Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Globally, mindfulness is an emerging and innovative trend in education. Specifically, in school-based education, there has been growing excitement surrounding the implementation of mindfulness. Although policy, political and economic shifts and powers may seem quite far removed from the realities of children and mindfulness, the political economy does indeed saturate and shape children’s lives in multiple ways. The purpose of this review is to chart some of the economic and political contexts and highlight some of the shifts that may speak to the emerging trend of mindfulness in education. This critical review addresses the themes and shifts in economies and educational policy, highlights links between neuroscience-based discourses, mindfulness, social-emotional learning and emotional well-being in education.

Keywords

mindfulness education policy neoliberal chlidhood

Although policy, political and economic shifts and powers may seem quite far removed from the realities of children and mindfulness, political economy does indeed saturate and shape children’s lives in multiple ways (Barker and Mills, 2018). It is therefore important to chart some of the economic and political contexts and highlight some of the shifts that may speak to the emerging trend of mindfulness in education. This article aims to address the themes and shifts in economies and educational policy, in addition to highlight links between neuroscience-based discourses, mindfulness, social-emotional learning and emotional well-being in education. In doing so, a critical review of educational policy will be presented. The concepts of bio-power, neoliberal economies and hegemony will also be drawn upon to facilitate this discussion.

Economic Shifts

There are commentators who argue economic shifts occur in order for societies to better position themselves among other competing economies (Lemm and Vatter, 2014; Palmer, 2006; Pickering and Rockey, 2011; Winter, 2010). The wave of economic shifts and dominant views of education that shape educational policy are argued to reflect dominant government ideologies (Lemm and Vatter, 2014; Palmer 2006; Pickering and Rockey, 2011). Commentators therefore claim that to advance economies, governments exert control over standards of achievement in education in order to secure future human potential entering the economic arena (Lemm and Vatter, 2014).

Lee (2013, p. 28) claims, ‘Children have long been and continue to be a principal focus on biopolitical strategy’. This focus may reflect the ‘rooted determinants’ within governmental ideologies and thus biopolitical strategy (Pickering and Rockey, 2011: p. 909). The individual can thus be identified as human capital, and used for both its own good and for the good of society (Lemm and Vatter, 2014).

Aligning education policy in order to successfully place future human beings within an economy can be perceived as a sound strategic governmental move. The art of governments is to manipulate, ‘maintain, distribute and re-establish relations of force within a space of competition that entails competitive growths’, thus governments have exclusively acted on human capital as a means to secure economic growth and stability (Lemm and Vatter, 2014: p.102). Palmer (2006: p. 308), building a wider argument about the rapidly changing economies, claims that the elements, which solidify competing economies, can also create a cycle of ill-adapted citizens. Steel (2014) further argues that as a result of advancing economies and standards of achievement, the entirety of students’ happiness is dependent on the level of academic accomplishments.

Student Attributes

Palmer (2006) claims that the speed and advancements of economies are not in synchronization with the speed of human competencies. In response to this lack of synchronization, some children in competing economies have increasingly become ‘hot housed’, that is, children attending specialized educational settings in order to enhance their academic development (Winter, 2010). Within competing economies, some children under the age of three are increasingly being exposed to cognitive sensory stimulation in the hopes of securing a higher level of intellect in order to survive the perceived tumultuous waves of education and future economies (Winter, 2010). Low rates of happiness and increases in neuropsychiatric disorders in children are argued to correlate with current economic shifts (Palmer, 2006). It is further argued that children who are exposed to extensive educational acceleration will likely encounter emotional and behavioural obstacles including burnout, and thus display social nonconformity (Palmer, 2006).

The demands for student academic attainment are also believed to have repercussions for teachers. Hayes (2004) explains that teachers often find themselves taking on responsibilities aligned to that of psychologists and social workers. Similarly, Atkinson and Hornby (2002) argue that educators, predominantly in the global North, are on the ‘front-lines’ in identifying children’s mental health concerns and thus employing hybridized, semi-official roles to support children’s social, emotional and behavioural concerns. Hayes (2004) thus claims this is due to a climate of globalization and globalized communities and increases in students’ learning dysfunctions. Educators, schools and school systems have therefore been under growing pressure (Palmer, 2006). It is argued that this has lead educators, schools and school systems to promote and mobilize neuroscience-based programs, such as mindfulness, with the hopes that students will attain the cognitive and emotional resilience required to successfully enter and navigate the economic arena (Thornton, 2011; Winter, 2010). Gagen (2013: p. 146) argues that within the neoliberal workplace, ‘emotions are becoming a currency in and of themselves’. Gagen (2013), therefore, claims that this reflects the desire to produce citizens that have ‘mindful’ qualities, are emotionally intelligent and equipped with resilience.

