I’d anticipate several answers to the above question. Some people might ask why that’s important, others might reply ‘not enough’, others (such as me) might say plenty, potentially. I’ll reflect back over two very recent conference sessions then look at each view in turn.
Firstly, the national ResearchED conference on September 7, held at Chobham Academy, London, included an interesting talk by Michael Eggleton on creating a mentally healthy school. Michael is a deputy head at Charles Dickens school, leading there and in other schools on the use of the RULER system developed at Yale University to foster children’s emotional intelligence. [i] I have no doubts about the sincerity and positive effects of the approach, but it does seem to beg wider questions about twenty-first century schools. Research shows that their dominant accountability culture causes or exacerbates mental health problems in children and young people. [ii] Michael Eggleton spoke of some difficulty in persuading his colleagues in school that lessons on emotional intelligence were worth interrupting the ‘normal’ processes or aims. I understand this but wonder where we have arrived when schools seem not to be driven by basic purposes of promoting pupils’ well-being.
This misidentification of pupil well-being as an insertion into or interruption of normality also came up at the conference of the British Educational Research Association held from September 10 – 12 at the University of Manchester. Josie Maitland is a researcher at the University of Brighton and presented on her work on a school which was attempting to develop a whole-school approach to mental health. Shared community values, a sense of belonging and of school as a kind of family were all important, as was pupil voice, but what was good often happened in spite of the agenda that the school was a business and needed to generate outcomes. Government policy initiatives don’t seem to address these factors. [iii]
Why are these issues important for RE and research? The reasons are legal and educational, based on the purposes of the curriculum in England, which include promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and society, preparing pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life and providing pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens.[iv] Note that these provisions apply to all schools and all subjects and that subject knowledge isn’t an end in itself. RE, like all subjects, should be justified by its contribution to these purposes and, I’d argue, research should support us to develop the subject appropriately. The CORE report echoes the same mandate.[v] It might be replied that mental health and well-being aren’t quite the same as personal development and citizenship, but impaired mental health and well-being would put at risk pupils’ personal development and citizenship chances (and vice versa).
On the argument that RE research doesn’t offer any perspectives on young people’s mental health or well-being, it would probably be made on the basis that no or few published articles or books exist on this. In fact, the field’s only just emerging, as a clearly defined one. [vi] Researchers in Japan and the Philippines have just provided a useful overall review of where the material is, internationally, concluding that whilst internalisation of religious attitudes can have positive or negative effects, where that is an aim for RE, exploring issues within and across faiths can improve adolescents’ healthy sense of connectedness. [vii]
The article from Japan and the Philippines doesn’t go deeply into relations between RE, mental health and well-being, but plenty of RE research does, if re-interpreted with those concepts in mind. Let me just give one example, referring back to my August and September blog. [viii] I wrote there about classroom-based research I’d done in collaboration with Bob Jackson, a group of RE teachers and a group of year 7 pupils. The pupils referred to RE as a ‘touchy subject’. They valued the changes their teacher had made, influenced by the research to which we’d introduced her: establishing a discussion framework sufficiently safe to discuss religion, asking them to make use of family or community contacts to research religion and teaching them to look at a religious text from different angles. They said that they now felt more able to benefit from the subject, especially in relation to what they saw as its main advantage, their understanding of difference in society. Something I didn’t mention in the blog was that at an early stage in the project, the teachers had told me that their pupils lived in a climate of fear. They were worried by many aspects of life (crime, war, Brexit, their own uncertain futures) and looked to teachers for help. This isn’t easy, for either young people or teachers, so it was good to record the gains in comprehension of religious difference and confidence in speaking about it which accrued through the research process. It only takes adjustment of language to see these as promoting pupils’ mental health and well-being.
Young people’s mental health and well-being are not an initiative, or a bolt-on, or an extra purpose for RE or any other subject. The point is rather that RE’s rich subject content can be taught and learned about in ways that promote them, based on the legal and educational reality that that’s what it’s for. In the right affective context, as our research showed, teachers get to teach more of it and better. [ix]
[i] See https://www.londonsouthtsa.org.uk/school-to-school-support/sles/michael-eggleton.php and http://ei.yale.edu/ruler/
[ii] See Merryn Hutchings, “Exam Factories? The Impact of Accountability Measures on Children and
Young People,” available open access at https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/exam-factories.pdf, p.55 ff.
[iii] See https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transforming-children-and-young-peoples-mental-health-provision-a-green-paper
[iv] UK government Department for Education, “Statutory Guidance: National Curriculum in
England: framework for key stages 1 to 4,” available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-
stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4
[v] See CORE, p.3: “Young people today are growing up in a world where there is increasing awareness of the diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews, and they will need to live and work well with people with very different worldviews from themselves.”
[vi] https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13033-019-0286-7
[vii] Crystal Amiel M. Estrada, Marian Fe Theresa C. Lomboy , Ernesto R. Gregorio Jr. , Emmy Amalia , Cynthia R. Leynes , Romeo R. Quizon and Jun Kobayashi, “Religious education can contribute to adolescent mental health in school settings, ” International Journal of Mental Health Systems 13:28 (2019): available open access at https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13033-019-0286-7
[viii] Kevin O’Grady, “What do Year 7 pupils think of RE? That it’s a ‘Touchy Subject’.” Blog available at
https://www.reonline.org.uk/blog/what-do-year-7-pupils-think-of-re/
[ix] As we illustrate in the original article, the improved learning atmosphere meant that the teacher could use her very good subject knowledge more fully, to pupils’ advantage. See Kevin O’Grady & Robert Jackson (2019) ‘A touchy subject’: teaching and learning about difference in the religious education classroom, Journal of Beliefs & Values, DOI: 10.1080/13617672.2019.1614755