Mindfulness in education : an overview of the Literature on school-based mindfulness programs and implications for mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system

(1)

Running head: MINDFULNESS IN EDUCATION

Mindfulness in Education: An Overview of the Literature on School-Based Mindfulness Programs and Implications for Mainstreaming Mindfulness in the Dutch Education System

University of Amsterdam, College of Child Development and Education

Emma Vermeulen (10765468) Mentor: dr. Hülya Kosar-Altinyelken Bachelor’s Thesis Educational Sciences Date: 25 July 2018

(2)

MINDFULNESS IN EDUCATION 2

Table of Contents

Abstract p. 4

Introduction p. 5

Aims of the Research p. 7

Method p. 8

Literature Review p. 8

Strategy for Identifying Studies p. 8

Inclusion Criteria p. 8 Coding Procedure p. 9 Qualitative Study p. 10 Participants p. 10 Procedure p. 10 Data Analysis p. 11

Chapter 1: Literature Review of Mindfulness Programs p. 12

Conceptualising Mindfulness p. 12

Educational Mindfulness Programs p. 12

Dutch Educational Mindfulness Programs p. 14

Program Objectives p. 15

Program Outcomes p. 15

Outcomes of Dutch Educational Mindfulness Programs p. 17

Criticism on Mindfulness p. 18

Chapter 2: The Dutch Case p. 20

1. Dutch Programs in Schools p. 20

2. Attitudes Towards Mindfulness in Dutch Education p. 20 3. Challenges and Conditions for Succeeding p. 22

Collaboration p. 23

Financing p. 24

Resistance p. 25

Research p. 26

Overcrowded Curriculum p. 27

4. Challenges and Conditions for Sustainable Implementation p. 28

School Wide Implementation p. 30

(3)

Conclusion and Discussion p. 32

Main Findings p. 32

Mindfulness Programs in Education p. 32

Diversity in Objectives p. 33

Main Outcomes and Methodological Considerations p. 33 Attitudes Towards Mindfulness in Education p. 34 Challenges and Conditions for Succeeding p. 35

References p. 37

Table 1 p. 41

Appendices p. 44

Appendix A (Interview Guides) p. 44

Appendix B (Information Letter and Consent Form) p. 46

(4)

Abstract

Studies on the effects of mindfulness programs in education show promising results and it is increasingly being mainstreamed in schools in various Western countries. However, as of yet the Netherlands have not been investigated properly in this field. In the current study, a comprehensive literature review was conducted as well as qualitative data gathering. The purpose of the literature review was to overview major mindfulness programs in education internationally and specifically in the Netherlands, and their objectives and outcomes. A variety of programs was examined, with main objectives being improving well-being, emotion or behaviour regulation, academic achievement, and affect; and helping to alleviate stress and depressive symptoms. Overall outcomes were decreases in depressive symptoms, efficacy in emotion regulation, improved academic outcomes, positive effects on various stress and well-being dimensions, and more prosocial behaviour. The qualitative study consisted of six semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the Dutch educational mindfulness field. Insight was gained into attitudes towards mindfulness in Dutch schools, the challenges with mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system, and how these challenges could be overcome. Mindfulness in Dutch schools was considered important due to various societal developments leading to problems in youth. Also, several challenges were observed with mainstreaming mindfulness in Dutch education. Resistance towards mindfulness in Dutch schools, lack of research, and missing acknowledgement from policy makers were considered most important. There was an explicit wish for integrating mindfulness into the curriculum. To facilitate sustainable implementation and support, more research into mindfulness in Dutch education is required.

(5)

Introduction

In recent years, the interest in mindfulness in education and its potential preventive effectiveness has increased substantially. Mindfulness or being mindful has been referred to as: “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 144). Mindfulness has mostly been practiced by means of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) or Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). MBSR was developed by Kabat-Zinn (1990). In this intervention, participants are trained in mindfulness meditation to alleviate stress, pain, and mental illness. MBCT is derived from MBSR, but is specifically developed for and mostly used with patients suffering from depression (Van de Weijer-Bergsma, Langenberg, Brandsma, Oort, & Bögels, 2012; Zenner, Herrnleben-Kurz, & Walach, 2014).

Today, the rate of people coping with mental health issues and disorders, such as depression, burn out, and excessive stress, is high (WHO Regional Committee for Europe, 2013). Also, to a greater extent than before children are struggling with mental health issues and are increasingly at risk of developing disorders and mental illnesses (Zenner et al., 2014). Children and adolescents are being exposed to performance pressure in school and society, which leads to stress and lowered well-being. Constant exposure to stress during childhood and early adolescence can have serious implications on the developing brain (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Zenner et al., 2014). Also, young people’s attention capacities are under pressure because of the rise of social media and a constantly evolving society (O’Donnell, 2015). This can result in an “information overload” (O’Donnell, 2015, p. 190) and deteriorated attention capacities, which negatively affects learning in class. There is a demand for a preventive approach to address these issues and their further impact. Mindfulness may have possible preventive and health promoting capacity (Zenner et al., 2014).

Elementary and secondary schools play an important role in this. Other than being knowledge institutes, schools are involved with the task of fostering children’s social-emotional development and mental health and well-being (Zenner et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). In their formative years, children’s personalities and behaviours that will persist into adulthood are being formed (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Waters, Barsky, Ridd, & Allen, 2015). Also during this period, the transition to puberty takes place with the often stressful event of changing from elementary to secondary school (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Mendelson et al., 2010). Young children in their typical development can be reached within educational institutions and be provided tools to support their mental development. In

(6)

a number of countries, mindfulness has already been mainstreamed in education. For example, mindfulness is widely implemented in schools in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (UK), but also in other countries such as Canada, Israel, and India (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Zenner et al., 2014; Waters et al., 2015). However, this is not yet the case in the Netherlands. Mindfulness in Dutch schools is becoming more popular but is still quite patchy. The challenges with mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system, thus, remain unknown.

In sum, mindfulness in education is becoming increasingly popular. However, the majority of the research still focuses on clinical settings. Effectiveness of mindfulness practice has been demonstrated in clinical settings with people suffering from various disorders and diseases (Mendelson et al., 2010; Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Burke, 2010; Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2012). Apart from clinical studies, mindfulness has been proven effective in a range of domains with both adults and children, for example with alleviating stress and anxiety, enhancing attention capacities and cognitive functioning, and physical and psychological health or well-being (e.g., Mendelson et al., 2010; Meiklejohn et al., 2012). Children also specifically showed enhanced emotion and behaviour regulation, social-emotional competence (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Tan, 2016; Waters et al., 2015) and resilience and coping (Zenner et al., 2014). These effects could positively impact learning and academic prosperity and “overall flourishing” (Grace, 2011, p. 107). This could therefore, in turn, lead to better class climate (Dariotis et al., 2016).

