Tag Archives: school culture

Educator wellbeing: Creating schools where staff flourish

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that everywhere educators turn there is a news piece, recent study or professional learning opportunity about educator wellbeing.

Facilitating schools and education systems that support staff to sustain their care, energy and enthusiasm – and thrive as fulfilled, healthy professionals – is an ongoing and oft-discussed challenge for schools. There remain ongoing and increasing concerns around the wellbeing of teachers and school leaders, and system-wide attraction and retention challenges in teaching and school leadership. The International Baccalaureate’s Wellbeing for Schoolteachers report (Taylor et al., 2024) points out that teacher wellbeing has an unequivocal impact on both teachers’ professional performance and the wellbeing and academic success of students. Yet staff cannot flourish without sustainable workloads, appropriate support, and a safe environment of trust, care, open communication, growth, recognition and feedback.

I have had the pleasure of chatting with Helen Kelly and Amy Green on The Edu Salon podcast, who both provide useful insights to those considering staff wellbeing in their organisations. The OECD (2013) defines wellbeing as made up of the following elements.

  • Life evaluation – a reflective assessment on a person’s life or some specific aspect of it.
  • Affect – a person’s feelings or emotional states, typically measured with reference to a particular point in time.
  • Eudaimonia – a sense of meaning and purpose in life, or good psychological functioning.

Martin Seligman’s PERMAH model (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishments, Health) also provides a helpful framework for thinking about what contributes to human flourishing.

Patrick and colleagues (2024) highlight the importance of fostering positive relationships in schools, active wellbeing teams, leaders addressing their own wellbeing, building trust within staff, and ongoing initiatives rather than stand-alone wellbeing events. Karnovsky and Gobby (2024) criticise deficit approaches to educator wellbeing that encourage teachers to look after their own wellbeing without addressing systemic and workplace issues “that are complex, institutionalised, entrenched and unlikely to be readily remedied.” The longitudinal Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey (Dicke et al., 2024) continues to show declining principal wellbeing; increasing physical, verbal and cyber attacks against principals; and increasing principal sentiment to leave the role altogether. A recent meeting of Australian Education Ministers focused, in part, on teacher and school leader workload and wellbeing.

Additionally, in Australia, the Closing Loopholes Act, or ‘right to disconnect’ law, now offers an opportunity to reshape workplaces and workplace boundaries. The Act means that an employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) from their school or a third party (which could include parents or students) outside of their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable. The new right does not stop schools from sending emails to employees outside of work hours, but seeks to protect employees who choose to ignore attempts to be contactable from being disciplined or terminated as a result. Schools can review their communication and collaboration practices, and be clear about how staff are supported to disconnect from work after hours.

Despite the swirling mass of talk about staff wellbeing, context, as always, is Queen. Any attempts to address the wellbeing and flourishing of staff need to be embedded in the school and system context, and to include the voices and participation of staff in that school or system. Schools need to ask their staff what their preferences and concerns are, and work alongside staff to find practical ways to address these.

Taylor and colleagues (2024), point to school climate as key to teacher wellbeing, including staff voice in school decision making, work autonomy, good teacher-student relationships, feelings of belonging with the school, and sufficient resources to carry out duties. At my school, in response to a range of staff feedback and the work of our Staff Wellbeing Committee, we are undertaking a process of reviewing and refining our policies, practices and resourcing with a view to how these impact our staff, their workloads, their sense of purpose, their experience of joy, their professional satisfaction, and their emotions about work.

Our school is dedicated to creating a safe and nurturing environment that prioritises the safety and wellbeing of all individuals, treats staff as trusted professionals, and attempts to flexibly and compassionately address individual staff circumstance, and facilitate staff autonomy and growth. Open communication is key to individualising flexible work options that balance empathy, compassion and flexibility, with accountability, high standards and practicality.

We have released our first go at a ‘Staff Wellbeing and Flexible Working Guidelines’ document that makes explicit the school’s approach to supporting staff wellbeing, and outlines flexible work options, while acknowledging that each staff member’s personal circumstances is different, and there is no ‘one size fits all’. These guidelines are an iterative work in progress and will evolve alongside ongoing opportunities for staff to provide honest, respectful feedback to inform decision making.

