Positive education’s focus on happiness is valuable and should not be forgotten in the ideal classroom. Techniques from or endorsed by positive education should be part of the ideal classroom. Nevertheless, positive education is not an appropriate theory for school’s to systematically pursue. It is inappropriate because of its subjectivity, its vulnerability to misunderstanding due to its lack of clarity, its vulnerability to prescriptiveness and its potential to be coercive (Kristjansson, 2012;Furedi, 2006) the possibility that it increases dependence on outside agency for happiness (Eccleston in Paton, 2009) and its inward-looking nature (Williams in Paton, 2009).
Firstly, and here we come to an immediate problem, we must define ‘positive education’. Looking at the work of Seligman et al (2009) and Kristjansson (2012) the broadest definition would be as follows:
The teaching of happiness or well-being through timetabled, structured activities with the presence of a teacher/an instructor and as part of the curriculum of the school.
Happiness and well-being are often supposed to be interchangeable in the literature (Kristjansson, 2012), however this may be changing as happiness comes to be defined as three-fold:
- Hedonistic Pleasure
- A state of flow or engagement
- A meaningful life
Adapted from Seligman, 2009. Seligman (2009) goes on to say that the ‘meaningful life’ view of happiness is the most promising educationally as both pleasure and engagement can be found in trivial ‘solipsistic pursuits’. It is the third part of happiness ‘a meaningful life’ that Seligman seems to be defining as constituting the greater part of ‘well-being’.
The components of a ‘meaningful life’ can be placed into a framework, such as that proposed by Norrish et al (2013):
Figure 1: An Applied Framework for Positive Education (Norrish et al, 2013)
Figure 1 however, seems to be more of a wish list of hoped for outcomes. It does not translate into activities. As Kristjansson (2012) notes there may not actually be that much that is original in this approach. Some activities that Seligman (2009) recommends are probably valuable. He encourages children and teachers to understand things that have made them happy and to try and replicate those processes. He also encourages students to identify ‘signature’ strengths which would be a valuable exercise.
Criticism of positive education comes in two varieties and can be quite simple, simple enough that children in classrooms are highly likely to generate inchoate objections along the same lines.
Don’t tell me what to do
Some academics have focused on the imposition of a desirable way of thinking about others as being immoral and not the purpose of education. Kristjannson (2012) cites Prinz (2009) as an example of this. Some may also dispute the choice of positive traits as being highly subjective in specifics and bland in general.
Inward-looking
Many may well-support what Kristjansson calls ‘eudaimonia’ citing Aristotle (1985). The idea is one where several agreed upon virtues are taught, discussed and then habitually practised in order that they become ingrained, it is also termed ‘virtue ethics’ (Arthur et al, 2015). However, when students are asked to look inside their own emotions there are some who argue that this doesn’t produce happiness, but instead is a form of narcissism (Furedi, 2006; Eccleston in Paton, 2009). Others would say that it fails to take in to account the difficulties in making choices or acting within a community of people (Williams in Paton, 2009).
In the classroom, the first criticism is likely to be immediately seized upon by students and teachers alike. It would have to be handled carefully and in many ways proponents of positive education do not have a solution to this idea. The second criticism is highly important to a classroom teacher. Students need objective achievements, validated by an external party in order to feel that they are making progress. Praise from a teacher is one example. Just feeling happy is unlikely to be a rewarding experience for them, even if they can explain why they are happy.
Hopefully, classroom teachers can use ideas from positive education to make their classrooms better places for their students to learn, achieve and be happy. Teachers should be mindful of the importance of happiness, but also the limitations in teaching it.
Bibliography:
Arthur. J, Kristjánsson. K, Walker. D, Sanderse. W & Jones. C, (2015) Character Education in UK Schools Research Report, Published by the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Furedi. F, (2006) Be afraid. Here come the happiness police [Online], The Independent, 27th July 2006, Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/frank-furedi-be-afraid-here-come-the-happiness-police-5329919.html , Accessed 11/11/2016
Kristjánsson. K, (2012) Positive Psychology and Positive Education: Old Wine in New Bottles?, Educational Psychologist, 47:2, 86-105, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2011.610678
Paton. G, (2009) Children left vulnerable by ‘Therapy Culture’ [Online], Daily Telegraph, 16th November 2009, Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6583453/Children-left-vulnerable-by-therapy-culture.html , Accessed 11/11/2016.
Seligman. M. E. P., Ernst Randal M., Gillham. J, Reivich. K & Linkins. M, (2009) Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions, Oxford Review of Education, 35:3, 293-311, DOI: 10.1080/03054980902934563