Canterbury Primary School Principal's Perceptions of Wellbeing

Canterbury primary school principals’ perceptions of wellbeing in the context of their school environment: Wellbeing, schools, people, place and time. Michelle Cole

Wellbeing is an increasingly discussed topic in education and wider society, the use of the term was found to have risen in newspapers, from 117 mentions in the late 80’s to 2243 in 2003, being used less in association with collective wellbeing, and more with individual wellbeing (Sointu, 2005). The rise in the interest in wellbeing in education is led by the OECD who hypothesise that when individuals take responsibility for their own wellbeing there will be increased benefits to the economy (OECD, 2018). Schools have therefore been identified as providers of wellbeing in Aotearoa, where wellbeing is being conflated with success (ERO, 2016), subsequently there has been a proliferation of wellbeing programs, activities and surveys. The 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), has also put staff wellbeing into the spotlight and whilst proponents of positive psychology and other wellbeing programs often suggest that there are numerous benefits, there have been few critical studies of wellbeing in schools. Canterbury schools have experienced a sequence of events both natural and human induced that have challenged the wellbeing of students, families, teachers and leaders. A constellation of factors including Aotearoa’s poorly managed educational property portfolios (Officer of the Auditor General, 2006, 2017), the ‘blindsiding’ of some schools with closures or mergers (Boshier, 2017) and the OECD’s invention of Innovative Learning Environments (ILE’s), brought increasing changes to many schools in the post-quake recovery period. This qualitative research study was undertaken in 10 Canterbury schools, including state, special character and kura. Principals were first asked semi-structured interview questions including defining wellbeing and challenges and supports to wellbeing, as well as who they thought they were responsible for in terms of wellbeing. After these initial questions the interview method transitioned from a seated interview in the principal’s office to a walking interview, where principals were asked to lead the researcher around the school, showing where and how they thought wellbeing was evident in the context of their school environment. Their comments were digitally recorded, and photographs were taken as references for transcription. Interviews were transcribed and then the data were analysed thematically. This study took a constructivist approach where wellbeing knowledge is believed to be co-constructed through uniquely

ascribed meanings, experiences and ideas, and was informed by theories that conceptualise space as political and politicised, local and localised, as well as personal. Methodologies such as qualitative walking interviews can enhance the limitations of quantitative school wellbeing survey data which can generalise, discount and strip away meaning and meaningfulness, resulting in the ‘untelling of places and people’ (Booth, 2015). While principals were used to giving school tours, none had undertaken a mobile enquiry of wellbeing in their school, and initially some reported uncertainty as to where to start. By the end of the walking interviews principals reported they found the process to be illuminating, enjoyable and worthwhile. For the brevity of this article, only two topics from the findings are briefly covered, the creation and recreation of school space and navigating the intersections of wellbeing and support. The creation and recreation of school space Contestation School spaces were found to be in a constant process of being remade by those who used them, whether it was single cell classrooms being converted to open space classes, the creation of smaller quieter subspaces like tents within new ILE’s, or students turning long jumps into sandpits. Space was also being contested, as new ideas about the use of space saw the traditional conceptualisation of libraries and classrooms being challenged by different stakeholders. The process of rebuilds and new builds was frequently expressed as a long, challenging and stressful experience, requiring unforeseen and considerable revision. Notably, whilst MoE funding favoured large modern teaching spaces, there was a distinct negative funding bias towards playgrounds, staffrooms and offices. This funding model appeared to stand in contrast to the HWSA (2015) focus on worker wellbeing, and United Nations, Article 31 (2009), which protects the rights of children to rest, play and leisure: ‘So when we arrived here we had nothing, just the buildings. Some children went through our school minus a decent playground for their whole time at school’ Principals described their roles observing and advocating for children’s rights to have access to play spaces, they encouraged

interaction with students through their office windows and enjoyed roaming around their schools connecting with students. Principals success in championing children’s rights to play was dependent on the resources of their community, as playgrounds were community funded. Similarly, whilst principals appreciated peaceful, natural spaces, their advocacy for restful places for their busy staff could also be constrained by funding prioritisation and bias.