The Role of Mindfulness Programs in Schools

In the existing literature, contributors to academic and popular discussion of mindfulness argue that there is an urgent need in education to mobilize mindfulness-based programs (Jennings 2016; Rechtschaffen, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Proponents claim that children need to build essential skills such as empathy, resilience and emotional regulation in order to combat the stress and pressures of living in today’s highly charged world (Rempel, 2012; Ryan, 2012). This existing literature highlights multiple areas of development that children can experience as a result of participating in mindfulness. For instance, mindfulness is argued to enhance children’s focus and attention abilities, emotional regulation, executive functioning and memory, in addition to encourage altruistic behaviours (Kaiser-Greenland, 2010; Rechtschaffen, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Weare, 2012). There are therefore proponents who consider mindfulness to be a skill, tool and literacy, and thus essentially a resource for teachers to use with students in order to facilitate emotional well-being development, as well as academic development (Jennings and Greenberg, 2009; Kaiser-Greenland, 2010; Rechtschaffen, 2014).. There is also extensive research and a growing presence of mindfulness and emotional development programs tailored for school staff (Jennings et al., 2013; Weare, 2012). For example, ‘Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education’ (CARE) is a mindfulness-based professional development program for teachers. This program focuses on teachers’ emotional health through the development of emotional non-reactivity and regulation, improving relationships with students, classroom management, managing stress, social and emotional learning and well-being and resilience among staff (Schussler et al., 2015).

Mindfulness Programs in Relation to Economic and Political Paradigms

Wynard (2004) argues that successive governments engage with educational systems in order to further drive government ideology. In Wynard’s (2004) view, government initiatives are mobilized with the objective to drive ideologies. This is identified as ‘weak interference’ and ‘strong interference’ (Wynyard, 2004). Direct government involvement, by which the ideology is accepted from a population, is deemed as ‘weak interference’; however, ‘strong interference’ can reflect a population that is cautious towards the direct governmental involvement (Wynyard, 2004: p. 64). By way of developments in neuroscience, and the recognition of mindfulness in education, this recognition can be posited as a ‘weak interference’. This can be seen both as consistent with a dominant ideological view of how children should grow and as a way of ameliorating the damage associated with the practical expression of this ideology. Some commentators, therefore, view the increased implementation of mindfulness in education as a ‘therapeutic form of governance’ (Ecclestone and Hayes, 2009). Similarly, (Gagen, 2015). argues that with the recent implementation of neuroscience-based curriculum, akin to mindfulness, children in school are no longer autonomous and free; they are now seen as neurological subjects to be governed and governable according to their emotional intelligence. The influx of these curriculums introduces a new element to the requirement of governability as emotions are seen as a new technology of governance: the ‘emotionalisation’ of conduct (Gagen, 2015). Furthermore, there are commentators who argue that mindfulness is a result of governmental austerity and privatization, which they believe points to neoliberalism. Connelly (2013) claims that mindfulness in education reflects ‘the subjective grip of neoliberalism’. In neoliberal free markets, Barker and Mills (2018) thus argue that there is a psychologized culture, which can give rise to exploitative and manipulative power relations. Additionally, Reveley (2016, p. 499) argues that mindfulness in education ‘transmits the neoliberal self-responsibilizing impulse down to young people’. In Reveley’s (2016) view, mindfulness charges children with a responsibility to augment their own emotional well-being, mindfulness is ‘the non-obvious medicalizing vector that reconstructs the educational subject in line with neoliberal imperatives’ (Reveley, 2016: p. 499).

As shown so far, a number of commentators offer the view that there is a lack of synchronization among the advancements of economies and human competencies (Palmer, 2006; Winter, 2010; Hayes, 2004). There are commentators that further argue there is a misalignment of economic-biological harmonization (Palmer, 2006; Thornton, 2011; Winter, 2010). Some commentators present mindfulness in education as a means to address this misalignment (Palmer, 2006; Thornton, 2011). It is apparent that there are authors who argue that there has been a fierce concentration on achievement in education, and neuroscientific-based practices, such as mindfulness, have been presented as a means of mitigating the negative effects of this academic pressure. There are however, also reasons to see mindfulness where it is relied on in order to promote resilience and self-optimization in students as a means for students to contend with the pressures and standards surrounding academic achievement.