As a result of the beneficial effects and increasing demands on young people with its adverse consequences, the interest in mindfulness in education has grown. However, enthusiasm about the possible benefits of practicing mindfulness in schools overshadows the evidence that is available in this field (Zenner et al., 2014; Greenberg & Harris, 2012). Also, the literature on educational mindfulness programs in a Dutch context is new to the field. Very few studies exist on the effectiveness of educational mindfulness programs that are being offered in the Netherlands, even though several programs do exist already. Moreover, there are no studies on potential challenges with mainstreaming mindfulness education in the Dutch education system. Due to these considerable gaps in the research field, the current study is contributing by providing more insight into what is now a lacuna in the existing literature on mindfulness in education. This is done by means of a comprehensive literature review on educational mindfulness programs internationally and explorative interviews with key informants in the Netherlands.

(7)

Aims of the Research

In the present study, the literature on school-based mindfulness interventions will be examined, with a focus on typically developing school-going children and young adolescents in the age of nine to 16 years old. Furthermore, the focus will be on school-based mindfulness programs. The aim of the current research is to gain insight into mindfulness programs in education in Western societies and specifically in the Netherlands, as well as their objectives and outcomes. Additionally, it will be examined what the challenges could be in mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system, and conditions for succeeding. The research questions that are central to this study are:

1. What are the major mindfulness programs in education internationally, and specifically in the Netherlands?

2. What are the main objectives of mindfulness programs in education? 3. What are the main outcomes of mindfulness programs in education?

4. From the perspectives of key stakeholders, what are the attitudes towards mindfulness in education in the Netherlands?

5. From the perspectives of key stakeholders, what are the challenges in mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system and how can these challenges be overcome?

To answer the research questions, a literature review will be conducted as well as qualitative data gathering by way of semi-structured interviews. The first part of this study, concerning the literature review, will gain more insight into research questions 1, 2, and 3. The second part of this study, involving the interviews, is meant to fill lacunas in the literature examined and to answer questions regarding the Dutch context (RQs 3 and 4). The international literature will be compared with the Dutch case in thematic chapters.

(8)

Method

For the purpose of this study, a comprehensive literature review has been conducted as well as qualitative data gathering in the form of six semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the field of mindfulness in Dutch education. First, the literature review procedure will be described. Secondly, the qualitative study will be discussed.

Literature Review

Strategy for Identifying Studies. Multiple methods to search for literature were used for this study. During January and February 2018, articles have been gathered via the databases Web of Science and Google Scholar. Additional literature has been obtained through personal connections and through a method called “snowballing”, in which the already obtained literature is consulted by searching for new literature in the reference list. The key search terms that have been used with the databases were “Mindfulness” as keyword, combined with “School”, “Program”, “Intervention”, “Training”, and “Learning”.

Inclusion Criteria. The search terms resulted in many studies to consider for the review. After screening, studies were selected if they met the following criteria:

(1) The programs were mindfulness-based.

(2) The intervention was located in a school-based setting.

(3) The target population of the program was students in elementary or secondary school. (3) Participants were children and early adolescents in the age of nine to 16 years old. (4) Studies were of 2005 and onwards.

Excluded from this study were dissertations and theses, adult and clinical populations, pre-school and higher education, teacher-oriented studies and non-educational settings. Also, studies with children below the age of nine or above the age of 16 were excluded. However, some exceptions were made with regards to the age range. This was because of these studies still including the relevant age range for this study, or because they made valuable additions to the current research in terms of content relevance.

Initially included in the literature review were 26 studies. Not counted to this number are meta-analyses and theoretical background articles. After screening the literature according to the set criteria, five studies were excluded. The final number of studies reviewed is 22. Among these articles, two were qualitative. Most of the studies, 14 in total, were conducted in the U.S. Furthermore, three studies were conducted in the UK and the rest in other countries, among which Canada, Australia, China (Hong Kong), and the Netherlands. All of these details can be viewed in Table 1, which provides a summary of the program details.

(9)

Coding Procedure. To analyse the literature, both manual coding and the software program Atlas.ti Version 8 have been used. First, an inventory was made of all the details of programs investigated in previous studies, including the authors and year, the name of the program, the age range, grade, and school type, the method and location of implementation, the duration and frequency of the program and the length of sessions, the activities, the focus or aim, type of instructor, and the target group. Then, an inventory was made of the target variables of studies and programs, and outcomes of the programs on the target variables. Both the inventory of program details and target variables and outcomes were done manually. This was done for the 21 empirical studies included. Table 1 provides a summary of the outcomes of programs.

Secondly, seven theoretically relevant articles and four meta-analyses were coded with the software program Atlas.ti. The identified literature was coded for 13 distinct codes: (1) Age relevance - support for the chosen age span of the current study.

(2) Challenges (system) - systemic challenges with implementing mindfulness in schools. (3) Challenges (solutions) - solutions to problems with implementing mindfulness in schools. (4) Mechanisms - mechanisms through which mindfulness works, e.g. change mechanisms. (5) Mindfulness definitions - definitions of mindfulness as proposed by scholars.

(6) Other relevant definitions - e.g., meditation, yoga.

(7) Outcomes clinical/adults - findings of mindfulness with clinical or adult populations. (8) Outcomes youth - findings of mindfulness with youth populations.

(9) Problems with mindfulness (challenges) - problems with mindfulness practice itself. (10) Relevance non-clinical/non-adult population - support for the chosen target population of the current study.

(11) Whole school implementation arguments - reasons to why mindfulness should be implemented in schools in a school wide manner.

(12) Why an interest (school-based) - relevance of the chosen setting of the current study. (13) Why an interest (societal) - societal relevance of mindfulness in schools.

After coding, the code report was scanned for the most relevant and important content for this study, which was selected and consulted during writing the current study. In the end, not all codes were used writing the current study.

(10)

Table 2

Participant characteristics

Variable Total group (n = 6) (%)

Gender Male Female 3 (50) 3 (50) Age range 30-65 Role of participant

Program developer and mindfulness trainera Mindfulness teacher in school

Owner of private mindfulness businessb

1 (16.7) 2 (33.3) 3 (50) Level of education

Higher education (hbo/wo) Vocational education (mbo) Other

6 (100) 0 0

Note. aOf Dutch programs (Dutch version of .b, MindfulKids, Methode Eline Snel). bAlso mindfulness trainer. Qualitative Study

Participants. Qualitative data gathering took place for this study by way of six semi-structured interviews. Participants (n=6) were key persons in the Dutch educational mindfulness context (e.g., program developers, mindfulness trainers) and teachers who had experience with teaching mindfulness programs in schools. For further details on the sample, see Table 2.