Sentimental spaces In contrast to the sleek architectural make overs of some schools, principal’s offices were often galleries of sentimental artefacts that could date back over decades. Gifts and art from students who were now adults, family photos and mementos, certificates and treasures. Principals were therefore found to be passionate historians of their schools, reminiscing and reflecting on the social, whakapapa, and material connections, old and new photographs, plaques or objects representing celebrations of time, events or memorials of staff who had passed away. Wellbeing was also experienced as mediated through mauri [life force] within a relationship with whenua: ‘Well this is where the mauri is, we believe there is a life force of whenua but the life force can be represented in any way, so when we first came here there was a mauri, an object placed into the whenua to create the life force of the land, so this is an area of significance’ When principals discussed wellbeing they also talked about values, pointed out places and objects that were embedded in materiality, such as a large oven in the staffroom that represented manaakitanga, or the way the seats were positioned in the staffroom, enabling everyone to face inwards, after having tried other ways that had not ‘felt right’. Wellbeing in school space could be vulnerable to change, reflecting Charteris, Smardon and Nelson’s (2017) observations that change and spatial reframing of schools could ‘collapse bodies, feelings and histories together’.

The intersections of wellbeing and support Principals and principles at the intersection of wellbeing The school gates were described at times as thresholds between different worlds, and principals could feel the weight of their limited ability to manage their students’ experiences outside of school: ‘I have come to a clear understanding that I can only change the things that I can change. I can’t change the home

backgrounds for a number of children at this school. I can’t change the circumstances that some children are finding themselves in or the experiences they have outside of the gate but I sure as heck can when they are inside the gate.’ Within the school gates, principals described a significant contrast between the gritty realities of wellbeing and the growing conceptualisation by external agencies of wellbeing in schools as being entwined with success, and as being teachable. Experienced principals reflected on the changes they noted in parenting over time, often comparing this with their own upbringing or parenting experiences, observing a loss of parenting confidence. They saw an increase in parental and family busyness and increased expectation from many stakeholders, for schools to accommodate the health, social, emotional and material needs of students. Whilst most schools received little or no resources or funding for feeding hungry children, principals got on with providing food and material support. While some members of parliament blame parents for hungry children (Education [Food in Schools] Amendment Bill – First Reading, 2015), principals did not: ‘I think I am in a bubble at [name of school] because if you come to work here you can’t be like that [blaming families and holding limited world views], people who work here don’t have that kind of thinking, they have a very strong belief in social conscience but I know it is still out there in the wider world and it really concerns me’ Therefore, principals’ discourses were encoded with their beliefs about care and their intimate and intricate understandings of the effects of broader social and economic policies and pedagogy on wellbeing that were situated in what Milligan and Wiles (2010) describe as the ‘landscape of care’. Principals of longer tenure cited times that they indirectly or directly buffered systems that they believed did not reflect their strong and sometimes personal values, including their sense of social justice. ‘Buffering’ has been described as a ‘cognitive act in which principals make rational choices about policy and in certain instances will shield their school out of compassion for teachers and students’ (Wenner & Settlage, 2015).

Navigating wellbeing The sentiment that getting to a place of personal and professional wellbeing was at times inhibited by demands, which Starrett and Leeman (2011) describe as ‘a multiplicity of daily problems’, was commonly expressed, with one principal noting that: ‘I’m not sure if you actually get into that professional wellbeing state because the nature of the beast with principal-ship is if you see the light in the tunnel it is always an oncoming train, it never is actually the light at the end of the tunnel and there is just something else coming on’ Principals described managing professional demands by having

developed rituals that delineated where the school day ended, and home and family began. In relation to wellbeing and proximity to their school, some principals purposefully lived out of their school area, however, others felt an enhanced sense of wellbeing through living locally, immersed in the community. The long hours, stressful situations and role could also blur boundaries and disrupt sleep and self-care and principals shared stories of mortality, heart attacks, cancer and illness: ‘I’m the first one to say to any one of these [sick] teachers don’t come to school you know, can’t afford to get sick but if I’m sick I’ll just be the last one to actually take sick leave’ However, principals felt their connection with students kept them going and also described receiving support from their families, a reciprocally responsive network of colleagues, supervisors, mentors and leadership teams. There was a strong emphasis on the importance of their leadership teams for trust, ‘having each other’s back’, enjoying humour and caring which contributed to principals’ sense of ‘how we are here’, the undercurrent of their collective values that underpinned leadership team relationships.

