Social media, fast changing technology, and unique family dynamics are some of the pressures that were not present in society 100 or even 50 years ago. Society is ever changing and the pressures Ms. Eccelstone and I felt in childhood are different than those of children today. Much like the pressures we felt as children could not be compared to the pressures children felt in the 1800s. As society changes, so too must policy and schools.
Social Emotional Learning has five core competencies: Self Management, Self Awareness, Social Awareness, Relationship Skills, and Responsible Decision Making. (CASEL, 2013). These are skill sets that people of prior generations developed as well. They are not something new. They are skills that humans have needed to survive for a very long time. The difference now is how children are acquiring them. For a large portion of children, these skills continue to be instilled in them by their families. For others, school is the primary source of their social emotional education. Much like with reading, our students come to us at different starting points of their learning journey and we try our best to have them leave us further along their path of understanding.
Ecclestone states that her argument “does call for resistance to the nomalising of therapeutic interventions around self-esteem, emotional intelligence, emotional literacy and emotional well-being, and for resistance to their underlying diminished images of human potential and resilience.”(2007, p.467) Social Emotional Learning is not about diminishing human potential but empowering students to know themselves and see how their actions affect their surroundings, to understand the importance of personal connections and to be able to make informed decisions rather than to follow blindly.
Political Education and “Therapy”
For those developing an interest in this particular topic, here’s another good paper on the role (and limits of) character and the emotions in education.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449642.2014.998030
, I agree with Ecclestone that we need to resist the normalizing of the idea that everyone needs professionally based emotional interventions. There are not enough proof to say the sentence “to greater or lesser extent, we are all vulnerable and emotionally damaged by life events but that some groups and individuals are especially damaged” (P. 464), which means general population has emotional vulnerability, not only particular groups. Moreover, suppose it is true. However, that doesn’t mean all the people should be accessed and intervened in emotional well-being and engagement. Maybe particular groups do need extra support, which doesn’t mean other people need it. Some people could deal with emotional problems successfully and people have their own right to decide whether to accept those “help” on their emotions. Emotional difficulties don’t have to be exposed and managed in therapeutic ways.
Those “help” or therapy on their emotional difficulties may be a kind of hindrance to their autonomous and resilient self. Just like the article said, “Emotional interventions based on the diminished self distract professionals and students from educational experiences that encourage risk, challenge and discomfort as part of striving for autonomy” (p. 467).
Some good logical moves here, Tian. So if I understand you correctly, are you saying that while emotional wellbeing may matter is is not necessarily a good basis for determining what our aims of education should be. This is because not everyone has an interest in “fixing” their emotional wellbeing. But ALL students have an interest in leading an autonomous life. I think you have a point.
If I follow you, how would you response to someone like Hyland? If I read Hyland correctly, he thinks that education should enable children to lead good lives and autonomy may be part of it. But he seems to think that educational policy is too focused on “behaviours and competencies” that have little intellectual content to them (p. 6). He seems to agree with Ecclestone that modern education systems are de-skilling learners but that the culprit is a focus on employability and preparing children for a narrow job market.
I agree with your conclusion that therapeutic education should be available but not a curriculum priority. There are certainly students in our schools who will be damaged by events in their lives and support needs to be available for them, but others should not have to be made to feel damaged as well due to ethical commitments to concepts like inclusion.
I also agree with the idea that therapeutic education should be available , but not necessarily curriculum. I see a model that fosters collaboration between multiple services as ideal. For example, Children and Youth Mental Health in Kelowna has a clinician who has an office in our school building. This way students can attend appointments with her in a convenient and familiar location, their parents can sign paperwork for release of information so that the school counsellor and clinician can collaborate, and this clinician attends School Based Team meetings and can provide suggestions of methods to best support her client, our student. This model helps to provide necessary therapy and mental health strategy education to students, but keeps this necessary but not curriculum based work out of the classroom.
I agree that Child and Youth Mental HEalth is a great resource, but does it meet the needs of all the students who would benefit from this type of intervention? If we continue to see such a rise in the ‘diminished self’ is it our job as educators to weave strategies and skills that will help support them with stress and anxiety, for example, in our lessons?
Further to my comment above, I know many of us are already doing this in our classrooms, as we see the need for it. I agree with Hyland’s statement, “the critics have failed to see the urgent need for a re-affirmation of the importance of the affective domain of education.” (Hyland, 2007, p. 9)
I completely agree with Tian that not all emotional difficulties have to be managed in therapeutic ways. Emotional well being absolutely matters but should not be what determines educational policies and curriculum. The one thing I keep hearing about the new BC curriculum is the importance of preparing students for future jobs – jobs that may not even exist yet – and the way to do this is emphasizing core competencies. I think this is true and hopefully with increasing students’ creative and critical thinking skills this will create a turn-around on the belief Hyland claims that education systems are at fault for preparing students for a narrow job market and “the decline in creativity, risk-taking and trust in the post-school system” (p. 6).