Procedure. The interviews were to gain more insight into the current state of affairs with mindfulness in education in the Netherlands. The main issues explored were attitudes towards mindfulness in education, the interest in mindfulness in education in the Netherlands, the challenges of mainstreaming mindfulness into Dutch schools, and how mindfulness could succeed in the Dutch education system. To investigate these topics, a semi-structured interview guide was developed. The interviews took up at most 60 minutes. All interviews were held face to face, varying from the respondent’s workplace or home, to one interview in a public place. First contact with potential respondents was made via e-mail, and participants received an information letter about the research. In this information letter, the aim, procedure, and other relevant affairs (voluntariness, anonymity, contact details in case of complaints) regarding the research were pointed out. The aim of the research was not discussed in detail because of potential bias during the interview. After providing this information, the appointment for the interview was made with the participant. The consent form was signed at the beginning of the interview. At the end of the interview the participant received information about the debriefing of the research. The interviews were tape recorded with consent of the interviewee.

(11)

Data Analysis. To analyse the interviews, the software program Atlas.ti Version 8 was used. The transcribed audio material was uploaded to a project and coded, using 16 distinct codes. These codes were generated from the interview guide, which was developed as a result of the observed gaps in the field of mindfulness in Dutch education:

(1) Collaboration/networks - existing collaboration between individuals or parties involved with mindfulness in Dutch education.

(2) Conditions for success - conditions for succeeding of mindfulness in Dutch education. (3) Financing/implementation process - Financing processes and specific cases.

(4) Implementation challenges - challenges with implementing mindfulness in Dutch schools. (5) Importance of parents - role of parents in mindfulness in Dutch schools.

(6) Importance of teachers - role of teachers in mindfulness in Dutch schools.

(7) Introduction challenges - challenges with introducing mindfulness in Dutch schools. (8) Meaning - what mindfulness could bring Dutch schools, its added value.

(9) Other interesting comments.

(10) Programs in schools - elaboration on Dutch educational mindfulness programs. (11) Resistance (teachers) - descriptions of resistance to mindfulness in Dutch education. (12) School wide implementation - arguments and examples of a school wide implementation in Dutch schools.

(13) Support (teachers) - descriptions of support for mindfulness in Dutch education. (14) Why an interest (relevance) – why mindfulness in Dutch education is important. (15) Why children (added value) - relevance for mindfulness with children.

(16) Why schools (added value) - relevance for mindfulness in (Dutch) schools.

After coding, the code report was scanned and the most important comments were selected and used for Chapter 2. In the end, not all codes were used writing the current study.

(12)

Chapter 1: Literature Review of Mindfulness Programs Conceptualising Mindfulness

Mindfulness or being mindful involves reaching a certain state of consciousness by deliberately focussing on the present moment and experiencing this in a receptive and non-reactive way. That is, not reacting to the situation that occurs, but instead accepting it as it appears (Mendelson et al., 2010; Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Greenberg & Harris, 2012). Brown, Ryan, and Creswell (2007) refer to this as “unprejudiced receptivity” (p. 214). One should not try to control thoughts or feelings, push them away or be gripped by them, but instead notice them and be aware of them happening. Because they are only temporary, one should embrace them compassionately and not try to alter it or interfere (Metz et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2007). With children, this means that they do not act out on negative thoughts. Rather, they are actively focussed on what happens inside, such as internal feelings of anger or sadness or external events that cause distraction, and not letting themselves get absorbed by this. One should not be fixating on past or future events or whether what is happening is good or bad (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Hooker & Fodor, 2008; Brown et al., 2007). Occasionally, one can show signs of “mind-wandering”. For example, children could let their thoughts or feelings take over when they should pay attention in class. When this happens, it is important that the mind-wandering is noticed as it occurs. One can be brought back gently by means of using an anchor, for example the breath. By focussing on the breath, one is believed to return to the present moment and reach a state of calmness and concentration (Zenner et al., 2014; Burke 2010). In this mind-wandering situation, the ability is to intentionally focus, remain focussed, and being able to shift again in focus (Burke, 2010; Meiklejohn et al., 2012).

Educational Mindfulness Programs

Within the scope of this research, different mindfulness programs in education have been inventoried. Among these are programs that combine mindfulness and yoga, mindfulness and tai chi (Wall, 2005), and mindfulness and meditation. Among established programs are Learning to BREATHE, Mindful Schools (MS), Mindfulness Education (ME), Mindfulness-Based Social Emotional Learning (MBSEL), Mindfulness Awareness Practices (MAPs), and modified MBSR programs. MS is part of a larger project in the U.S. and MBSEL belongs to “MindUp”, a U.S.-based educational mindfulness organisation. Furthermore, there are many variations of the .b (pronounced as “dot be”) or Paws b program, as developed by Mindfulness in Schools Project (MiSP) in the UK. Programs specific to the Dutch context are Methode Eline Snel and MindfulKids (Van de Weijer-Bergsma, 2012), as well as a Dutch adaptation of the .b program. MindfulKids is derived from the .b program. In

(13)

the next section, the programs will be further evaluated content wise on their details, objectives and outcomes. A summary of program and research characteristics is to be found in Table 1.

Most of the programs have been pilots or trial interventions of short duration, varying in length with the least being two weeks (Liehr and Diaz, 2010) and the longest being 16 weeks (Dariotis et al., 2016; Metz et al., 2013; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Within this range, the frequency of sessions range from generally one session per week (e.g., Huppert & Johnson, 2010) to at most five sessions per week (Britton et al., 2014; Liehr & Diaz, 2010). With many sessions per week, the duration of those sessions is often shorter. The length of sessions varies considerably, with an exception being 120 minutes (Lau & Hue, 2011). The average length of sessions was around 40 minutes. Kuyken et al. (2013) did not report the length of the sessions, and Joyce, Etty-Leal, Zazryn, Hamilton, and Hassed (2010) stated that the guidelines in their study were not prescriptive. Furthermore, several studies included homework or assignments in addition to the formal sessions (e.g., Dariotis et al., 2016). Also, in Black and Fernando (2014) additional short sessions were delivered by teachers once or multiple times a week, varying from two to five minutes. Lau and Hue (2011) even included a whole day retreat of seven hours for the students next to the regular sessions. The majority of mindfulness interventions in schools were delivered by teachers (64%).

