Challenge #1: Who has the time for wellbeing?
This is largely a manifestation of the complexity of wellbeing itself and ties into the below challenge of ‘meaning.’ Given its complexity, there is a tendency to want to embed overly prescriptive and detailed frameworks that break wellbeing down into a set of domains. These domains might include relationships, resilience, diet and many others. At a group level, it is feasible to assess these domains, typically through large scale surveys, and implement policies in an attempt to improve specific outcomes. However, when we consider this at the individual level, finding enough structured time to work with each student on these domains becomes increasingly difficult and can intrude on day-to-day classroom programs, in which teachers are trying to teach to already detailed curriculums.
Challenge #2: Defining wellbeing
Wellbeing is highly subjective and dynamic in its nature. This means that we may be able to objectively define a set of domains that are generally considered important to our wellbeing at the group level. However, given the uniqueness of each individual, these domains may vary from person to person and context to context. For example, an individual may place greater importance on diet if they are an aspiring athlete. Equally, it is dynamic, and certain events impact individual wellbeing differently depending on a variety of factors. To some, the news of a bad grade is met with relative calmness; to others, this may trigger an intense feeling of negativity. This makes defining wellbeing at the individual level challenging, and our measures/structures for understanding wellbeing become critical.
Challenge #3: The dilemma of needs
This is a dilemma often felt across educational reform. There is a disconnect between what works for senior leaders and policymakers and those on the frontline, being the teachers and their students. There are many great ideas in education, but if they do not account for the practical realities of the classroom, and engage students, then they will not work. In that same token, often, what is engaging and simple leads to undesirable results for senior leaders. We cannot glean sufficient information and are therefore unable to make informed decisions. That is where the dilemma exists for managing wellbeing. To make wellbeing work at all levels, our structures need to be user-friendly but data-rich, and these two tend to lead us in opposite directions.
Make it simple to make it work
Refine: We need to distill wellbeing down into what we really need to know to support each student’s safety and wellbeing. By refining traditionally large frameworks to what sits at the very core of our wellbeing, we make it relevant and manageable at the individual level.
Monitor: Embed structures that enable us to monitor wellbeing and all factors affecting wellbeing on a regular basis. At the heart of this should be student voice, engaging each individual to communicate their wellbeing and then ensuring voices are heard and acted on.
Improve: Once we effectively monitor wellbeing and get to know each student deeply, we need to effectively intervene to foster positive wellbeing. Particularly when we see wellbeing issues arise. This requires building capacity and strong teacher-student relationships.
When we keep it simple, student wellbeing works and works well, especially when you follow the three pillars to managing student wellbeing. In part two of our series, we’ll look at the three pillars and how to use them to maximize your students’ wellbeing.
Further Reading
- Reuters – U.S. schools turn focus to mental health of students reeling from pandemic
- Gallup – 10 Wellbeing Practices to Guide Leaders
- Capital Public Radio – California Child Mental Health Advocates Say Demand For Care Is Up During the Pandemic, But Services Are Lacking
Related reading
More on Social-Emotional Learning