In his response to critics of the “therapeutic turn”, I think that what Hyland (2011) has written is more substantially a rebuttal to the critics of therapeutic education policy – particularly Ecclestone (2007) – than it is an argument in favour of a more therapeutic aim in education. In his article, he points to a number of reasons as to why the critics are wrong, and claims that “this reaction [in favour of affective learning outcomes] has been far too timid, lacklustre and indiscriminate (as the recent evaluation of SEAL discussed earlier suggests), and that there should be a more vigorous and systematic re-emphasis of affective objectives in this sector that therapy in education”(Hyland, 2007, p.7), however he provides few reasons why an increased focus on affective learning is good. His argument takes the stance that it is in fact, not therapeutic education that is cause for concern, rather the fault lies with past politically driven focus on “the radical de-skilling of countless occupations (including teaching), the downgrading of vocational studies and the rise to prominence of a perversely utilitarian and one-sidedly economistic conception of the educational enterprise in general”(p.2). He argues that this trend toward emotional learning is merely in response to this movement of the 1980s and 90s. The conclusion lays it out most clearly. In summary, he claims that critics have underestimated the negative effect of past policies, and overestimated the effect of affective education, which he sees as urgently needed. Finally, he accuses them of holding a narrow view of education, and by focusing exclusively on the cognitive aspect of learning, they risk creating “a diminished notion of learning” (p.9) (which I thought was a clever play on Eccleston’s (2007) “diminished self”). Overall, Hyland seems to argue that this is a much needed move in what he sees as the right direction, however offers few reasons why this is right.
I think that, at the center of this discussion is their disagreement regarding the aim of education. Is it primarily cognitive, as Ecclestone appears to favour, or is it economic success, as Hyland points the finger at, or is it “a proper concern with the affective dimension of learning and, more- over, that this needed to be emphasised in the face of the relentless economising of education” (p3).
I was left wondering, how far must the pendulum swing in the “opposite” direction before some point of acceptable middle ground is reached? I can’t say that I am terribly comfortable with the idea that, as a teacher, I may be risking the future success of my students, and the potential pawn of policy makers while “they” sort out what direction in which this machine should travel. Or maybe I am making assumptions about the power I wield.
One thing I was certain about, I would never ask Prof. Ecclestone for an extension. 😉
As Hyland argues for an education system with more of a focus on the affective domain, he uses some language which perhaps lacks support. When discussing the apparent ‘therapeutic turn’ in education he states that “widespread transformations of the system mentioned above do seem to merit a resurgence of attention to this dimension of education” (Hyland, p.8) As well in his conclusion he states that “the critics have failed to see the urgent need for a re-affirmation of the importance of the affective domain”(p.9) and “mindfulness can help to re-invigorate the affective dimension”(p.9). The discussion of a resurgence, re-affirmation and re-invigoration makes me question when one of the aims of education was focused on the affective domain? If it is the case that there was a focus on the affective domain then why was it phased out as a focus?
Hyland states that “For learners, young or old, who achieved little at school and associate learning with anxiety, grief or failure, a concern with foundational skills, attitudes and motivations may be exactly what is called for at this stage” (2011, p. 8). The question that has been rolling around in my brain is whether or not it is possible to meet the needs of all learners in a public education system? Is there not always going to be someone who feels disaffected by school? If we focus too far into the cognitive domain there will be students who will feel the lack of the affective, if we focus too far into the affective domain there will be those who feel the lack of the cognitive. (I know if left out psychomotor, but let’s just skip that for now). I absolutely believe that there needs to be balance, but is there a fix all solution that will ensure that no learner ever feels anxiety, grief or failure?