An exception were the studies of Bakosh, Snow, Tobias, Houlihan, and Barbosa-Leiker (2016) and Bakosh, Mortlock, Querstret, and Morison (2018), in which there were no sessions, but the mindfulness course was fully automated. This means that there is no facilitator present, but the students do mindfulness in their own time when it is most suitable by means of an audio-guided program. They call this teacher independent, as the program is fully automated, and curriculum supportive because of students being able to build mindfulness into their own curricula. They were expected to listen to one audio track each day. In the study by Huppert & Johnson (2010), audio tracks were also utilized, but in the form of home practice audio files. This was, instead of in the study of Bakosh et al. (2016; 2018), used additionally.

Regarding the implementation of programs into schools, studies predominantly conducted this in the form of short-term interventions. The implementation methods and locations differed between studies. Most of the interventions took place in a classroom-based setting and were implemented during regular class time (e.g., Schonert- Reichl and Lawlor, 2010). Other programs were implemented into specific or elective courses, or as part of a mental health promotion plan (e.g., Britton et al., 2014; Broderick & Metz, 2009). In some

(14)

cases, resource time was used or the intervention was implemented during after-school hours as an extracurricular activity (e.g., Dariotis et al., 2016; Lau and Hue, 2011). Flook et al. (2010) and Schonert-Reichl et al. (2015) did mention neither the implementation method, nor the location of implementation. Bakosh et al. (2016; 2018) and Joyce et al. (2010) were exceptions. In Bakosh et al. (2016; 2018), the mindfulness intervention was implemented in a classroom-based setting, but because of the program being fully automated, students could fit this into their own schedule. This meant that no specific hours were reserved for this, but it was integrated during regular class time. In Joyce et al. (2010) the implementation method was not prescribed, but rather teachers themselves decided how to fit the course into their curriculum as they thought was suitable and were encouraged to engage into daily mindfulness practice with their class.

Dutch Educational Mindfulness Programs. In the Netherlands there are three programs being offered to schools. These are the Dutch version of the originally British .b program, MindfulKids for primary school children, and Methode Eline Snel for both elementary and secondary school. The Dutch version of .b and MindfulKids are both derived from the British .b program, but cover different themes. The .b program is used in secondary schools and emphasizes cognitive aspects with MBCT elements, whereas MindfulKids is used with primary school children in a more playful and friendly manner.

The only relevant study in this field has been conducted by Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al. (2012), which studied the immediate and prolonged effects of MindfulKids in elementary schools in the Netherlands. The intervention lasted six weeks, with sessions of 30 minutes twice a week facilitated by an external instructor. Daily, short mindfulness exercises were done by the class teachers. This study is quite similar to other reviewed program studies, in program details that were highlighted and design of the study. The sample size was quite large compared to some other programs (n=208) with both a control group and follow-up, which is not always the case. The other obvious difference is that the study took place in the Netherlands, which appears to be exceptional.

As MindfulKids is derived from the .b program, it could be compared to studies investigating the .b program as well. All studies, except for the MindfulKids study, were conducted in the UK. In all UK-based studies, the program was delivered by a teacher. In Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al. (2012) the core training was facilitated by an external instructor. Also, Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al. (2012) introduced the program into schools as a primary prevention program. This was not done similarly in the other .b studies. Age groups

(15)

Figure 1. Conceptual model of main objectives.

also differed, as MindfulKids and Paws b target primary school children, and .b is intended for secondary school ages. As to similarities, all studies used a control group and follow-up.

There are no relevant studies on the other two Dutch programs. Hence, conclusions about these programs could not be reached.

Program Objectives

As to the focus or aims of the mindfulness programs, many different target variables have been inventoried. The main objectives in studies examined in the current review are well-being, emotion or behaviour regulation, academic achievement, stress, depressive symptoms, and affect (see Figure 1). Less observed variables, but also important in the light of mindfulness principles, are somatic symptoms, resilience, anxiety, positive behaviour, optimism, social-emotional competence, concept or esteem, coping, self-compassion, and calmness or relaxation.

In the Dutch study, target variables included stress, mental well-being, and mental health problems. These objectives are comparable to the most common target variables. In relation to other .b-based programs, objectives were quite similar. Resilience, negative affect, and emotion regulation were also named in studies investigating the .b program. Still, these are closely related to the Dutch objectives (Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2012).

Program Outcomes

In this section, the main outcomes of mindfulness programs in education will be discussed (see Figure 2). Among reviewed studies, significance has been found across a wide

(16)

Figure 2. Conceptual model of main themes in outcomes.

variety of domains. Noteworthy and significant findings will be reported. They are also to be seen in Table 1.

Mendelson et al. (2010) reported less rumination, intrusive thoughts, and emotional arousal in the intervention group relative to controls. Schonert-Reichl et al. (2015) reported of a much greater amount of variables, with the most apparent being improvements in executive functioning in the intervention group. Their results also showed enhancement from pre- to post-test of empathy, perspective-taking, optimism, emotional control, school self-concept, and decreases of depressive symptoms. A decline in depressive symptoms, or depression levels, was also found by various other scholars (e.g., Kuyken et al., 2013). Lastly, Schonert-Reichl et al. (2015) also found significant differences from pre- to post-test in well-being, prosocial and aggressive behaviour, and an increase in social-emotional competence. In Schonert-Reichl and Lawlor’s (2010) study, the same improvements were found, even as better emotion regulation and more attentiveness as rated by teachers. Paying more attention was also found significant by Black and Fernando (2014). Another domain, on which significant improvements were found in several studies, is efficacy in emotion regulation (e.g., Vickery & Dorjee, 2016) and academic achievement (Bakosh et al., 2016, 2018; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). Furthermore, significant differences were found between groups with stress and psychosomatic complaints (e.g., Metz et al., 2013) and from pre- to post-test between groups with negative affect, meta-cognition (Vickery & Dorjee, 2016), and negative coping approaches (Sibinga et al., 2013). Improvements were found in emotional health regarding anxiety levels and emotional or behavioural difficulties (Joyce et al., 2013; Sibinga et al., 2013), self-control, participation in activities, and caring or respect for others (Black & Fernando, 2014), personal growth after receiving mindfulness training (Lau & Hue, 2011), and feeling more calm, relaxed, and self-accepting (Broderick & Metz, 2009).

(17)

In addition to these outcomes, a few findings were particularly remarkable. In the study of Huppert & Johnson (2010), no significant outcomes on the target variables were found. However, a significant positive association was found between the amount of individual mindfulness practice outside the classroom and improvement in psychological well-being in the intervention group. Students who practiced mindfulness independently of formal sessions, had greater benefits in well-being. Similarly, in the study of Flook et al. (2010) improvements were found with executive functioning (EF) after receiving mindfulness training. A notable finding was that children with poorer initial EF showed more improvement in this domain subsequent training as compared to controls.