The focus will now turn to the relationship between educational policy in the United States, emotional well-being and mindfulness. The concepts of bio-power, neoliberal economies and hegemony will be drawn upon to facilitate this discussion.

In the United States, there has been a range of stakeholders who have been advocating for ‘mindfulness’ particularly in education, healthcare and the workplace (Jha, et al., 2015; Rupprecht, 2016; Jennings, 2016). Policymakers in the United States are yet to explicitly endorse mindfulness in education. However, policymakers are increasingly recognizing that well-being, mental health and social and emotional development play a vital role in students’ ability to learn; similar features that are found in existing arguments for mobilizing ‘mindfulness’ in education (Jennings and Greenberg, 2009; Kaiser-Greenland, 2010; Rechtschaffen, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Policymakers in the United States are thus endorsing policies to implement Social and Emotional Learning into school curriculums (NASBE, 2019).

A key policy commitment aligned to well-being, mental health and social and emotional development is the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This education law passed in 2015 emphasizes the importance of key learning environments and opportunities for schools to support student achievement by improving student health and well-being (ESSA, 2015). Additionally, since 2015, the Healthy Schools Campaign has delivered specific supports, tools and resources to states and school health stakeholders to ensure that the mobilization and delivery of ESSA are effective in contributing to student health and well-being.

On a state level, current state policies provide a foundation for including Social Emotional Learning, in addition to mental and emotional health curriculums; however, the extent to which these curriculums are integrated or required varies by state. For instance, thirty-one states have statutes and regulations that encourage or require Social Emotional Learning; however, fifteen of these states mandate the inclusion of such programs in schools (NASBE, 2019). Furthermore, beyond policies that call for an explicit focus on Social Emotional Learning, thirty-seven states include components of Social Emotional Learning, such as interpersonal and intrapersonal skills development, or self-esteem as part of regulations governing education standards. Thirty-eight states also include mental and emotional health in health education standards, which typically include teaching students how to monitor, understand and regulate their emotions; a key component of Social Emotional Learning and ‘mindfulness’ (Kaiser-Greenland, 2010; National Association of State Boards of Education, 2019; Rechtschaffen, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Only five states (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Ohio) do not have any statutes and regulations concerning Social Emotional Learning.

For example, in New York, state law or regulation requires districts to integrate Social Emotional Learning, and mental and emotional health curriculums are required for all grade levels. In Texas, state law or regulation encourages districts to integrate Social Emotional Learning into the school curriculum; however, mental and emotional health curriculums are required for only some grade levels. In California, Social Emotional Learning is not addressed in state law or regulation, although mental and emotional health curriculums are required for all grade levels. Finally, in Massachusetts, Social Emotional Learning is encouraged, and mental and emotional health curriculums are required for all grade levels.

In sum, the key policy commitments in the United States highlighted above promote mental health, well-being development, emotional and behavioural regulation and interpersonal and intrapersonal skills development. These existing key policy commitments, in part, align to the existing goals and arguments for mobilizing ‘mindfulness’ in education, and thus potentially provide space and opportunities for ‘mindfulness’ in schools (Schonert-Reichl and Lawlor, 2010).

The concepts of bio-power, neoliberal economies and hegemony will now be discussed. Neoliberalism and bio-power are argued as dominating influences within education systems in Western nations. Neoliberalism essentially consists of economic liberalism and free market capitalism (Bloom, 2017). The policies that can, therefore, result from neoliberalism include privatization, deregulation, free trade and austerity (Springer et al., 2016). Encompassed within neoliberal ideologies, bio-power is argued to exist. Bio-power, a term coined by Foucault, is understood as a political approach, informed by clearly stated or hidden ‘ideologies’, which exercise power over populations. Although not exclusively associated with neoliberalism, Searle (2010, p. 153) considers bio-power as governments’ regulative strategies that exert ‘control over the bodies of human beings by subjecting them to normalizing practices of society’.

