winter 2018 the challenges of measuring wellbeing in … · the challenges of measuring wellbeing...

The challenges of measuring wellbeing in schools

A review prepared for the Ontario Teachers’ Federation

Dr. Arlo Kempf, PhD, University of Toronto

Winter 2018

THE CHALLENGE OF MEASURING WELLBEING IN SCHOOLS | 1

IntroductionOver the past decade, questions concerning student wellbeing have moved steadily to

the centre of education policy in Ontario, in Canada, and internationally. In response

to what might be termed a crisis in youth wellbeing, policy language and foci suggest

a broad move to address questions of student physical, emotional, psychological, and

socio-cultural wellbeing. The notion of health is thus multifaceted in the educational

context and consistently linked by policymakers with questions of academic achievement.

Concurrently, Canadian boards of education and ministries of education have increasingly

turned their focus to student achievement (an idea often as broadly defined as it is

narrowly measured). With little evidence of any crisis of public faith in the Ontario K-12

education system, the Ontario Ministry of Education has strived to provide measures

of public accountability which have included increased standardization of curriculum,

reporting, and measurement across the province.

Beyond numeracy and literacy, global competencies are increasingly promoted by policy

as important areas which require better promotion and understanding by districts, schools,

administrators, and teachers (CMEC, N.D. & 2017; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016b).

With the current ministerial push to link accountability with measurement, questions

about how to evaluate and/or assess student wellbeing are among the current ministerial

priorities, and certainly promise to dominate the agendas of future policymakers at the

provincial and board levels. This review investigates the challenges, limitations, and

possibilities of the current policy conversation around measuring student wellbeing and

investigates some of the related implications for teachers’ work in Ontario.

... policy language and foci suggest a broad move to address questions of student physical, emotional, psychological, and socio-cultural wellbeing.

2 | A review prepared for the Ontario Teachers’ Federation

The first section of this paper discusses the current climate and context surrounding the

measurement of wellbeing in Ontario’s publicly funded schools and raises questions about

the objectives of wellbeing strategies and measurement of wellbeing in K-12 schooling in

Ontario. The second section discusses the challenges of measuring wellbeing and suggests

that accurate measurement in these domains is challenging at the best of times, as the

phenomena under study are linked to myriad factors in individuals’ lives. This section looks closely at the challenges of measuring wellbeing in schools and, in the case of children,

raises questions about the relationship between teacher wellbeing and student wellbeing.

The third section considers the place of wellbeing and the teaching, learning, and

measurement thereof in schools. It also looks at the challenges implicit in teachers working

to provide frontline wellbeing support to students—considering both what is and is not

possible, as well as what is and is not appropriate. The final section of this paper offers a

series of brief considerations for next steps in terms of any realistic move to promoting

wellbeing in Ontario’s schools.

Climate and contextWhat do we mean by wellbeing?

Before moving on, a clarification of terms is needed. This review will focus on the notion

of wellbeing, taken here to refer to mental, socio-emotional, and psychological health

and wellness. Ontario’s Ministry of Education provides a useful, if not expansive, definition

of wellbeing as follows: “Well-being is a positive sense of self, spirit and belonging that

we feel when our cognitive, emotional, social and physical needs are being met. It is

supported through equity and respect for our diverse identities and strengths” (Ministry

of Education, 2016a, p. 3). Although difficult to define across a diverse student population,

the integration of the notion of spirit is important here—alongside the cognitive, the

emotional, and the social—as this has too often been excluded from conversations about

wellbeing in education. The link to equity is also significant, as it offers the possibility of

shifting away from individual pathologies and/or needs to a framework recognizing the

rights of individuals and groups, as well as the responsibilities of the structures which

serve these individuals and groups. For the purposes of this review, however, the term

‘wellbeing’ will specifically exclude the domains of physical health, but treat themes related

to but distinct from mental, socio-emotional, and psychological health and wellness.

This distinction, as illustrated in the next section, is useful for understanding the specific

challenges and opportunities of measuring spiritual, cognitive, emotional, and social

health and wellness.


The current policy context: Why this conversation and why now?