Another interesting conclusion was made by Black & Fernando (2014). In this study, one group of students received the regular curriculum, and another group of students received an extended variant. In this variant, seven more weeks of one-weekly mindfulness training were added to the initial training. It was found that children who received the extended curriculum had no significant extra benefits from the extended curriculum. The gains that were made with the standard curriculum were not reinforced by the additional trainings.

Further, in the studies of Britton et al. (2014) and White (2012), both the intervention and comparison group differed in target variable measures at post-tests. In Britton et al. (2014), both groups decreased significantly on clinical syndrome subscales and affect but did not differ in the extent of their improvements. The intervention group, however, was significantly less likely to develop suicidal ideations or thoughts of self-harm than controls. White (2012) showed similar patterns, with a significant increase in esteem and self-regulation over time among both groups.

Two studies were exceptional. First, the study by Wall (2005), which did not report any specific outcomes. Secondly, Viafora, Mathiesen, and Unsworth (2015) used a different approach than other studies, by comparing effects of mindfulness training on regular school-going children and children facing homelessness. It was found that regular students improved significantly in mindful awareness and acceptance. However, in the group of students facing homelessness, students reported significantly higher evaluations of the mindfulness training compared to the regular students, but also enhanced emotional well-being, more likelihood to use mindfulness practice to cope with difficult emotions or feelings, and use this in interpersonal relations. They were also more likely to recommend it to friends. The effects that were also to a lesser extent found in the regular group were bolstered in this group.

Outcomes of Dutch Educational Mindfulness Programs. Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al. (2012) found that verbal sharing and bodily awareness of emotions increased

(18)

significantly after receiving the MindfulKids program. From pre-test to follow-up, differentiating and not hiding emotions and sense of coherence increased significantly. Also, rumination and analysing emotions decreased significantly, even as anxiety symptoms and aggressive behaviour. However, it was emphasized that all effect sizes were small and the nuancing comment was made in the discussion: “...since changes found between pre-test and post-test or follow-up were not always significantly larger than changes between baseline and pre-test, we cannot exclude the possibility that change is due to maturation instead of the intervention” (Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al., 2012; p. 9).

Again, comments cannot be made on the effects of the Dutch version of .b and Methode Eline Snel, as these programs have not been investigated properly in this sense. Criticism on Mindfulness

All outcomes reported above concern positive effects of receiving mindfulness training. However, there are several studies that address different outcomes of mindfulness and offer critique.

Van Dam et al. (2018) discuss the mindfulness hype and report on critical reviews of this movement and its accompanying research base. They go deeper into difficulties with defining mindfulness, even as methodology issues in mindfulness research. As to defining mindfulness, there is neither consensus on its meaning or theoretical models, nor a universally accepted definition. Within research, this leads to conflicting interpretations of the most used mindfulness definition of Kabat-Zinn (1990), or rejection of this definition. All scholars highlight different aspects, which makes the research base very cluttered. This also becomes apparent from the present study, in which objectives have been found to be divergent. This brings about difficulties with operationalizing mindfulness and establishing construct validity, and therefore validating measures. Even so, objectives diverge. All of this could lead to inappropriate comparisons of studies, because identifying commonalities between studies proves difficult. It also has implications for the replicability of studies (“replication crisis”; p. 42), which could lead to overstating claims on effects. Alleged effectivity, Van Dam et al. (2018) argue, could even lead to potential risks, including harm or adverse effects of mindfulness. They warrant this by referring to several such cases, with “meditation-induced” (p. 48) consequences.

Burrows (2013) continues on adverse effects of mindfulness, or the consequences as mentioned above. Even though this study was conducted with teachers, it is still relevant to discuss and consider in the light of mindfulness critiques. The following finding was not explicitly mentioned in the study by Burrows (2013), but implicitly it can be deduced that

(19)

engaging with facing relational problems by means of practicing mindfulness exercises could be a very confronting experience. Instead of leading to peaceful acceptance or solution of faced problems, it could lead to temporarily heightened panic or stress or emotional states. For example, some teachers were diagnosed afterwards with post-traumatic stress disorder and burn out. Also, deeper underlying problems such as bullying and discrimination situations were exposed. Thus, very complex problems came to the surface that were not curable with the mindfulness intervention alone. To this Burrows (2013) mentions: “It is most likely that a longer project would be needed for structural/institutional aspects (...) to be able to be satisfactorily addressed” (p. 155).

Likewise, White (2012) names possible unfavourable effects of mindfulness. Similar to the implicit inferences made from Burrows’ (2013) findings, White (2012) explicitly highlights one particular finding. It showed that in the intervention group, mindfulness led to temporary increase of experienced stress. This was explained by possible raised awareness of stress which could trigger feeling stressed. Thus, becoming more aware of disturbing thoughts or emotions may very well facilitate an increase of these thoughts or emotions. In addition to this, O’Donnell (2015) suggests that mindfulness is often used as a way to control symptoms to be able to function optimally again, rather than actively search for causes of these symptoms (“pathology-proofing”, p. 192).

Concluding, previous studies show a divergent image of program details, and objectives and outcomes of mindfulness interventions in schools. The literature is not unanimous, which makes it difficult to pose concrete statements about program effectiveness, especially in the school context and to the benefit of schools. In the next section, the Dutch context regarding mindfulness in education will be examined.

(20)

Chapter 2: The Dutch Case

The Netherlands are a relatively new context within educational mindfulness research. With three programs being offered in this country and only few schools implementing mindfulness, it is still in its infancy. Regardless, mindfulness is gaining popularity in Dutch schools. To gain more insight into this development, interviews have been held with various key persons in the Dutch mindfulness area. In this section, the insights from the interviews will be elucidated. Several subjects will be discussed, among which the existing Dutch educational mindfulness programs, attitudes towards mindfulness in Dutch schools, challenges with mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system and how these challenges could be overcome, by addressing conditions for succeeding.

1. Dutch Programs in Schools

Thus far, only the effectiveness of MindfulKids has been investigated properly. There has been no evidence yet on the effects of other educational mindfulness programs in the Netherlands. In spite of this, the most frequently implemented program in Dutch schools appears to be Methode Eline Snel. MindfulKids and .b are often introduced in schools as pilots and are less commonly implemented. The .b program is propagated in Dutch schools under the license from the UK. Although there have not been any studies on the outcomes of Methode Eline Snel as of yet, it is the most widely spread and implemented program in schools in the Netherlands and internationally as well. Conclusions about possible effectivity of the programs remains to be investigated.