Hall (2001) and McChesney (1999) argue that the current testing system is driving the division and organization of students into specific requirements of schools. Hall (2001) offers the view that the requirements of schools are confined by the externally imposed neoliberal bio-power, which is regulated through a regime of assessments and surveillance. In relation to the mobilization of mindfulness-based programs in education, Reveley (2016, p. 499) claims ‘mindfulness functions as a neoliberal self-technology’. Reveley (2016, p. 499), therefore, argues that the mobilization of mindfulness is a form of emotional hypervigilance as it brands students as needful subjects who must learn self-surveillance in order to monitor and manage unruly emotions.

It is argued that the fluidity of bio-power, through the division and organization of students, contributes to the alignment of students into the neoliberal economy and into the perceived ideology of the neoliberal economy (Gagen, 2015; Reveley, 2016). The exercise of bio-power can affect young people. Bio-power involves the use of surveillance and assessment in order to attribute worth to young people in ways that they may experience as uncomfortable and that may, as with any selective system of valuing people, be open to critique. In relation to the emerging trend of mindfulness-based programs in education, there are some commentators who argue, ‘emotional skills have become the new criteria by which young people are deemed to be succeeding or failing as citizens’ (Gagen, 2013: p. 150). If changes to curricular continue, this may result in regular, reoccurring, emotional audits to assess students’ emotional skills and abilities development according to a standardized set of criteria (Gagen, 2013). The ‘worth’ factor of a student within the neoliberal, bio-power-driven strategy is argued to create unwarranted categorization and exclusions during the process of organizing students into the perceived neoliberal ideology (Hall, 2001; McChesney, 1999).

Taking this discussion a step further, there are commentators that hold the view that neoliberalism confines students to a testing system, which is effectively sustained through bio-power (Hall, 2001; McChesney, 1999; Proctor, 2014).

It is posited that neoliberal-driven economies implement strategies to maintain hegemony (Proctor, 2014). The discourse employed in the educational system positions itself as a dominant ideology and thus exerts a dominant influence that arguably is enforced as a means to ensure the accountability of hegemony (Proctor, 2014). Although economic growth necessitates hegemony to an extent, the discourses of economic growth are argued to exacerbate societal constituents such as education (Hall, 2001; Proctor, 2014). Echoing this notion, Lankshear (1997, p. 82) claims that the ‘dominant political discourses become those that dominate education’.

Critics of neoliberal-influenced education policy and practice argue that the dominance of the results-driven testing system drives pushing and coaching teaching practices, which result in teachers encountering unrealistic demands, constrained by standards (Cohen, 2008; Hall, 2001; Lankshear, 1997). The pressures encountered by teachers raise questions as to the impact on students in terms of classroom dynamics and environments, quality and value of learning experiences and the quality of teacher–student relationships.

Impacts

Having presented a discussion on the relationship between educational policy, emotional well-being and mindfulness, in addition to the concepts of bio-power, neoliberal economies and hegemony, it is clear there are implications for education. The implications are argued to impact future generations who are expected to contribute to economies; some commentators argue such an impact requires recognition and action (Cohen, 2008; Hall, 2001; Lankshear, 1997). Emotional well-being programs that recognize and develop students’ emotions, such as the mobilization of mindfulness, are claimed to have the potential to act as a tool to equip, prepare and position students to navigate the standards prescribed through the discourse of assessment (Poynter, 2004; Wrigley, 2006).

Finally, it is important to point out that recently in the United States, a new well-being program for the House of Representatives has been launched and is expected to serve thousands of employees who work on Capitol Hill (Ryan, 2019). However, currently in terms of mindfulness-related policy, the United Kingdom is at the forefront with the efforts made with ‘The Mindful Nation Initiative’ and the implementation of mindfulness across health, education and the workplace (MAPPG, 2015; Ryan, 2019). In fact, there are mindfulness stakeholders in the United States, who praise and commend the United Kingdom’s recent funding investments for mindfulness and the efforts made with the Mindful Nation Initiative. The mindfulness stakeholders, in the United States therefore, aim to take similar actions as to the United Kingdom (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Ryan, 2019). While the United Kingdom appears to be making headway and pioneering the pathway for mindfulness-related policy, the United States is in the background in terms of policy. However, the United States claims to be ‘both the largest creator and the most eager consumer of new trends of mindfulness’ (Wilson, 2014: p. 8).

