Pupils to be taught how to be happy but
Can happiness really be taught?

Should the bible’s account of how the world was created be taught in science lessons? Will teaching children how to cook tackle the obesity epidemic? The content of the school curriculum has always been the subject of much debate, especially when it comes to how involved teaching should be in the moral, social, ethical, and the emotional upbringing of children. Last week it was reported that talks were underway between government ministers and Dr Martin Seligman, a pioneer of positive psychology, to decide whether happiness lessons should be part of the school curriculum. Around 1,500 11 year olds have already embarked on happiness courses as part of a pilot scheme run in 22 schools and this now looks set to be introduced nationally.

The idea we can teach people to be happy was pioneered by Dr Seligman in the 1990’s. He questioned why the study of psychology focused more on misery, illness, and suffering than looking at how to live a happy and contented life. Advocates of teaching happiness in the UK include; Lord Richard Layard from the London school of Economics who believes the central purpose of schools should be to teach the secrets of happiness, and Anthony Sheldon, headmaster of Wellington College, who in 2006 decided to timetable in lessons on how to be happy, challenge pessimistic thoughts and cope with the challenges of life.

Anthony Sheldon suggested that in order for students to be successful in life after school they need to be taught essential life skills. Leaving school with good qualifications, but without emotional intelligence means they still may not get on in life that well. He felt it was important to teach happiness at an age when the characters of pupils were still developing. He also suggested part of preparing students for life at University, is not only to prepare them for the academic work, but also enable them to cope with other possible aspects of university life such as loneliness, and rejection in love.

One of the main arguments against teaching happiness in schools is that it is the role of parents to give their children a positive outlook on life, and not teachers. The core purpose of education is to teach academic subjects. At a time when teachers are finding it a challenge to get children to engage in the core subjects, it is argued that happiness lessons will only serve as a distraction from the job of gaining a real education. Teachers are also not qualified to teach happiness. With teaching being one of the most stressful occupations, undertaking training would not only add to a teacher’s workload, it may also increase their sense of responsibility for the upbringing of children not their own.

Anthony Sheldon argues that if schools don’t teach happiness then they may not learn it anywhere else, and that education is actually about preparing young people for life in the fullest sense. He suggests we are turning children out into the world who don’t have a strong sense of identity. With mental health problems on the increase in the young, happiness lessons may be able to help children explore how to avoid and minimize negative emotions, and teach them how to deal with them when they do occur. He puts forward these lessons will help them learn more about themselves.

However Frank Furedi, who is a professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, suggests instead of helping to reduce mental health problems amongst the young, happiness lessons could actually increase the incidents of mental ill health. He argues that children are highly suggestible, and participating in emotional education encourages insular and inward thinking which may make them less likely to engage with the outside world. He argues that the rise of ‘psychobabble’ in the classroom has seen a corresponding rise in mental health problems, and more young people seeking professional support.

Seligman disagrees and points out that there is evidence suggesting that happiness classes can make people happier. This is backed up by research carried out by the University of California where one group of participants were encouraged to write down five things for which they were grateful for regularly. The people in the group who did this were happier and more optimistic than those in another group who didn’t. Psychologists at the University also found that these gratitude exercises did more than just lift the participant’s mood; they also improved the participant’s energy levels and physical health.

Happiness is however inherently subjective, which makes it practically impossible to define or measure. Attempts at defining happiness could suggest happiness was to do with optimism, pleasure, satisfaction with life, or purely the absence of sadness, but the list could go on. Whatever happiness is, it is not always constant, even the cheeriest of people can and do have low days. Due to its subjective nature it does seem like it would also be difficult to teach. What makes one person happy will not necessarily make another person happy and a single set of tools is unlikely to work for everyone. While one person may feel fulfilled and happy by tackling something they feel is a challenge, another person’s happiness could be improved by having a relaxing day, and doing nothing much at all.

Seligman recognizes that happiness is subjective and different things make different people happy, however after many years of researching his studies suggest there are three components of happiness universal to everyone. These are the amount of pleasure people pursue and feel from their activities, engagement; the depth of involvement with ones family friends, work etc, and the meaning people place on their lives. He believes you can raise your level of happiness by becoming more engaged in what you do, finding ways of making your life more meaningful, and savouring your experiences so you get more pleasure out of them.

Whether someone can learn from Seligman’s theories could also be determined by other factors that affect a person’s mood such as genetic make up, and/or social conditions. Some people are born with a sunnier disposition than others, and are able to cope with knock backs in life more effectively. This can be illustrated by people who have lost the use of limbs due to an accident still having an optimistic view of life, or people winning the lottery and finding they are still unhappy. Whatever a person’s genetic disposition, social conditions can also have a big impact on their happiness. Children having to deal with real problems at home, such as caring for an ill parent or witnessing domestic violence, may not be able to take on board lessons about how to be happy.

Seligman suggests happiness lessons will be able to help children regardless of their genes and social circumstances. He recognises the childhood experience of some is fraught and stressful while for others their upbringing is happy and secure. Pupils arrive at school with varying psychological, emotional and social experiences, and not dealing with these issues may indeed cause problems for pupils in later life. Seligman suggests happiness classes will teach students the skills they need to start overcoming these problems, address the issues and be better equipped to get on with life. Also having children with a range of experiences in the classes, means they can learn from each other.

This brief article has not even begun to scratch the surface of the study of positive psychology, but it does throw up a lot of questions such as: Can happiness actually be taught at all? Does focusing on our moods and feelings encourage insular thinking? And should it be the role of schools to teach happiness, or should the responsibility of imparting a positive outlook on life be left with families? With some schools struggling to provide a core education and with many teachers already overworked, I am not sure whether school is the place to teach happiness. However on a personal level, I don’t think it can do any harm when trying to improve ones mental health, to focus on what makes us happy, as opposed to what makes us sad, and this is something we can all explore further if we want to.