I like what you say here, Amanda. Ecclestone refers to Daniel Goleman, stating, “Emotiional intelligence is more important in life and work success than traditional intelligence.” (P. 495) This makes me ask, why? Which reminds me of Simon Sineck’s model, the Golden Circle, which demands we start with the “Why?” So, I will ask, why is emotional intelligence more important to life and work success than traditional intelligence? I believe we must consider technology in this discussion. As Robin S. Sharma suggests, “Cell phones, mobile e-mail, and all the other cool and slick gadgets can cause massive losses in our creative output and overall productivity.” Humankind is further distancing itself from pro-social behaviours, as so many are consumed by their personal electronic devices. This is even more evident in middle and high schools. Adolescents depend on their devices and are lost without them. From my experience, teens seem to be more rattled by losing their cell phone, as a consequence, than they are by being suspended. I also witness, on a regular basis, parents sitting at the dinner table, in a restaurant, with their child, completely ignoring the child’s needs, as a result of being consumed by their phones. This is just one of many examples I can think of. It would not be difficult to argue that this would be a form of neglect, or even emotional abuse, if it occurred on a consistent basis. And as Ecclestone states, “neglect and emotional abuse set up emotional problems for life.” (P.459) So, clearly, times have changed, which is why educational policy must, as well, as it is educations responsibility to equip students with the skills they need to be successful, and clearly affective education needs to be at the forefront, as classrooms become increasingly consumed with the ‘diminished self’. But as Amanda suggests, there must be a balance.
In a direct response to Ecclestone’s argument that therapeutic interventions in education are a danger and based on a ‘diminished self,’ Hyland argues that, “the integration of educational and therapeutic processes through the use of psychodynamic notions can be empowering for learners and teachers alike.” (2011 p. 6) Part of Hyland’s argument is the idea that “the cognitive and affective domains can be viewed as inextricably connected and mutually dependent.” (2011 p. 5) Therefore “there is a cognitive aspect of all emotions and affective dimension of cognition.” (Hyland 2011 p. 5) This way of viewing the relationship between intellectual and emotional aspects of education fuels Hyland’s argument that there is a “need for a re-affirmation of the importance of the affective domain in education.” (2011 p. 9) This need to actually increase therapeutic themes in education, particularly mindfulness education is Hyland’s response to what he feels is the true issue. This issue is that modern education has become radically impoverished in the past thirty years through “obsession with standards, skills, competencies, and narrow employability objectives.” (Hyland 2011 p. 8) Basically Ecclestone argues that therapeutic education is part of the problem and Hyland argues that it is part of the solution.
Hyland speaks of “undifferentiated skill-talks, an obsession with prescriptive learning outcomes and the dominance of competence-based education and training.” (p2) which he says “de-skills occupations” and “downgrades vocation studies.” I am quite confused by how this relates to therapeutic education. If it exemplifies the commodification of schooling, by focusing on the soft life skills rather than knowledge, the need to analyse one’s philosophy come into stark focus.
Can thinking skills be better developed through projects to demonstrate competencies as was our premise when we began piloting the model, or do students think more when they are forced to write tests and regurgitate?
In respect to the suggestion that “too much emphasis on personal counselling and individual rights and not enough on active citizenship duties” (p5) I do not believe it significantly influences “educational trends” (Hyland, 2011). Look at the phenomenal response to Me to We. Students across Canada are actively responding to calls to make a difference in their communities and around the world. (Kielburger, 2011) In our school, Me to We is only a small component of our very popular grade 8 to 12 cross-grade Social Justice class that takes students into the community to harvest vegetables, work in the thrift store, volunteer around town, raise money for causes, and challenges each student to learn about an issue of need somewhere in the world, and to find a way to support it. This is active citizenship, taking students out of the classroom and into their community. Moreover, the students involved feel proud of their service, knowing they make a difference, so their self-esteem is improved.
I do not believe my school is alone in this. What other schools are demonstrating active citizenship that Ecclestone feels is on the decline?
Hyland, T. 2011. “The Therapeutic Turn in Education.” Mindfulness and Learning:Celebrating the Affective Dimension of Education. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1911-8_1.
Kielburger, C. & Kielburger, M. 2012. Living Me to We. Toronto: Me to We.
I agree with Ecclestone with two point about whether emotional well-being should be a prominent educational goal and
First, I want to challenge the idea that emotional well-being should be a prominent educational goal. There are some reasons in the article to support that the State should be more active in dealing with emotional problems. For example, “Emotional intelligence is more important to life and work success than traditional intelligence” (p. 459). Another example is “The ability to talk and listen to each other is more important than reading, writing and numeracy” (p. 459). I admit that emotional intelligence is really important to life and work success, such as the ability to talk and listen to each other. However, that does not mean it is more important than traditional intelligence. I may say that traditional intelligence is a more basic goal of education. It is better to have emotional intelligence when people already have traditional intelligence, which may enhance the possibility of life and work success. I think the state should be more active in dealing with emotional problems after it puts enough effort on traditional intelligence. Therefore, the reason that emotional well-being should be a prominent educational goal should be reexamined.