2. Attitudes Towards Mindfulness in Dutch Education

Whereas a trend is observable with mindfulness in education, it is important to clarify whether there is an interest in mindfulness in Dutch schools. And if so, why it is considered important. From the interviews emerged that there is an apparent interest in mindfulness in Dutch schools. All interviewees confirmed the interest in mindfulness in schools in the Netherlands without hesitating. Few respondents explicitly advocated the wish or ambition for all schools to include mindfulness in the curriculum. Several reasons for this interest arose.

First, it was deemed important to enable children with the possibility of becoming acquainted with mindfulness. Mindfulness was considered a tool for various problems that children could encounter on their way into adulthood. Among these were mentioned increased stress, anxiety, worrying, group or work pressure, burn out, depression, physical complaints, emotional stagnation, and sleeping problems. These problems, in part, have to do with digitization. One respondent stated: “I see many young people that are very much

(21)

MINDFULNESS IN EDUCATION 21 steered by their ideas that they get from social media” (Teacher 1, man). One of the interviewees put mindfulness in relation to this development: “Technology is here to stay, but we have not learnt how to relate ourselves to technology – I think mindfulness could also help with that” (Mindfulness trainer 3, man). Education, so it was suggested by the same respondent, “has not evolved with society”. That is, a digitized society with more incentives leading to an increase of distractions, pressure, and high demands to meet.

Much of the support base for mindfulness in Dutch schools finds itself among teachers who observe the same problems in children. Primary school children show a short attention span and coping difficulties with respect to emotions and pressure. In secondary schools, young adolescents struggle with puberty resulting in underachievement. Teachers signal a need to help these children cope with their difficulties. One of the respondents commented: “I see that oftentimes, they lose themselves. They are so occupied with the outer world that they neglect, forget their whole inner world” (Teacher 1, man).

As these problems develop from a young age, mindfulness should also be introduced at an early stage. In this way, mindfulness could possibly work preventive. According to the interviewees, schools fulfil an important task in guarding the social-emotional development and promote children’s mental health and well-being. One of the respondents (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) commented that schools are to create a safe environment and mindfulness could contribute to this. Likewise, schools are in the possession of a safety net consisting of the school psychologist, mentors, etc. This phenomenon was referred to as “achterwacht” (back guard) by one respondent (Teacher 1, man). In case something is signalled with a child, for example during a mindfulness session, a care team is ready to step in. By this means, mindfulness in school is believed to work both “preventive and signalling” (Mindfulness trainer 2, man).

In addition to safety, schools are an appropriate setting for children to receive mindfulness training because of their wide reach. The following was described by one of the interviewees (Mindfulness trainer 2, man). By offering mindfulness in schools, children with various problems can be reached, such as children from whom it is not expected to have problems. If merely a certain problematic subgroup is addressed, for example children with performance anxiety or by parental indication, mindfulness training would become a treatment with a different goal. Mindfulness, however, should be provided in a broader sense without a specific target group. In that way, every child would be included by handing them unasked for tools. Group and class dynamics could also be positively affected by this

(22)

Figure 3. Conceptual model of the observed challenges with mainstreaming mindfulness in the Dutch education system.

approach. By delivering mindfulness in school, mindfulness’ possible signalling and preventive effect is preserved.

3. Challenges and Conditions for Succeeding

In the literature, there has been little attention to the challenges with mainstreaming mindfulness in schools as an education policy issue. Scholars touch upon individual, school-related challenges with introducing mindfulness interventions in schools, such as funding, scheduling the mindfulness interventions into the timetables in an already overcrowded curriculum, policy-boundedness, and setting priorities because of increased pressure and diminished sources (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Waters et al., 2015). Also, ethical issues occasionally arise with informed consent (Burke, 2010) and difficulties emerge with regards to finding trained and experienced mindfulness teachers, or teachers willing to be trained (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Zenner et al., 2014; Burke, 2010; Tan, 2016; Hooker & Fodor, 2008). Schools show an apparent interest in mindfulness, but because of other priorities and increasing pressure and demands, it is not taken up. Motivation from schools to taking up mindfulness is, thus, not yet established (Meiklejohn et al., 2012; Waters et al., 2015). Limited elaboration however exists on mindfulness being embedded in the school system as a policy issue. Zenner et al. (2014) affirm that schools still face a lot of challenges with implementing mindfulness from a systemic point of view, but do not discuss this in more depth. In the existing literature, there is speculation on challenges with implementing mindfulness in schools as a policy issue, but this is not made explicit and not yet confirmed. The emphasis remains on school-related difficulties with introducing mindfulness interventions in schools for a short period of time. The challenges that will be

(23)

elaborated on in the section below are collaboration, financing, resistance, research, overcrowded curricula, and challenges to sustainable implementation.

Collaboration. As it appears, there are three different programs being offered completely separately in the Netherlands. There is hardly any collaboration between different parties or individuals involved with mindfulness in Dutch education. Interviewees often referred to the UK or the US as an example. There, mindfulness in education is more organised, for example in Mindfulness in Schools Project (MiSP) in the UK, and MindUp in the U.S. In the Netherlands, mindfulness is organised as well, such as in Centrum voor Mindfulness and Vereniging Mindfulness Based Trainers Nederland (VMBN). However, these institutions are not specifically meant for educational purposes. Centrum voor Mindfulness does have an education branch offering MindfulKids and .b, and Methode Eline Snel is organised in Academie voor Mindful Teaching through which trainers are connected. Still, these organisations exist and work separately and do not intend collaboration between the different programs.

One respondent (Teacher 1, man) stressed the importance of organizing mindfulness in education in an organisation or professional association: “Few forces are combined. Putting something new on the map means that you will need a large group of people who are committed to this and want to contribute to that supporting base, to that research”; and: “I miss a bit of a steering organisation in the Netherlands that brings that together”. A different interviewee (Mindfulness trainer 2, man) noted that people involved with mindfulness in education in the Netherlands are acquainted, mostly within the same program. Nevertheless, collaboration does not take place. Moreover, collaboration is not always found desirable for various reasons.

First, mindfulness initiatives exist that underline its Buddhist roots. As will be discussed, secularity of mindfulness in education was considered of the utmost importance. Hence, engaging in collaboration with religious parties would be undesirable. Secondly, the versatility of programs could be compromised. To this end the comment was made: “One size fits all, when actually one size does not fit at all” (Mindfulness trainer 3, man). This indicates that one specific program will not be suitable for every child or setting. Third, there is a competitive and political ethos to mindfulness training in the Netherlands. One interviewee (Mindfulness trainer 3, man) described this with the term “concullega’s” (competing colleagues). By one respondent (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) it was mentioned that in the Netherlands, there are many certified trainers with distinct approaches, views, and beliefs regarding mindfulness. They very much guard their own mindfulness practices and methods.