When speaking about school culture, I have often referred to the words of Peter Drucker (‘Culture eats Strategy for breakfast’), Herb Kelleher (‘Culture is what people do when no one is looking’), and David Morrison (‘The standard you walk past is the standard you accept’). Recently I came across this from Bill Marklein: “Culture is how employees’ hearts and stomachs feel about Monday morning on Sunday night.”

In schools we need to be asking ourselves: How can we all contribute to cultivating an environment where everyone–students and staff–looks forward to coming in on Monday morning? How might we foster cultures and practices in which we celebrate our purpose, find the joy in our work, and think creatively about schools as places of learning, caring, leading and working?

References

Dicke, T., Kidson, P., & Marsh, H. W. (2024), Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey: 2023 data, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University

Karnovsky, S., & Gobby, B. (2024). ‘How teacher wellbeing can be cruel: refusing discourses of wellbeing in an online Reddit forum’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-19.

OECD. (2013). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Wellbeing. OECD Publishing.

Patrick, P., Reupert, A., Berger, E., Morris, Z., Diamond, Z., Hammer, M., … & Fathers, C. (2024). ‘Initiatives for promoting educator wellbeing: a Delphi study’. BMC psychology, 12.

Taylor, L., Zhou, W., Boyle, L., Funk, S., & De Neve, J-E. (2024). Wellbeing for Schoolteachers (Report No. 2). International Baccalaureate Organisation.

Why a girls’ school?

Posted on by
Reply
Source: justDIYteam, pixabay

Schools in Australia offer parents plenty of choice, and when choosing a school for their child there are many questions parents might ask about a school. Is the school culture one based in shared values? Are the teaching, academic opportunities and learning outcomes of high quality? Do pastoral structures and programs cater for the wellbeing of students? Is the school community one with which the family feels aligned and that promotes belonging? Are the sizes of the school and classes conducive to the level of care the child needs? Is the school committed to valuing and catering for each child?

With the Australian news currently publishing stories about some schools changing from single sex to co-education (mostly boys’ schools becoming co-ed), a question that is yet again in the limelight is: which is better, single sex education or co-education? I reflect below on the reasons that single sex education for girls and young women plays a vital role in serving the wellbeing and educational needs of our girls.

Schools are segments of society and the wider community, and, as pointed out by advocates of co-education, a mixed-gender environment does replicate our world. However, that means it can also replicate the inequities of the world into which our girls enter, post-school.

The 2023 United Nations’ Gender Snapshot points out some worrying figure for girls and women, including the following.

  • At the current rate of progress, the next generation of women will spend on average 2.3 more hours per day on unpaid care and domestic work than men.
  • Globally women hold 26.7% seats in parliament, 35.5% in local government and 28.2% of management positions in the workplace.
  • Women are twice as likely as men to report instances of discrimination based on sex and almost twice as likely as men to experience discrimination on the basis of marital status.

The 2023 Global Gender Gap Index places Australia as:

  • 29th for Political Empowerment;
  • 38th for Economic Participation and Opportunity;
  • 78th for Educational Attainment; and
  • 89th for Health and Survival.

Australia is ranked 71st in the world for women’s income as compared with men’s, and 53rd for wage equality for similar work. In Australia, the gender pay gap is 15%, and 34% of board positions are made up of women. The OurWatch website cites terrifying statistics about violence against women in Australia, including that 39% of women have experienced violence since the age of 15.

These sobering figures demonstrate that the gender gap in power, leadership, earnings, domestic labour, and violence remains entrenched. Bridge (2022) writes:

“We will not find gender justice by replicating the injustices and inequalities of society in our schools, and until we can reach equality our girls simply become collateral damage.”

There is a range of research demonstrating the benefits for girls of single sex education. A South Australian study by the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Connolly, 2022) found that girls reported that teachers use female students to moderate and monitor the behaviour of boys, including being asked to sit between boys to disrupt interactions between them, as well as taking boys to the principal’s office when they have ‘done something wrong’. The report found that school policies can promote the message to girls that boys can’t manage their own behaviour and that girls are responsible for the behaviour of their male peers. It additionally found that girls and young women in co-ed schools feel anxiety about playing sports at school. Sadker and Zittleman (2009) assert that in co-educational classes, boys have been found to get more of a teacher’s attention; and that boys are more likely to volunteer and to call out, while girls who know the answer are more likely to wait to be called on. When girls feel safe, Sadker and Zittleman say, girls are more likely to speak up in class and less likely to minimise themselves or ‘play dumb’. Bleidorn et al.’s (2015) study across 48 countries found significant gender gaps in self-esteem, with males consistently reporting higher self-esteem than females. Franklin and Rangel (2022) found that girls attending all-girls schools outperformed their peers at coeducational schools in mathematics and science.