Secondly, I agree with Ecclestone that we need to resist the normalizing of the idea that everyone needs professionally based emotional interventions. There are not enough proof to say the sentence “to greater or lesser extent, we are all vulnerable and emotionally damaged by life events but that some groups and individuals are especially damaged” (P. 464), which means general population has emotional vulnerability, not only particular groups. Moreover, suppose it is true. However, that doesn’t mean all the people should be accessed and intervened in emotional well-being and engagement. Maybe particular groups do need extra support, which doesn’t mean other people need it. Some people could deal with emotional problems successfully and people have their own right to decide whether to accept those “help” on their emotions. Emotional difficulties don’t have to be exposed and managed in therapeutic ways.
Those “help” or therapy on their emotional difficulties may be a kind of hindrance to their autonomous and resilient self. Just like the article said, “Emotional interventions based on the diminished self distract professionals and students from educational experiences that encourage risk, challenge and discomfort as part of striving for autonomy” (p. 467).
Hi Tian, I am rereading Hyland and looking at your 2 quotes (requoted) differently.
“Emotional intelligence is more important to life and work success than traditional intelligence” (p. 459). Another example is “The ability to talk and listen to each other is more important than reading, writing and numeracy” (p. 459).
Hyland states “the cognitive and affective domains can be viewed as inextricably connected and mutually dependent and that the references to emotions in an educational context directs attention to learning experiences” (p.5). This to me says that we need both affective and cognitive domains equally. They need to work in tandem.
So I have read these two articles over, and over. In Ecclestone’s article I had a hard time empathizing with the concepts being illustrated. When Ecclestone was speaking of the “diminished self,” it caused me to wonder where our society is going? The human population has always faced adversity, and has had to build resilience; in order to succeed in life. Ecclestone states, “education constructs a sense of self…[and] policy increasingly shapes the way individuals construct themselves as subjects” (p. 457). After this line, is where I disagree. Humans are all unique, we are not constructed, or part of an assembly line. I believe that when we, teachers, focus mostly on building self esteem (making everything for the student a success, and that the student does not have to face any difficulties); we negate to give the student the tools they need to survive. Failure allows for students to create coping skills of resilience, as well as the tools to aspire hire. It is true in most athletes when they say the greatest lessons they learned, are from their failures. In Ecclestone’s article I have a very hard time agreeing with what she is saying, because if the focus is on the “diminishing self,” then we are not implementing what the child needs for success in the future, we are focusing on what the student needs right now (which in my mind, care and attention, and building self esteem; should be something parents implement in their children).
In Hyland’s article I found myself agreeing with everything that was stated (maybe I need to be more open to other ideas haha). Hyland states that “the needs of economic capital and the demands for employability skills at the expense of traditional goals” (p. 2). I believe that our education system is being shifted to meet the goals of the working industry, and the economic capital; whereas the education system should be about advancing society, and progressing our ways of thinking and understanding. The other point that Hyland made, that grabbed my attention was:
We might accept that there is simply too much emphasis on personal counselling and individual rights and not enought on active citizenship duties and responsibilities in current times. It must also be acknowledged that – if all this is true – it is a regressive and disempowering… [and that it] is difficult to discern… this putative change in general attitudes and ethos is influencing educational trends (p.5).
I find it very alarming that society is digressing because we are allowing ourselves to be shaped by industries that are profiting off of the new ethos of education. I believe that society has become absorbed on the “ego,” and has forgotten that we are a species that needs to continually advance (all of mankind), because if only a few advance; history has shown us that those few will take advantage of the lesser educated.
I found both of these articles illustrated the paradigms that society is facing. However, I feel that one paradigm (the diminishing self) is a manifest destiny of corporate businesses and corrupt governments. I believe the other paradigm (the lack of resilience, and the digression of humankind), is something that more people need to be aware of; and make a point to not be ok with it.