(24)

The same respondent stated: “collaboration or exchange of ideas is difficult; there is a kind of friction”. Moreover, one interviewee (Teacher 1, man) noted the issue of commerciality. Since mindfulness in Dutch education is not organised, individuals engage in private businesses for profit. Therefore, a paradox of collaboration exists, when actually mindfulness endorsers also compete.

Exchange, however, is an essential factor for mindfulness in education to succeed. Schools should be able to find each other to form local or regional networks to enable the sharing of best practices. Collaboration could create “critical mass”, as suggested by one of the interviewees (Mindfulness trainer 3, man). This implies that best practices would come to the surface, instead of solely an abundance of practices as offered by competing individuals. This is an important factor in the succeeding of mindfulness in Dutch education.

With regard to schools, a network between schools or teachers involved with mindfulness does not thrive. Among teachers or mindfulness trainers introducing mindfulness in the school, there was said to be a feeling of pioneering (Mindfulness trainer 2, man). In schools, collaboration proves a difficult enterprise because of a lack of support from the government, and therefore, insufficient funds. As of yet, it is still a bottom up movement supported by few.

Financing. The movement and wish for establishing mindfulness in Dutch schools is not yet overheard by the government. The missing elements of collaboration and support from the government have implications for financing. From the interviews this appeared to be one of the most bothersome challenges with introducing or implementing mindfulness in schools. From a governmental point of view, one respondent elucidated (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) that mindfulness has to be in line with the educational vision the government carries out. In case this vision is not in favour of mindfulness, funding will not be available for either research or organising mindfulness in Dutch schools.

Besides organising mindfulness in education would ask for a lot of money, teachers do not receive hours to teach mindfulness in class. Occasionally, there are reimbursements for teachers for becoming a certified mindfulness trainer. These reimbursements can either be provided by municipalities or by organisations in which schools are affiliated (“samenwerkingsverbanden”). However, one respondent (Teacher 2, woman) noted that there has to be an apparent occasion or motive for mindfulness in the school (a “trigger”). Moreover, the value of mindfulness in school must be recognized by important people in municipalities or school organisations, otherwise it will not be funded. In case of facilitation, other schools in the same municipality or under the same organisation may follow. Because

(25)

of the region and the network in which the school is located, it becomes easier to access mindfulness and best practices could be shared. Thus, networks and geographical location of the school are vital components which are not always favourable. To illustrate further, one interviewee (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) described a municipality in which possibilities of reimbursement emerged. Schools interested in mindfulness were to submit an application consisting of a plan describing what they aspired with mindfulness in their school. Under certain conditions, training would be facilitated. It is clear by now that the procedure is fragmented and not yet fixed. This makes it difficult to introduce, let alone implement, mindfulness in Dutch schools.

Resistance. Similar to financing, other challenges exist. An issue that is hardly discussed in the literature is resistance. This could be due to the concept of mindfulness being more established in other countries than in the Netherlands. However, within the Dutch context it is a considerable and relevant concern.

Resistance among teachers in the Netherlands is a profound problem. One interviewee (Teacher 1, man) suggested a dichotomy between interested teachers and sceptical teachers. Interested teachers are often already mindfulness or yoga practitioners. These teachers are generally enthusiastic or passionate about the cause of mindfulness in schools. The sceptics, however, oftentimes do not know mindfulness and carry many prejudices and false assumptions regarding the practice. This was compared to the UK, where people are rather serious about mindfulness. An interesting comment was made by one respondent: “look at England, the stiff upper lip and children should be seen, not heard, so – it is a matter of, of course, also being widely known” (Teacher 2, woman).

Among challenges with introducing mindfulness in Dutch schools, resistance as a consequence of lack of information on mindfulness is a major issue. This often results in a connection made between mindfulness and spirituality or religion. One respondent described this as “a breeding ground for sceptical teachers” (Teacher 1, man) and another respondent mentioned: “That is, what I think also has to do with not knowing mindfulness, very floaty, yes, vague - something that is inclined to be linked to spirituality. Well, start about spirituality and all doors are being closed” (Mindfulness trainer 2, man). Besides, it is also cultural matter. In many Dutch schools, the tone is quite secular, which underlines the importance of propagating the secular character of mindfulness. One respondent commented the following:

You have to deal with many prejudices, it is simply not in our culture and education system to turn inside ourselves and seek for silence (…) It is still reserved for a small

(26)

part of our society and the majority does not care much for it, does not know it and, above all, has a lot of preconceptions. (Teacher 1, man)

Thus, it was considered highly important to introduce mindfulness in a secular, non-religious way and disconnect it from its Buddhist roots. Another interviewee confirmed this by stating: “It should actually be stripped of all rituals, all riff-raff and just the techniques” (Mindfulness trainer 3, man).

To act upon these misconceptions, two elements were considered important. First, the adequate framing of mindfulness in education. Two interviewees elaborated on this. Rather than naming it mindfulness or meditation practice in class, “silence practice” or “attention training” was considered to be more appropriate (Mindfulness trainer 2, man). By that means, the content of the training would be better covered and more clear, and it preserves a functional connotation. This is also where the role of parents becomes important. One interviewee (Teacher 2, woman) described a multicultural school in a suburb area. Parents of these children are often of Islamic background. For this reason, the school took precautionary measures with introducing mindfulness and framing it towards the parents. The practice was introduced as attention training and parents received information about it. In this specific case, the initiative was received by the parents with open arms. The illustrating comment was made: “We hear from children in the first year that they would practice it at home with their veiled mother, and they were sitting still as a frog together” (Teacher 2, woman). However, the same interviewee also mentioned a very different situation taking place in religious parts of the Netherlands. In one region, parents forbid their children to practice mindfulness because of its Buddhist roots. Similar to the financing issue, it appears that a beneficial geographical location of the school and external support are critical drivers.

Research. Building on this issue, a different concern was brought up by one of the interviewees (Teacher 1, man). Without mindfulness in schools in the Netherlands being organised or well-researched, it is difficult to enter schools. Either it needs to be initiated by way of a bottom up movement and a support base within the school, or, when initiated externally, it was noted: “Schools actually want to see a public report of what it yields: more tranquillity in class, more mindfulness, better concentration, better coping with difficult emotions” (Mindfulness trainer 2, man). Introducing mindfulness externally proves a complicated endeavour, especially if there is no support from within the school. Hence, more research will be needed. As of yet, mindfulness in Dutch schools has not yet been proven effective, even as its secular nature being unknown to many. Sceptic teachers especially

(27)

would benefit from research to create a sense of realisation of the importance of mindfulness in Dutch schools. Moreover, much of the existing research on mindfulness in education is of a poor quality. To this it was mentioned: “On average, there is a lot of poor quality research, and that is also the hiatus of mindfulness” (Mindfulness trainer 2, man); and “The research on mindfulness with children and in schools is still in its infancy, there has been a lot of research already but not all of those studies are of a good quality” (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman).