As the principal of a girls’ school, I see first-hand every day the benefits of single-sex education for girls and young women. Earlier this year, I wrote about my observations, including that girls at my school tell me they can ‘come as they are’. Students say they feel they can be themselves, express themselves, and be accepted for themselves. Single sex education can disrupt gender norms, providing safe spaces for girls to grow and develop, and encouraging girls to take up space, to make space and to see spaces for themselves in those arenas not traditionally dominated by girls and women. Girls in single-sex education contexts are more likely to view the STEM domain as a female one, and to speak more positively about their STEM learning experiences (Robinson et al., 2021). Thompson’s (2003) research found that girls’ school environments led to girls selecting post-school pathways beyond those traditionally seen as ‘female’. She notes that:

“There appears to be something about the all-female high school environment that socialises women to more feminist gender role attitudes. Girls may be socialised differently in an all-female environment where girls are the top students and leaders, and where school  personnel  are  proactive in resisting  the traditional gender system. Perhaps the absence of boys encourages girls to focus more on careerist goals and less on romance and popularity.” (p.272)

Girls’ schools are designed intentionally for girls and young women. Gendered assumptions and pressures are deliberately disrupted, and female leadership, voice, ambition, and achievement are normalised. Leadership development is strongly tied to increasing self-confidence (Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010). The Australian ‘Hands Up for Gender Equality’ study (Fitzsimmons et al., 2018) found that those activities that most develop confidence and efficacy in young people and 1) travel, 2) team sport, 3) leadership experience, and 4) leadership education. Girls in girls’ schools are the leaders, leadership is purposefully developed, wellbeing and curricular programs are tailored to girls, and participation in all arenas—including sports and STEM—is encouraged.

All schools are responsible for creating environments where young people feel safe from discrimination and violence, are accepted as and comfortable to be themselves, can focus on their education, and are supported to achieve their best. Each child is an individual with their own gifts and needs, and girls’ schools provide a safe, intentionally-designed environment in which our girls can and do flourish.

References

Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410.

Bridge, L. (2022). Girls should not be collateral damage in the push for co-ed schooling. EducationHQ online.https://educationhq.com/news/girls-should-not-be-collateral-damage-in-the-push-for-co-ed-schooling-125714/

Connolly, H. Commissioner for Children and Young People, South Australia (2022). Stereotypes and Sexism: the views  and experiences of SA school students.

Fitzsimmons, T. W., Yates, M. S., & Callan, V. (2018). Hands Up for Gender Equality: A Major Study into Confidence and Career Intentions of Adolescent Girls and Boys. The University of Queensland.

Franklin, D & Rangel, VS 2022, ‘Estimating the Effect of Single-Sex Education on Girls’ Mathematics and Science Achievement’, Leadership and Policy in Schools, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1–18.

Robinson, D. B., Mitton, J., Hadley, G., & Kettley, M. 2021. ‘Single-sex education in the 21st century: A 20-year scoping review of the literature’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 106, pp. 103462-.

Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. R. (2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender bias cheats girls and boys in school and what we can do about it. Simon and Schuster.

Thompson, J. S. (2003). The effect of single-sex secondary schooling on women’s choice of college major. Sociological Perspectives, 46(2), 257-278.

UN Women and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2023). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2023.

World Economic Forum. (2023). Gender Gap Index Report.

Staff wellbeing: Time and money

Posted on by
6
source: @nikkotations at unsplash.com

In 2019 I blogged about the increasing concerns about teacher and school leader wellbeing. I’ve lately been thinking a lot about wellbeing in education. It was brought into stark focus during the pandemic reality of 2020. I wrote in this journal 2020 article in the Journal of Professional Capital and Community that:

At this time more than ever, we must consider humans before outcomes, students before results and wellbeing before learning.

I discussed wellbeing in this 2020 contribution for the special edition e-book Education Disrupted, Education Reimagined: Responses from education’s frontline during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, published by the World Innovation Summit for Education, Salzburg Global Seminar and the Diplomatic Courier. In it, I stated the following.