Rising and widespread levels of reported mental health issues or mental illness among

young people in Ontario have become an increasingly significant topic and area of

provincial policy across the education, children and youth services, health, and other

policy domains (American College Health Association, 2016). Within education specifically,

the Ontario Ministry of Education has placed wellbeing at the centre of its vision for

the future of Ontario’s public education systems. The Ministry’s Achieving Excellence: A

Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario lists wellbeing among its four central goals, stating:

“All children and students will develop enhanced mental and physical health, a positive

sense of self and belonging, and the skills to make positive choices” (Ontario Ministry of

Education, 2014, p. 3). Nestled within an overall ministerial vision of achievement and

excellence, wellbeing is increasingly something to be accomplished within schools or,

to put it another way, wellbeing may be a mark of school success. See also the Ontario

Ministry of Education’s 2016c discussion paper, Well-being in Our Schools, Strength in Our

Society, for more on the Ministry’s work in this area.

Linking wellbeing and global competencies

Student wellbeing and success are further linked within the Ontario Ministry’s document,

Towards Defining 21st Century Competencies for Ontario (2016b), as well as within the

Council of Ministers of Education of Canada’s (CMEC) Pan-Canadian Global Competencies

Descriptions (N.D.). These works outline various frameworks for and articulations of

competencies characterized by a focus on students becoming critical, creative, inquisitive,

and resourceful problem-solvers. Among the important contributions of the 21st century

competencies movement or global competencies movement (Marzano & Heflebower,

2012; Griffin, McGaw, & Care, 2012; National Research Council, 2012; Tough, 2012; Barell,

2010; Dede, 2010; Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; European Commission,

2007; and others) is the formal and insistent linking of key skills, with key dispositions to

be developed in students. This is to say that what students should know is inextricably

linked to how students should know, as well as to how students should be; namely,

resilient, creative, inquisitive, and interpersonally proficient.

The Ontario Ministry of Education’s Towards Defining 21st Century Competencies for Ontario

outlines three domains associated with these competencies: the intrapersonal, the

interpersonal, and the cognitive (2016a, pp. 3-20). The Council of Ministers of Education

of Canada’s Pan-Canadian Global Competencies Descriptions offers six categorical

sets of domains: critical thinking and problem solving; innovation, creativity, and

entrepreneurship; learning to learn/self-awareness and self-direction; collaboration;

communication; and global citizenship and sustainability (CMEC, N.D.). When taken


together, these competencies offer nothing short of a curriculum for personality including

academic, social, moral, emotional, and physical elements of who and how children

should be. The Ontario Ministry of Education argues, “Well-being in early years and school

settings is about helping children and students become resilient, so that they can make

positive and healthy choices to support learning and achievement both now and in the

future” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 3).

Wellbeing, from a policy perspective, is thus at the heart of or at least inextricably linked

to student success within these domains. In keeping with an international evolution of

the literature, the recent Ontario Ministry of Education commitments (2017) appear in

line with a broad trend in education, which links wellbeing to proficiency with global

competencies (OECD, 2014a, 2014b, & 2003; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012; Saavedra & Opfer,

2012; P21, 2011; Rychen, 2003; Standards Council of Canada, 2013; and Singapore Ministry

of Education, 2010).

Challenges and limitationsThe push to measure wellbeing

The call for the promotion of wellbeing has, for Ontario’s Ministry of Education, been

accompanied by a concurrent call for its measurement. On advancing and ultimately

achieving student wellbeing, the Ministry explains, “To assess progress towards this goal,

Ontario will [w]ork with our partners to identify the factors that support student wellbeing

and then adopt ways to measure them” (Ministry of Education, 2016a, p. 16). The role

of schools in this domain is thus likely to continue to evolve; a change characterized

in part by an ever-blurrier line between the teaching of content and the teaching of

competencies that include all aspects of personal development—two potentially

“Well-being in early years and school settings is about helping children and students become resilient ....”


disparate domains. While non-subject-based learning, such as character education, has

always been part of formal schooling, there have scarcely been measures of character

on which the success of a system, a school, a teacher, or a student depends. If that which

matters is to be measured, questions about who is responsible for student wellbeing will

soon arise.