Furthermore, according to one respondent (Teacher 1, man) it would be essential to examine the Dutch context specifically, because of differences between Dutch schools and other countries in which mindfulness in schools has been researched. This respondent explained that Dutch schools utilize quite informal manners, whereas in the UK the school culture is considerably more formal. Studies from abroad are relevant to the Dutch context, yet cultural differences need to be taken into account.

Thus, research proves a fundamental aspect in mainstreaming mindfulness in Dutch education. It could battle the problem of misconceptions about mindfulness and its purpose. More research and mindfulness becoming known would also have positive consequences for top down acknowledgement and establishing a network. This also works vice versa: for research to be facilitated, importance of mindfulness in schools must be recognized by the government. Considering integration of mindfulness in the curriculum is dependent on political decision-making, there is a need for top-down approaches alongside bottom up. Research could demonstrate outcomes of mindfulness in educational contexts regarding social-emotional development, learning results, group dynamics, class climate, etc. In this manner, both schools and policy makers may become more receptive to mindfulness.

Overcrowded Curriculum. In addition to the observed dichotomy between teachers, there are other kinds of resistance as well. A barrier for schools and teachers to being open to mindfulness in the curriculum is the curriculum already being overcrowded. This has also been shown by previous scholars as described at the beginning of this section. Schools are overly focussed on end results and there is a high work and performance pressure in Dutch education. One respondent noted that “teachers are always in a rush” and do not have “the right mind-set from the start to be able to properly deliver a mindfulness training” (Mindfulness trainer 1, woman). Moreover, one interviewee (Mindfulness trainer 2, man) mentioned that taking up mindfulness into the school’s priorities would imply an intensified care responsibility. If something comes to the surface with certain children, the school is responsible and thereby forced to enact and provide care. This would also cost more money and time. Hence, a “narrowing of the mind” (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) takes place in

(28)

which mindfulness is not considered an option. The possible healing or tension relieving effect of mindfulness or practicing silence is thus not being realised or considered. Without this realisation, mainstreaming mindfulness in Dutch education will be complicated.

4. Challenges and Conditions for Sustainable Implementation

Alongside encountered introductory challenges, there are challenges with implementing mindfulness in Dutch schools in a sustainable way. These are in certain ways in the extension of the already mentioned challenges. Still, new matters will be discussed.

First, implementing mindfulness in a sustainable way will take up teaching time. Schools have to choose to make time for mindfulness and room for teachers to certify themselves. However, this will be at the expense of other affairs. One interviewee (Teacher 2, woman) pointed out that a school has a certain budget. It is the school’s own responsibility to prioritize and decide where to this budget will be allocated. Because training teachers to become mindfulness trainers entails costs and time efforts, it is often not done. To prevent this from happening there needs to be prioritization within the school and bottom up support.

Making mindfulness sustainable in a school context would mean to integrate it into the curriculum. To accomplish this, top down support is necessary. This could be support from the school’s managing board, municipalities, but also the government. This is a complex venture in the Netherlands because of the following. As mentioned before, mindfulness is not yet acknowledged by the Dutch government. Even if it would be considered in politics, it could possibly not be of a long duration because the Dutch government changes every four years. As noted by one of the respondents: “Every time the government changes, the directional struggle in education actually also changes” (Mindfulness trainer 2, man). This also provides a reason for theexcessive workload as experienced by teachers and educational administrators.Because of this, it is not possible for schools to actually determine a long-term strategy or vision and include every relevant party in this process, since the course of education is revised constantly.

Furthermore, other relevant aspects to sustainable implementation were highlighted. A particular case was mentioned by one interviewee (Teacher 2, woman). Taking up mindfulness in school may bring about organisational inconveniences. Not all teachers are trained in mindfulness beforehand, which could result in classes having to be replaced occasionally. This has been experienced a difficulty, but likely to be manageable if the school prioritizes mindfulness. Also, schools sometimes aim for a “quick-fix” approach because of high expectations and workload pressure. Mindfulness should be implemented quickly and book results fast. This is, however, not feasible whereas implementing mindfulness is a

(29)

process that takes time and effort. One respondent illustrated: “people forget their own development as a trainer” (Mindfulness trainer 2, man), even though this proves a crucial element in the strive for sustainability of mindfulness in the curriculum.

Regarding embedding mindfulness in the school, an important remark has to be made. The integration of mindfulness into the school curriculum should not be imposed. Schools should still have a choice to include mindfulness in the curriculum or not. One respondent (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) argued that inevitably, there will be uninterested teachers, and it was mentioned: “Actually, it is almost never the case that the whole teacher team is on board”. Nevertheless, support on a basic level is required, as illustrated by one respondent: “You can offer it to children and embed it in the school context, but if it is not actually supported by the teachers or if they don’t show exemplary behaviour, then it will blow over” (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman). The same interviewee indicated that this also concerns leadership. The managing board should facilitate and keep mindfulness on the agenda to create commitment and intention from all employees.

Still, merely teachers with affinity are to be occupied with delivering the mindfulness in the school. One respondent mentioned: “If it is pinned on you and you do not feel like it, then you will not be able to transfer it properly, because it is something you have to embody” (Teacher 1, man). Embodiment is regarded a vital factor in effectively delivering mindfulness training. To attain embodiment, self-practice is essential. Self-practice and therefore embodiment could lead to a proper delivery of mindfulness training to children.

Relating to the concepts of affinity and embodiment, educational mindfulness programs should be specific to the context of both the school and class dynamics. Alike, context specific programs could enhance a teacher’s feeling of ownership and therefore embodiment as well. Not only are alignment of the program with geographical context of the school and ages of the children crucial (“otherwise it would be counterproductive” - Mindfulness trainer 3, man), the teacher should be able to adapt the program to the class situation. Apart from specifying the content to the class context, one interviewee clarified (Mindfulness trainer 4, woman) that every school requires a different approach to implementing mindfulness on an organisational level. The implementation process, as well as program content, should be appropriate to the setting. Thus, it should harmonize with the school culture and the teacher team.

In the next sections, two conditions in particular for succeeding of mindfulness in Dutch education and sustainable implementation will be introduced and discussed.