Boshier, P. (2017). Disclosure: An investigation into the Ministry of Educations engagement process for school closures and mergers. Office of the Ombudsman. Retrieved from http://www. ombudsman.parliament.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/486/ disclosure.pdf?1497928935 Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Nelson, E. (2017). Innovative learning environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 808–821. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1 0.1080/00131857.2017.1298035 Education Review Office. (2016) Wellbeing for Success: A Resource for Schools. Education Review Office. Retrieved from http://www. ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Wellbeing-resource-WEB.pdf Milligan, C., & Wiles, J. (2010). Landscapes of care. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 736–754. Retrieved from https://journals. sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132510364556 OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills, Education 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20 Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf Office of the Auditor General. (2006). The Ministry of Education: Management of the School Property Portfolio. Retrieved from https://www.oag.govt.nz/2006/school-property/docs/property.pdf Office of the Auditor General. (2017). Managing the School Property Portfolio. Retrieved from https://www.oag.govt.nz/2017/schoolproperty/docs/school-property.pdf

Conclusion By utilising a methodology that was qualitative and mobile this study found that principals describe wellbeing as contextual, experienced in relationships between people, space, place and time. Space was in a constant process of being remade by the people within it and ministerial thoughts about educational space, values and wellbeing were found to not always be aligned with principals’ perceptions of wellbeing. A strong theme from this research was the pressure and stress generated from the lack of attunement between policies, funding and resources, in contrast to the realities of student and staff supports that principals were attempting to deliver. This method provides a practical way to take stock of how wellbeing exists in the school environment and celebrate, it also illuminates areas for practical interventions and action. The final quote acknowledges the principals who gave their time and honest, brave accounts of wellbeing and concludes this article. ‘The responsibilities are huge [for the principal], it’s not just for our kura it’s for the wider community and then it can even go nationwide, everything has to connect, and that’s why it’s [the role] called Tumuaki, we are the tumu, the head of the waka, the waka can’t go anywhere unless everyone is rowing the same way, so our job is to help guide it, not behind, not ahead but beside the people as well as through the rough waves and the calm waves as long as we are going in the right direction’ References Booth, K. I. (2015). What a difference place makes: Place gestalt and some methodological thoughts. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(1), 20–27. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/1077800414542689

Sointu, E. (2005). The rise of an ideal: tracing changing discourses of wellbeing. The Sociological Review, 53(2), 255–274. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467– 954X.2005.00513.x United Nations. (2009). Article 31 of the UN convention. Retrieved from http://article31.ipaworld.org/IPA%20World,%20IPA,%20 International%20Play%20Association,%20Article%2031, %20 UN%20Article%2031,%20Rights%20of%20the%20Child/unitednations/ Wenner, J. A., & Settlage, J. (2015). School leader enactments of the structure/agency dialectic via buffering. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 503–515. Retrieved from https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.21212 Worksafe. (2015). The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Worksafe. Retrieved from https://worksafe.govt.nz/laws-and-regulations/ acts/hswa/ About the Author Michelle Cole is a child, adolescent and family mental health specialist and researcher. She has completed a Bachelor of Nursing and postgraduate certificates in infant child mental health, specialist mental health nursing and assessment and treatment of addiction. Her recent Master of Health Science at Otago (Dept of Population Health), thesis research focussed on principal’s perceptions of wellbeing in the context of their school environment. Michelle has worked closely with principals in schools in North Canterbury & Kaikoura in school mental health and is a member of the development team for Sparklers, the free wellbeing resource for schools. Michelle currently contracts to schools for professional development, supervision and special projects, is developing a participatory action research project for a child and youth led wellbeing hub for Area Schools with Cheviot Area School, and works with The Collaborative Trust (youth research) to provide the Wellbeing Snapshot method for schools, based on her research. Michelle also provides face to face therapy in North Canterbury.

Introducing the JUMPER Air LUSIV XC

ODUCT

The JUMPER Air is a chair for every body everywhere.

Are your classroom tables a Woods Table?