In Ontario, achievement drivers have been closely associated with standardization and

measurability as well as simply or easily communicated outcomes. Among the more

significant features of this policy direction was the creation of the Education Quality and

Accountability Office in 1996 with the passage of the Education Quality and Accountability

Office Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 11, and the introduction of province-wide standardized test

in Grades 3, 6, 9, and 10. As an increasingly publicized culture of measuring of students,

questions have arisen about whether schools are measuring the right things in order to

best support students and student success. Amid a larger discourse of accountability

and demonstrable outcomes, the issues of what precisely constitutes wellbeing and how

wellbeing will be measured, by whom, with what instruments, and to what ends are thus

pressing and timely concerns. In terms of the broader politics of assessment, we need to

critically interrogate calls to broaden what gets measured. While standardized measures

are indeed too narrow to tell us very much about children, the solution to this problem

is not necessarily broader tests. Instead, we should be looking at different measures and

specifically, teacher-led assessments to better understand what and how well children are

learning. Good tests are not the only solution to bad tests.

The act of measuring does not, in and of itself or automatically, lead to improvements

in the element(s) being measured. Before moving on to a discussion of the foreseeable

challenges of the measurement of wellbeing, there is a first principle of sorts, which

must be addressed. Somewhere at or near the centre of the conversation about the

measurement of wellbeing, there must be a clear reason for this measurement in the

first place and indeed, for our interest in student wellbeing. Why do we want to know if a

... questions about who is responsible for student wellbeing will soon arise.


student is experiencing high or low levels of wellbeing? Is it simply because high levels

of wellbeing assist in school-based learning? Such intentions are tested by a willingness

to overlook student wellbeing when its promotion hinders academic performance; for

example, the common practice of forcing students with test anxiety to write EQAO tests.

The act of measuring does not, in

and of itself or automatically, lead

to improvements in the element(s)

being measured.

This is important as we grapple with ever-evolving understandings, not just of wellbeing

but of what responsibilities schools should have to foster wellbeing. Is it so students are

set on a good course in life, exhibiting behaviours related to or even predicting successful

adult lives—understood in terms of social, professional, and other realms? Put simply, will

we measure wellbeing to boost academic performance or to support lifelong wellbeing?

The wellbeing policy conversation often begins with the argument that greater wellbeing

supports greater academic achievement and that the absence of wellbeing diminishes

academic achievement (Ontario Ministry of Education 2016b, 2013, & 2012; Ferguson

& Power, 2014; Slade, 2015; Wang, Harari, Hao, Zhou, & Campbell, 2015; Public Health

England, 2014; Basch, 2011; Paulus, 2011; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2010;

Burns & Rapee, 2006; Vessey & McGowan, 2006; and others). Other publications point to

the promotion of wellbeing among students as an end in itself, with long term positive

consequences into adulthood (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016a; Layard, Clark,

Cornaglia, Powdthavee, & Vernoit, 2014; Schonert-Reichl, Smith, Zaidman-Zai & Hertzman,

2012; Gordon, 2005; and others). The Ontario Ministry of Education explains:

If our goal in Ontario is for all of our students to become active members of their

communities, able to bring about positive change and to flourish in society, we

must heighten our focus on wellbeing as a crucial prerequisite for long-term

success. We must also acknowledge that the well-being of our children and youth

is our priority as a society. (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016a, p. 2)

In this vision, we see wellbeing positioned as a goal which is worthy apart from any

implications for academic achievement. We also see the wellbeing of young people as a

common societal goal—central to socio-cultural success. This review shares the politics of

this understanding of the value of wellbeing: all promotion of wellbeing in schools should

be undertaken primarily for the good of the child, independent in its primary intent of


any particular academic or achievement goal. At a minimum, this separation is needed

in recognition that achievement/success criteria change frequently and are subject

to political concerns, while the goals and elements of wellbeing may be distinct from

practices that improve academic success. Best practices in the promotion of wellbeing

may as well evolve out of step with curricular and assessment practices in schools. Most

of what schools do and demand is not necessarily designed to make students well. While

acknowledging that being well may help students succeed in school, school success does

not necessarily make students well.

... we see wellbeing positioned

as a goal which is worthy apart

from any implications for

academic achievement.

