Rethinking Mental Health in Schools

Imagine a mandatory class on mental health.

The goal is to help every student learn to cope. But what if, for some students, that lesson makes things worse?

This uncomfortable possibility is now being taken seriously by researchers.

A new critical review from researchers at the University of Oxford examined this exact problem. They synthesized findings from numerous school-based mental health programs.

These “universal interventions” are lessons taught to entire classes, regardless of any student’s individual needs.

They often adapt proven techniques from cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or mindfulness.

The aim is noble: improve mental health literacy and prevent problems before they start.

A Pattern of Unintended Consequences

For years, we’ve assumed school-based mental health programs are, at worst, simply ineffective.

But recent, larger, and better-designed studies are finding something else.

This review highlights a troubling statistic.

In the highest-quality trials (those with a low risk of bias), a full one-third (33.33%) reported at least one negative outcome for the intervention group.

Significantly, these negative effects were found in universal programs, not in programs targeted at high-risk students.

The “potential harm” varied.

It included a worsening of anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, and even panic symptoms.

Some studies also found an unexpected decrease in prosocial behaviour or in the quality of family relationships.

It seems the “one-size-fits-all” approach, not a specific therapy style, might be the problem.

Why Would Helping Hurt?

Researchers are now in a race to understand why. The review explores several candidate mechanisms.

First, there’s the “optimistic” explanation. Maybe students aren’t actually worse off.

The lessons might simply make them more aware. By reducing stigma and improving literacy, students get better at recognizing and reporting their true feelings.

This would be a “reporting artefact,” not genuine harm.

But other explanations are more worrying.

When Awareness Backfires

The programs might make young people too focused on their negative emotions.

This forced attention can trigger rumination.

Students get stuck in a loop of negative thoughts, passively thinking about their distress instead of solving it.

It’s like shining a bright spotlight on a problem.

But the intervention may not provide the right tools to actually fix it. This gap between awareness and resolution can increase distress.

This may be especially true for students who are already struggling with symptoms. A preventative lesson isn’t designed for someone who is already unwell.

The Pressure of the Classroom

We must also consider the social context.

Adolescence is a developmental stage defined by intense self-consciousness and concern about what peers think.

Now, imagine being required to discuss your mental health in a classroom full of those peers. For many young people, this environment does not feel safe.

This setting can also trigger harmful social comparisons.

A student might look around and think, “Everyone else seems to be coping better than I am.” That comparison itself can become a source of distress.

The Researcher’s Dilemma

This evidence presents the field with a serious ethical dilemma.

Should we stop running these universal trials?

This would remove the risk of harm. But it would also leave us ignorant of why harm happens and who is vulnerable.

Or should we continue? We could use the opportunity to design new, smarter trials. These could finally collect the data needed to understand the mechanisms.

The authors argue we can’t just re-analyze old data.

Most previous trials weren’t designed to answer these specific questions. They often lack the right measures or the statistical power to find a reliable answer.

A Path to Safer Interventions

If trials do continue, the review argues they must be radically different.

Researchers must recruit larger and more diverse samples.

They need to be designed and powered to test how the intervention works (or doesn’t).

We also need qualitative data. We have to ask young people directly about their experiences, both good and bad.

Most importantly, the authors recommend that parents and students be told about the potential for negative effects during the consent process.

They must be given a real chance to opt out.

---

Why it matters

This research is a crucial wake-up call. It challenges the comfortable assumption that all mental health interventions are, by default, safe.

For parents, educators, and policymakers, it’s a reminder that “one-size-fits-all” rarely works for mental health. An intervention that helps one child might overwhelm or alienate another.

It suggests we must be more critical consumers of school-based programs, asking not just “Does it work?” but also “Who does it work for?” and “Who might it be harming?”

This isn’t a call to stop trying to help. It’s a call to help smarter.

The field must move toward interventions that can account for individual differences and vulnerabilities.

This is the only way to design programs that are truly effective and, most importantly, less harmful for everyone.