We need to put safety, health, and wellbeing before formal education, curriculum, pedagogy, and especially assessment. Community, connectedness and relationships need to be at the forefront of education decisions and practices. This is a time to focus first on the humanity in education, from a position of seeking to understand and accommodate for the complex circumstances of those in our communities.

Wellbeing continues to become a hotter and hotter topic in education.

Wellbeing is noted as part of a ‘right driver’ in Michael Fullan’s new paper ‘The right drivers for whole system success’ in which he argues that wellbeing and learning are inextricably integrated into a foundation based on equity, knowledge, engagement and connection to the world. The Association of Independent Schools of NSW has just launched a 12-18 month program on navigating whole school wellbeing. This week the Gallop Inquiry released its findings around the complexity and workload intensification of teaching, and the need for teachers to have more time to plan, collaborate, and monitor student learning. Ask any teacher what they need more of and the answer will be: time!

Yesterday, a UK educator tweeted about the use of school funds to send care packages to staff while they are in lockdown and working from home. A long thread of replies ensued, with a range of responses from ‘school leadership do/should pay for gifts and wellbeing initiatives for staff out of their own pockets’ to ‘this is improper use of school funds’ and ‘staff wellbeing is more than buying treats’. Many tweeters invoked the Nolan Principles, suggesting that buying food or paying for things that might be considered wellbeing initiatives for staff constituted unethical or dishonest use of school funds, or that every dollar or pound spent in a school needs to have a direct impact on student outcomes.

In my view (although it is something most of us do or have done), teachers shouldn’t be expected to buy classroom materials out of their wages, nor should school leaders have to provide staff wellbeing initiatives out of their own salaries. Teaching is a caring profession, but the trope of the hero teacher who sacrifices their own needs, money and health for the good of their students is unhelpful. Educators need to give themselves permission to fit their own oxygen masks first, so that they can serve others. Schools should be able to consider ways in which they can take care of their staff, appropriate to their own budget and context. Looking after staff takes time and money. A school leader’s time spent checking in with a staff member; a thank you card; tea and coffee in the staff room; providing relief cover for a teacher’s lesson so they can collaborate with colleagues, attend a course or address a personal matter; a morning tea; the flu (or coronavirus!) vaccine; investing in professional learning. At what point does spending money on staff and on developing the wider culture of a school, become controversial?

Wellbeing is one of the pillars of my school’s new strategic plan, so we are having robust discussions about how to support the wellbeing of all in our community, and about what being well really means. Our discussions are about culture, feel, belonging, workload, teamness, a sense of purpose and togetherness. Wellbeing and learning are the foundation of my school’s framework for our K-12 learners to explicitly engage with those attributes found to be those of people who continue to learn and engage in meaningful work throughout their lives.

Wellbeing (as well as learning and teaching) is at the heart of our new staff development suite, which is based in Martin Seligman’s PERMA framework, as a way to support staff’s (P) positive emotions, (E) engagement in valuable work, (R) rewarding relationships, (M) meaning in their work, and (A) achievement and feeling of accomplishment. The suite of staff development options is based not on evaluation and surveillance, but on a sense of belonging, authentic connectedness, vibrant professional community, purposeful collaboration, central purpose, and meaningful feedback. It is focused on the voice, choice, ownership and agency of staff. It takes time and investment in people. Professional learning, too, costs money, and is part of improving student outcomes and teacher expertise, but also about wellbeing through valuing and growing staff, and supporting them to reach their goals.

When it comes to staff wellbeing, as I noted in the above recent blog post,

Staff wellbeing is more than free food and fitness classes, although these can be nice to have. Nurturing staff wellbeing might take various forms, such as providing initiatives that support staff health, modelling sustainable work-life behaviours, maintaining predictable timelines, ensuring clear policies and procedures, streamlining communication, considering workload issues, ensuring a range of internal and external support mechanisms are available for staff, recognising staff efforts, celebrating staff achievements, leading with empathy, and making decisions with the needs of staff in mind.

Trust, too, is key to the wellbeing of the teaching profession. Schools need to cultivate cultures of trust. Teachers need to be trusted by parents, the media, and government. Trusting teachers to be the professional experts they are allows teachers to focus on their core business of teaching and supporting the students in their care. Looking after staff is key to retaining them within positive cultures of people working together for the good of their community. Nuanced attention to staff wellbeing takes intentionality, thoughtfulness, a framework for decision making, time, and often money.