In recent years increased anxiety has been expressed about the apparent deterioration in children’s social and emotional well-being in contemporary western society (UNICEF, 2007; WHO, 2008). This anxiety has stimulated significant investment by governments and other agencies in policy initiatives and programmes aimed at the promotion of children’s mental health and the early identification of mental disorder (as for example in Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) Programme [UK]; MindMatters; Positive Education [Australia]; Mental Health Matters [New Zealand]; Safe Schools Healthy Students; Teenscreen; Positive Psychology Programme [USA]; European Network of Health Promoting Schools and Kidscreen [EU]). A widespread consensus has emerged suggesting that the school is a ‘natural’, and thereby ideal, setting for such intervention, and so the best place to target resources and effort (Weare, 2004). Subsequently, programmes have been developed and deployed aimed at transforming the culture of schools into therapeutic environments where individual children’s emotional lives are systematically targeted and nurtured. Given the sheer scope and scale of these developments, and the potential for accusations of mass ‘social engineering’, it is all the more surprising that there has been limited critical debate surrounding them (notable exceptions are Ecclestone & Hayes, 2008; Oxford Review of Education Special Issue, June 2009). Rather, discussions have centred on the relative effectiveness, or otherwise, of various techniques and approaches. This paper engages with structural issues of power, politics and the implications for children’s rights of implementing systematic therapeutic education or emotional literacy programmes. It is suggested that the absence of dissenting voices on this issue is heavily problematic and might be interpreted as a consequence of the successful exploitation of the powerful twin narratives of therapeutic benefit and children’s rights by those seeking to bolster support for the developments. Theoretical contributions from Foucault (1977) and Rose (1985; 1989) are revisited and utilised to explain how contemporary policy discourses in education on mental health promotion in schools are being used to construct and control children’s experiences and identities. Specifically, the paper critically examines the programmatic introduction of psychotherapeutic discourses and technologies into the classroom and highlights how the intensification of surveillance of children’s minds/ emotions is both related to, and contributes towards, the wider legitimisation of surveillance practices in the disciplinary state (Hendrick, 2009).

This paper draws on a range of methodological, theoretical, and conceptual tools from within the critical social sciences, in particular neo-Marxist Foucauldian discourse analysis and documentary analysis, to examine how contemporary policy discourses in education on mental health promotion in schools construct and control children’s experiences and identities. While the primary case study focus is the UK the paper also includes references to European and wider international contexts.

This paper is designed to stimulate debate about the nature, application and consequence for children’s rights of contemporary education policies involving the systematic introduction of therapeutic education programmes designed to promote children's mental health. Although representative of a rare dissenting voice, it is hoped that the paper will challenge the status quo and inform the development of a more child-centred approach to understanding and responding to the emotional needs of children.