This may be a current theme for me, but I again need to address the needs of our students through the lens of development. The emotional and academic needs of children are not constant and therefore can not be addressed as holistically as we hope. Yes, we should include some emotional training in younger years but also it’s our responsibility to provide knowledge and skills to prepare them for life after school. The trend to coddle our children so they don’t have low self-esteem is as Eccelstone suggests, a dangerous turn considering the attention it is getting. I do not like the fact that our children are being taught that it is ok to be just the way they are. I want them to strive to be better and they will not have this aspiration without a sense of consequence. I want the doctor who operates on me to feel bad if he messes up! Life is complicated, full of successes and failures and instead of shielding our children from the risk of feeling bad about themselves, it would better suited if we taught them how to cope with it. When you fall off the horse, you get back on it – not if you fall off the horse, you get on a rocking horse. There is a link between this kind of thinking to that of our generation’s feeling of entitlement. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I strongly feel that endeavours to try to wipe out low self-esteem at least at the high school level might just blow up in our faces. Addressing complex psychological issues is not the responsibility of the education program, for we are neither trained or have the time or resources to do so. The problem with our children, (if indeed there is one) lies within multiple layers of society, including their home, the media and other social networks. Are we absolved from total responsibility? Of course not. I also strongly believe that our schools provide a safe and secure environment to experience success and failure. Having our curriculum adapt to emotional concerns brought to light in the media is as Ecclestone suggests, a political, or even economic motive rather than an enlightened criticism of our education system. Do we need reform? Absolutely? Should we provide more emotional training? Yes. Should our curriculum revolve around it? Absolutely not. This is not the aim of the education system and has never been in the past, or in any society that I am aware of. We prepare our children for life by teaching basic skills and giving them a buffet of knowledge which they can choose to pursue. If our aim is to develop self-esteem and to protect them from feeling bad, then we truly will be a k-12 daycare. While my formal response agrees in agreement with Hyland, I strongly agree with Ecclestone in idea.
I recently came across the article, “Are Adults Educators Obsessed with Developing Self-Esteem?” by Veronica McGivney and Kathryn Eccelstone. In the commentary section, Eccelstone debates with the likes of Terry Hyland, Allen Parrott, and others. I found the responses of Eccelstone to be very intriguing – to the degree that it has changed my perspective of her arguments. In it, she states: “…if education is socially fulfilling, pedagogically interesting and useful, even interesting, taught by people who are enthusiastic, with good personal skills and genuine interest of their students, then it builds confidence, makes people feel good and leads to skills and knowledge” (McGivney, 2005, p.3). I believe this quote demonstrates that Ecclestone does recognize the value of acknowledging the affective domain, and is perhaps not as far removed from the classroom as other articles lead the reader to believe. She is against the policy and program driven implementation of self-esteem focused initiatives. Ecclestone goes on to reflect “I am not sure how elevating self esteem as a process and an outcome makes for a better education” (McGivney, 2005, p.3). It is only after reading these arguments that my perspective has changed on her article regarding the diminished self. It was in this context (a much more informal conversation, less ridden with references to other authors) that I began to truly understand her stance on the subject of therapeutic education.
Reference article:
McGivney, V; Ecclestone, K. (2005). Are Adult Educators Obsessed with Developing Self-Esteem? Adults Learning, 16(5), 8-13.
I don’t believe that the rise of therapy is an evolution in our understanding of education. I think if there is a rise in therapeutic education it is a reaction to the growing preoccupation with emotional well being caused by our consumerist society. Is the reaction as dramatic as Ecclestone makes it out to be? I think I lean more with Hyland on that note. I definitely agree that therapeutic and counseling resources and programs are much more prevalent in schools and society in general than they were 20 or even 10 years ago. Ecclestone makes some dramatic points in her article that definitely grab you emotionally as to the current condition of our society. For example, she references psychotherapist Oliver James (2007) saying that our current consumerist society is the “prime cause of the mental health problems for the unhappiest generation in history” (p. 459). If you hear something like that of course you are going to question what is the cause of all this? What can be done to fix this?
Ecclestone argues that this current condition has already led to a significant rise in therapeutic education and is resulting in “cultural images of the diminished self… fuelled by a therapeutic ethos that encourages preoccupation with emotional well being” (p. 465). She continues by saying she is trying to “illuminate the deeper cultural shift towards pessimistic images of people’s resilience and agency” (p. 465). This seemed extreme at first because of how emotionally-driven her argument came across, perhaps because I don’t think our education system in BC at this point. However, after thinking more about it I do agree that there definitely a risk in normalizing therapy education and establishing any kind of “shared belief that we are all damaged, to a greater or lesser extent” (p. 465). I think as a result this could significantly reduce the level of accessibility students with actual learning disabilities will have to resources, programs, and support and further isolate them. I also think there is definitely something to say about how risky it is that people are commonly self-diagnosing themselves, parents diagnosing their own children, teachers diagnosing students, all without professional expertise.
It makes sense to assume that school-based education would be a good place for those in power to start when looking into ways to eradicate this dilemma. I think the new curriculum for BC has made a valiant effort to implement a proper balance between competence-based learning, the importance of mindfulness-based approaches, and traditional intelligence. Hopefully this will help provide adequate resources to any students experiencing problems with self-esteem and emotional well being without any embellishment; at the same time I think it is important that education systems are offering those same students equal opportunities to traditional knowledge-based model of education regardless of their learning abilities or struggles outside of school.