Conclusion

This article has reviewed the mindfulness and educational policy relationship. In doing so, the themes and shifts in economies and educational policy have been discussed.

This article has emphasized that commentators locate and value mindfulness differently. There are commentators who locate mindfulness and argue it has value for safeguarding against the current government ideology and biopolitical strategy that is dominated by a result-driven testing system. There are also commentators who argue that mindfulness is mobilized into educational settings for students to develop emotional well-being skills that facilitate coping strategies, limit psychological damage and boost resilience. There are proponents who consider mindfulness to be a resource for teachers to use with students in order to facilitate emotional well-being development and skills that can expedite academic development. Further, there are also proponents and research that speak to the use of mindfulness programs for teachers in order to promote and increase their well-being and resilience.

On the other hand, there are commentators who locate mindfulness as inappropriate for educational contexts and thus understand its value as limited and to the extent obstructing to academic standards. However, there are also commentators who argue that governments locate mindfulness and thus argue it has value for expediting the government ideology and biopolitical strategy of a result-driven testing system. The developments in neuroscience and the recognition of mindfulness in education are claimed by some commentators as a measure to strengthen educational settings by way of developing students’ emotional resilience and emotional intelligence. Furthermore, some commentators claim that mindfulness helps to expedite the government ideology and biopolitical strategy by reinforcing students as the focus for biopolitical strategy and as human capital.

It is clear that mindfulness is mobilized, understood and valued differently for diverse purposes and diverse outcomes. Political and economic shifts and powers may seem relatively detached from the realities of children and mindfulness; however, political economy does indeed affect children’s lives (Barker and Mills, 2018). Although this existing literature relates the mobilization of mindfulness in education to economic shifts, government ideologies, biopolitical strategy and neoliberalism, this literature does not seem to consider other factors that may encourage the mobilization of mindfulness. For instance, advances in diagnosing child mental health concerns or learning disabilities, greater flexibility in teaching attitudes, approaches and curriculums or alternative modes of classroom management and discipline in education. To this end, there are recommendations for research that explores mindfulness as an aspect of participant’s own teaching and learning practices, settings and teaching communities; thus studies that seek to understand reasons as to why participants, who have some degree of discretion as to whether they engage with it, are seeking out mindfulness resources and ideas in order to implement mindfulness into their settings with children (Wilson, 2014; Greenberg and Harris, 2012; Weare, 2012).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Celeste Duff

Author Biography

Dr Celeste Duff received her PhD from the University of Warwick, UK. Her research interests are educational psychology, health psychology, developmental psychology and child psychosocial well-being. She is an international scholar having collaborated and studied in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia. Email: celesteduff@gmail.com

References

Atkinson

Hornby

(2002) Mental Health Handbook for Schools. London: Routledge Falmer.

Barker

Mills

(2018) The psy-disciplines go to school: psychiatric, psychological and psychotherapeutic approaches to inclusion in one UK primary school, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(6), 638-654.

Bloom

(2017) The Ethics of Neoliberalism: The Business of Making Capitalism Moral. New York: Routledge.

Cohen

(2008) Social, Emotional, Ethical, and Academic Education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy, and wellbeing, Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201–237.

Connelly

(2013) The Fragility of Things: Self-Organizing Processes, Neoliberal Fantasies, and Democratic Activism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ecclestone

Hayes

(2009) The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education. London, UK: Routledge.

Gagen

(2013) Governing emotions: Citizenship, neuroscience, and the education of youth, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40(1), 140–152.

Gagen

(2015) Governing emotions: Citizenship, neuroscience, and the education of youth. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 40(1): 140–152.

Greenberg

Harris

(2012) Nurturing mindfulness in children and youth: Current state of research, Child Development Perspectives, 6, 161–16.

10.

Hall

(2001) Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse. In Wetherell

Taylor

Yates

(eds) Discourse theory and practice: a reader, 72–81. London: Sage.

11.

Hayes

(2004) The RoutledgeFalmer Guide to Key Debates in Education. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

12.

Jennings

(2016) ‘CARE for Teachers: A Mindfulness-Based Approach to Promoting Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence and Wellbeing’ in Schonert-Reichl

Roeser

(eds) Handbook of Mindfulness in Education. New York, US: Springer, 133–148.

13.

Jennings

Greenberg

(2009) The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes, Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525.

14.