The complicated mechanics of assessing wellbeing in schools: Measuring a moving (and far away) target

The promotion of wellbeing has a long history in education, with physical health education

stretching back to ancient Greece and mental health increasingly seen as a priority by

policymakers in the 20th century (Ferguson & Power, 2014). While physical education is

frequently a subject unto itself—a discrete curriculum area often linked with teaching

and learning about diet and human development—wellbeing is less established and less

defined in schools, with its causes and effects woven into and out of the intellectual and

emotional lives of students. Working across these related domains is the Comprehensive

School Health (CSH) model. Established in the 1980s, the CSH approach takes a somewhat

holistic approach to understanding wellbeing and suggests the need to understand

and focus on whole-school health by intertwining considerations of the physical,

cognitive, emotional, and psychological. A CSH model considers pedagogy, social and

physical domains, school policy related to health, and community partnerships and

services (Veugelers & Schwartz, 2010). In the Ontario context, given the integrated

approach suggested by the Ministry of Education (2016a, 2016b), the promotion of

wellbeing in Ontario schools will likely be undertaken within and across multiple

domains simultaneously, embracing at least some of the CSH approach, toward a goal of

overall health.

The jump from the promotion of wellbeing to the measurement of wellbeing is

challenging and complicated. A measurement of overall wellbeing will inevitably

require some disaggregation of its elements and results to understand various wellness


domains. Ferguson & Power (2014) offer a highly useful review of wellbeing measurement

instruments including the Early Development Instrument (Janus & Offord, 2007; and Janus

& Duku, 2007); the Middle Years Development Instrument (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2012);

and the “Tell Them From Me” initiative from thelearningbar.com. As Ferguson & Power

(2014) suggest, these may be best suited for understanding student wellbeing in the

aggregate, at the population level, and therefore may not offer a model for measuring the

wellbeing of individual students. It is unclear whether feasible instruments currently exist

to perform such measures in relation to and within schooling contexts.

The jump from the promotion

of wellbeing to the measurement

of wellbeing is challenging

and complicated.

Measuring wellbeing: Questions of reliability

Putting aside for the moment questions surrounding the rationale and moving beyond

the question of whether or not we should measure wellbeing, there may be much more

work needed in order to develop valid and reliable instruments for measuring individual

student wellbeing. That is to say, even if it were a good idea, it may not be possible at this

time. Within the fields of measurement, psychology, and psychometrics, best practices and

instruments for achieving accurate measurements of wellbeing are constantly evolving.

The fundamental challenge of linking correlates of wellbeing to specific factors, while

separating them from others, remains for now firmly in place. The psychology of those

being measured affects the measure, while the measures can psychologically impact

those being measured (Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, Kim-Prieto, Scollon, & Choi, 2007; Wirtz,

Kruger, Scollon, & Diener, 2003; and Thomas & Diener, 1990).

The challenge of isolating school community-specific impacts on wellbeing

In addition to the ongoing advances common to any field, in-school measurement comes

with the unique challenges of adaptation, given the varied populations under study or

being measured, e.g., age, location, socio-cultural diversity, thereby suggesting that good

measurement might be adaptive, responsive, and varied. This poses a serious challenge

to any sort of standardized measure. The Ministry of Education’s most recent (September,

2017) statement referring to the promotion of wellbeing suggests the current framework

for academic measurement may be adapted in order to support the measurement of


wellbeing. The Ministry’s September 6 briefing reads, “[T]he province aims to… [u]pdate

provincial assessment and reporting practices, including EQAO, to make sure they are

culturally relevant, measure a wider range of learning, and better reflect student wellbeing

and equity” (Ministry of Education, 2017). While it is uncertain precisely how this will

unfold, it is clear that the measurement of wellbeing requires unique tools, specifically

separate from those used to measure academic success.

The fundamental challenge of

linking correlates of wellbeing to

specific factors, while separating

them from others, remains for now

firmly in place.

Further, the measurement of student wellbeing in schools presents unique challenges, if

the results, i.e., data on how well students are, are somehow used as proxy measures for

school or teacher performance. This challenge stems from the irreducibility of the many

situational factors which contribute to student wellbeing and student illness, including

There is no clear way to measure the precise impact of schools on student wellbeing.

the home, peer group, school environment, classroom, and additional structural and

environmental factors.

There is no clear way to measure the precise impact of schools on student wellbeing.

This is not to say that wellbeing is an impossible or misguided goal, but instead that its

measurement cannot, at this time, determine schools’ distinct and discrete impact on

overall student wellbeing.


