Mindfulness meditation at school: why not, if it is "strictly supervised"

In 2019, the former deputy of Ille-et-Vilaine Gaël Le Bohec (LREM) began to promote mindfulness meditation in schools. At the time and until the end of his mandate (June 2022), he argued that this practice made it possible to reduce anxiety, improve the level of students, and fight against inequalities. In October 2020, the Minister of National Education Jean-Michel Blanquer gave his agreement to a project to experiment with this practice in several hundred classes. Finally, in February 2022, the minister reconsidered his decision, fearing possible abuses, and in particular a lack of “political and philosophical neutrality” of the speakers.

Meanwhile, the League of Human Rights (LDH) campaigned against this experiment. In June 2021, she released a statement explaining the Buddhist origins of this practice, accusing it of inducing “a loss of critical thinking and subjection of the individual” and of serving as a gateway to esoteric practices and sectarian. It was based in particular on a report by the Interministerial Mission for Vigilance and the Fight against Sectarian Aberrations (Miviludes). The LDH considered the practice of mindfulness meditation incompatible with the law of 1905 and the principle of secularism in public schools. In January 2022, the LDH returned to the charge with an open letter to the Minister of National Education, this time backed by multiple signatories, including a federation of parents of students and several teacher unions. It was in the face of this intense pressure that the minister ended up giving up. But was he right or wrong?

Thousands of scientific studies on meditation

In parallel with these events, the National Education Scientific Council also took up the subject and, following a systematic review of scientific studies, my colleagues and I published a note based on the analysis of numerous scientific studies on mindfulness meditation. About 3000 researches are published each year and, among them, hundreds of studies cover tens of thousands of participants with the most rigorous methodology and whose results are synthesized in meta-analyses. These studies show that mindfulness meditation is one of the forms of psychotherapy [interventions non-médicamenteuses, NDLR] most effective for adults with psychological disorders, including depression and addictions. Used as an intervention for everyone in schools, it also has proven, albeit modest, effects on students’ symptoms of anxiety and depression. Moreover, used in this context, it does not appear to present any significant risk.

Limited offer. 2 months for 1€ without commitment

In addition, the Scientific Council for National Education emphasizes the great heterogeneity of mindfulness meditation practices. Practices evaluated by research and proven to be effective no longer have any religious or spiritual element. They are therefore compatible with public schools. But many other practices exist, the effectiveness of which is not known and which may have links with religious or even sectarian movements. In other words, the risks mentioned by LDH and Miviludes are real for certain meditative practices, as well as for almost all well-being practices. The Scientific Council for National Education considers that this risk can be controlled if we restrict meditative practices at school to forms positively evaluated by scientific research and if we rigorously control the training of those involved and the compliance of their practices to the protocols.

The note from the Scientific Council of National Education concludes that new research on mindfulness meditation at school is legitimate and should be able to be conducted under strictly controlled conditions. It does not comment on the advisability of disseminating these practices more widely, but offers an analysis of the potential benefits and costs that should be taken into account when deciding.

“Everyone made science tell them what suited them”

What to conclude from this episode? First, that the arguments of both parties were flawed. Former deputy Gaël Le Bohec mainly claimed the results of a Franco-Belgian study in support of his project, but the results of this study were in fact inconclusive. For its part, the LDH wrongly asserted that scientific studies concluded that there was no positive effect and highlighted risks for practitioners. In short, everyone made a biased reading of the scientific literature and made science say what suited them. Of course, researching, reading, understanding and critically evaluating scientific studies in order to synthesize them is not easy. In fact, it is a profession: that of researchers in the field concerned. Hence the need to call upon a committee of competent experts.

Secondly, we can only regret that the Minister, who was in a position to arbitrate between these contradictory positions, did not consider it useful to seek his scientific advice to clarify his decision. What is the point of having scientific advice in this case?

In the end, mindfulness meditation gave us the opportunity for one of those politico-media debates of which France has the secret, where scientific knowledge is only summoned in a selective and partisan way in support of pre-existing positions. -established, and where ultimately political decisions are taken more according to the balance of power than a rational analysis of the benefits and costs for citizens. Mindfulness meditation deserves neither blissful enthusiasm nor opprobrium. It deserves to be experienced without expecting miracles, and potentially to be practiced under strictly supervised conditions.