Jennings

Frank

Snowberg

, et al (2013) Improving classroom learning environments by cultivating awareness and resilience in education (CARE): Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial’, School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 28(4), 374–390.

15.

Jha

Morrison

Dainer-Best

, et al (2015) Minds "at attention": mindfulness training curbs attentional lapses in military cohorts, Plos One, 10, e0116889.

16.

Kaiser-Greenland

(2010) The Mindful Child. New York: Free Press.

17.

Lankshear

(1997) Changing Literacies. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

18.

Lee

(2013) Childhood and Bio Politics. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

19.

Lemm

Vatter

(2014) The Government of Life, Foucault, Biopolitics, and Neoliberalism. New York: Fordham University Press.

20.

McChesney

(1999) ‘Introduction’ in Chomsky

(Ed.). Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order, 7–18. New York: Seven Stories Press.

21.

Meiklejohn

Phillips

Freedman

, et al (2012), Integrating Mindfulness Training into K-12 Education: Fostering the Resilience of Teachers and Students, Mindfulness, 3(4), 291–307.

22.

Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Group (2015) Mindful Nation UK. Available at: http://themindfulnessinitiative.org.uk/images/reports/Mindfulness-APPG-Report_Mindful-Nation-UK_Oct2015.pdf

23.

National Association of State Boards of Education (2019) State Policy Database on School Health. Available at: http://statepolicies.nasbe.org/about/health-policies-databas.

24.

Palmer

(2006) Toxic Childhood. London: Orion Publishing.

25.

Pickering

Rockey

(2011) Ideology and the growth of government, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 907–919.

26.

Poynter

(2004) The Interventionist State and the State of UK Education. In Hayes

(Ed) The RoutledgeFalmer Guide To Key Debates in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

27.

Proctor

(2014) Enhancing wellbeing in youth. Positive Psychology Intervention for duration in Britain. In Furlong

Gilman

Huebner

(Eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Second Edition. New York: Routledge Publishing.

28.

Rechtschaffen

(2014) The Way of Mindful Education. New York: Norton & Company.

29.

Rempel

(2012) Mindfulness for children and youth: a review of the literature with an argument for school-based implementation, Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 46, 201–220.

30.

Reveley

(2016) Neoliberal meditations: How mindfulness training medicalizes education and responsibilizes young people, Policy Futures in Education, 14(4), 497–511.

31.

Ryan

(2012) A Mindful Nation. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House Inc.

32.

Rupprecht

(2016) Mindfulness in the Workplace. Is it Effective and what Are the Challenges?. Cambridge: Oxford Mindfulness Centre News.

33.

Schonert-Reichl

Lawlor

(2010) ‘The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre- and early adolescents’ wellbeing and social and emotional competence’, Mindfulness, 1, 137–151.

34.

Schonert-Reichl

Oberle

Lawlor

, et al (2015) Enhancing cognitive and social-emotional development through a simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: a randomized controlled trial, Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 52–66.

35.

Schussler

Jennings

Sharp

, et al (2015) Improving teacher awareness and wellbeing through CARE: A qualitative analysis of the underlying mechanisms mindfulness, Mindfulness, 7, p130-142.

36.

Searle

(2010) Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.

37.

Springer

Birch

MacLeavy

(2016) Handbook of Neoliberalisim. New York and London: Routledge.

38.

Steel

(2014) The Pursuit of Wisdom and Happiness in Education. New York: New York Press.

39.

Thornton

(2011) Brain Culture and Popular Media. United States: Rutgers Press.

40.

Weare

(2012) Evidence for the Impact of Mindfulness on Children and Young People. Exeter, UK: Mindfulness in Schools Project.

41.

Wilson

(2014) Mindful America: The Mutual Transformation of Buddhist Meditation and American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

42.

Winter

(2010) Engaging Families in the Early Childhood Development Story, Neuroscience and Early Childhood Development. Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, South Australia: Education Services Australia Ltd.

43.

Wrigley

(2006) ‘School improvement in a neo‐liberal world’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(2), p129-148.

44.

Wynard

(2004) Menu change in education? In Hayes

(ed) The RoutledgeFalmer Guide to Key Debates in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Educational policy shifts: A critical review of the emerging trend of mindfulness in education

Abstract

Keywords

Economic Shifts

Student Attributes

The Role of Mindfulness Programs in Schools

Mindfulness Programs in Relation to Economic and Political Paradigms

Impacts

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biography

References