With significant implications for schools, given the time and resource constraints presented

by measuring large populations, the work of Schwarz & Strack, (1999) suggests that

situational factors can be particularly difficult to account for on instruments which use

self-reporting techniques, a common approach used in school wellbeing measurement

instruments. In the previous section, this review considered the first principle of why we

measure (and/or should measure) student wellbeing. Recognizing the challenges of valid and

reliable measurement tools and techniques, a second fundamental question arises: can we

accurately and reliably measure and interpret individual student wellbeing in schools? Scholar

and psychologist, Ed Diener, a renowned expert on wellbeing and its measurement,

suggests in his meta-analysis of the current state of the field of wellbeing measurement,

that we may have a long way to go. While he notes a variety of promising measures, his

comments are instructive in terms of where we are at the moment. He argues:

[W]e have initial knowledge of the psychological processes affecting some of the

measures, but we do not yet have a complete and thorough theoretical model of

these factors…. In sum, we have made much progress, but have much farther to

go .... After all, even if we measure well-being well, we may not understand the

processes leading to it. A major issue is causality. The majority of the studies in this

field, virtually all, are conducted using cross-sectional correlational designs. Because

of this tendency, we usually do not know whether the correlates we discover of

wellbeing are causes of well-being, results of well-being, or that they both result

from some common third variable such as personality. Until we begin understanding

more about causality, we will not understand the true structures underlying what we

study. (Diener, 2009, pp. 268-9)

The profound and substantive challenges of the measurement of wellbeing are widely

recognized beyond Diener and his foundational work (White, Slemp, & Murray, 2017;

Huppert, 2017 & 2014; Ralph, Palmer, & Olney, 2012; Bradshaw, Hoelscher, & Richardson,

... better understanding, better instruments, and better interpretation are needed in the measurement of wellbeing.


2007; Thomas, 2009; and others). While Diener and others see promise in many approaches

(Diener et al., 1999), he makes it clear that better understanding, better instruments, and

better interpretation are needed in the measurement of wellbeing.

To be clear, however, the scholars cited above who raise these cautions are often

deeply invested in finding good measures and using them. So, for the purposes of

understanding the implications for the work of teachers and other educators, this paper’s

engagement with these scholars does not share the final goal of finding suitable in-

school measurement. Rather, these works are highlighted simply to suggest that such

measurement is likely impossible to do well at this time. For now—given the state of the

field of measurement and given the resources available in schools—accurate and reliable

measurement and interpretation of individual student wellbeing is not feasible. Even if

we were to overcome these challenges with better instruments and increased resources,

training, and support, it would still be impossible to measure individual wellbeing

exclusively in relation to school and its effect on children. Recognizing that various

situational factors impact wellbeing, a single ministry-level strategy is likely insufficient for

tackling these issues. Ott, Hibbert, Rodger, & Leschied, (2017) suggest a comprehensive

approach that is both intraprovincial (across multiple ministries) and interprovincial (a

national strategy) may be needed in place of local education governance. In the case

of next steps in Ontario schools, even seemingly pragmatic questions including what

measurement is possible, given time, training, capacity, etc.; what measurement is useful;

and what measurement is affordable are political and should be approached carefully.

None of these hurdles should hinder the promotion of wellbeing. However, we must

avoid embracing wellbeing strategies based primarily on their measurability. With the

... we must avoid embracing

wellbeing strategies based primarily

on their measurability.

‘tail wagging the dog,’ there may be a temptation to value a strategy not for its efficacy

in promoting wellbeing, but for its ability to produce simple results that can be easily

disseminated (Ott et al., 2017; Jones, Goldner, Butler, & McEwan, 2015). While this may be

a seductive arrangement within a public accountability discourse, such an approach may

not be the best for serving students. That which works best may not be easily measurable

and may never be politically attractive. Rather, better measures may be far wider, messier,

and complicated than anything proposed to date. They may need to look beyond just


the wellbeing of students and include the wellbeing of teachers and other educators,

socio-economic factors, and a myriad of other considerations. Indeed, current climate and

environmental surveys in use in many Ontario schools may offer useful data that could

inform support wellbeing initiatives for all school community stakeholders.