5 reasons why every table should be from Woods and how to make the switch. 1. We provide our trade marked 13mm DuraTough Top. 2. Tamper proof edge. No more peeling plastic PVC edge. 3. Sustainably made and built to last. 4.No maintenance. YEAR 5. No assembly required.

21st century furniture designed for 21st century learning. Contact us today to make the switch: Phone 0800 1 96637

sales@woodsfurniturenz.co.nz

www.woodsfurniturenz.co.nz

available now!

Rent a laser machine. Adding a laser machine to your school’s curriculum is easy through Trotec’s machine rental program. Talk to us about our rental and finance options.

www.troteclaser.co.nz 0800 876 832 info@troteclaser.co.nz

CLARITY Talk to the school || FINANCIAL TIME SAVING PROCESSES accounting experts. | FUTURE PLANNING

Principals

Executive Officers

Trustees

ENJOY COMPLETE FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY

SAVE VALUABLE TIME WITH SIMPLIFIED PROCESSES

FOCUS ON LEARNING WITH SIMPLIFIED FINANCIALS

We ask the right questions, understand your unique requirements and add value by helping you plan for the future. For a FREE consultation contact Ben Duflou on 04 909 7729 or 021 915 233

www.afsl.nz AUCKLAND | WELLINGTON | CHRISTCHURCH XEROPARTNER PARTNERLOGO LOGOCOLOURS COLOURS XERO Xero XeroBlue Blue Print: 90M:M:00Y:Y:15 15K:K:00 Print:C:C:90 Screen: 183B:B:227 Screen:R:R:00G:G:183

PLACELOGO LOGOON ON WHITE PLACE WHITE

Dark DarkBlue Blue Print: 100M:M:35 35Y:Y:35 35K:K:00 Print:C:C:100 Screen: 130B:B:155 Screen:R:R:00G:G:130

Bronze Bronze Print: 30M:M:62 62Y:Y:72 72K:K:13 Print:C:C:30 Screen: 163G:G:103 103B:B:75 Screen:R:R:163 Silver Silver Print: Print:C:C:00M:M:00Y:Y:00K:K:40 Screen: 167G:G:169 169B:B:172 Screen:R:R:167 Gold Gold Print: C: 0 M:19 Y:100 K: 0 Print: C: 0 M:19 Y:100 K: 0 Screen: R: 255G: 204 B: 0 Screen: R: 255G: 204 B: 0

BLACK & WHITE BLACK & WHITE

GREY & WHITE GREY & WHITE

This colour treatment forfor useuse in newspaper or or Similar to ‘Black & White’, this this Thisisisthe thepreferred preferred colour treatment Primarily Primarily in newspaper Similar to ‘Black & White’, ofofthe logos. similar, where black andand white areare thethetreatment should onlyonly be used when treatment should be used when theXero XeroPartner Partner logos. similar, where black white only options. fullfull black is too strong. only options. black is too strong. Print Print White: White: C: 0 M:0 Y:0Y:0 K: 0K: 0 C: 0 M:0 PLATI NUM PLATI NUM P ARTNER P ARTNER

SILVER PART NER SILVER PART NER

PLATI NUM P ARTNER PLATI NUM

Screen Screen White: White: R: 255G: 255B: 255 R: 255G: 255B: 255 Never place Never place the colour logo the colour logo onon a coloured a coloured background. Please background. Please use an alternative use an alternative colour treatment. colour treatment.

PARTNER STATUSPARTNER STATUS

Print Print White: White: C: 0 C:M:00 M: Y:0 0 Y:K:00 K: 0 Black: Black: C: 0 M:0 Y:0 K:100 C: 0 M:0 Y:0 K:100 Screen Screen White: White: G: 255B: 255 R: 255G: 255B: 255 Black: Black: 0 R:G:00 G:B:00 B: 0

Reverse Reverse Colours as above Colours as above

PARTNER STATUS PARTNER STATUS

PrintPrint White: White: C: 0 M: C:0 0 Y:M:00K:Y:00 K: 0 Grey: Grey: K: 50 Darker thanthan K: 50 Darker Screen Screen White: White: G: 255B: 255 R: 255G: 255B: 255 Grey: Grey: Darker thanthan Darker R: 122G:122B:122 R: 122G:122B:122 R:

Reverse Reverse