Place of wellbeing in schoolsThe interdependence of student, staff and school wellbeing

Recognizing that wellbeing, as well as its successful promotion, is situated across and

impacted by various domains and by questions of social location and equity, it may be

impossible to think about student and staff wellness and/or wellbeing as separate from

school wellbeing as a whole. Central to this concern are teachers, whose wellbeing is

linked to factors associated with the wellbeing of their students (Milatz, Lüftenegger, &

Schober, 2015; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt & Oort, 2011; Schuengel, 2012; Baker, 2006; Davis,

2003; and others). In their comprehensive review of school-based mental health initiatives,

Ott et al. argue for a holistic approach to wellbeing which includes multiple stakeholders

within a given school community, including teachers. They suggest that “schools cannot

be settings that promote mental fitness for students if they are not psychologically healthy

settings for educators” (Ott et al., 2017, p. 13). This has powerful implications for both

... when trying to understand or measure wellbeing in a school context, teachers should be considered along with students.

the promotion and the measurement of wellbeing, suggesting that not only should we

consider teacher wellbeing as linked to, if not mutually dependent on, student wellbeing,

but that, when trying to understand or measure wellbeing in a school context, teachers

should be considered along with students.

While it is tempting to suggest the wellbeing of students should necessarily and always

precede that of teachers and other educators, it may be irresponsible—if not ineffective—

to ignore the ways in which wellbeing is fundamentally relational, as well as the ways that


service to one group is dependent upon service to the other. The following analogy may

be instructive: adults are advised to put on their oxygen masks before helping children

with theirs during an airplane emergency. Likewise, teachers can only support students if

they first have access to the wellness resources they need. Schools are shared spaces, used

for work, learning, and play by children and adults. If teacher wellbeing as an end in itself

or if its conflation with student wellbeing seems overly teacher-focused, we can consider

the legal-, health-, and productivity-related benefits of promoting worker wellbeing in the

workplace (Kunyk, Craig-Broadwith, Morris, Diaz, Reisdorfer, & Wang, 2015; Lamontagne et

al., 2014; Standards Council of Canada, 2013). Insofar as healthy workers are better workers,

if we understand teachers’ work to include the promotion of student wellbeing (to say

nothing of becoming measurers of wellbeing), then school-wide strategies are a logical

approach to promoting student wellbeing.

Although typically untrained to do so, many teachers and educators work daily to promote

the wellbeing of their students. Interestingly, the interconnected vines of teacher and

student wellbeing grow more tightly together when the source of teacher stress is a feeling

of being unable to adequately support the wellbeing of their students, a phenomenon

which research suggests is increasingly common (Marko, 2015; Rodger et al., 2014; Froese-

Germain & Riel, 2012. Other scholars point to the “compassion fatigue” (Ott et al., 2017, p.

... many teachers and educators

work daily to promote the wellbeing

of their students.

10) experienced by teachers who can become emotionally exhausted and less effective

when they feel unable to meet the challenges and/or demands of student wellbeing

(Koenig, Rodger, & Specht, 2017; Arens & Morin, 2016; Fernet, Guay, Senécal, & Austin,

2012; Hoffman, Palladino, & Barnett, 2007).

Doris Santoro’s work may broaden our understanding of teacher stress around supporting

students. She draws an important distinction between demoralization and burn out,

arguing that

burnout may be an appropriate diagnosis in some cases where individual teachers’

personal resources cannot meet the challenge of the difficulties presented by the work.

However, the “burnout” explanation fails to account for situations where the conditions

of teaching change so dramatically that the moral rewards, previously available in ever-


... we must take a relational

approach to promoting and

measuring wellbeing ....

challenging work, are now inaccessible. In this case, the phenomenon is better termed

“demoralization.” (Santoro, 2011; p. 3)

Recognizing that teachers have a harder time the further they are from serving students

and from accessing the moral rewards of their work, we must take a relational approach

to promoting and measuring wellbeing which understands that teachers and students

co-experience and co-create the conditions for their mutual wellbeing. Despite the

significant place it occupies in education policy, the role of teachers in the promotion and

measurement of wellbeing is unclear; characterized by a murkiness which underserves

students and which can take away from teachers’ abilities to use their professional

judgement in order to serve their students. In addition to considering the nature and

place of the measurement of wellbeing in schools, the next section dives deeper into the

challenges associated with teachers’ work and the current push to promote and measure

student wellbeing.

Teachers as clinicians

Despite often having little or no clinical training, teachers are increasingly being

asked or routinely expected to act as front-line clinicians in service of the wellbeing of

children—a phenomenon best understood not as an unintended bi-product of under-

resourced policies, but as the specific and intended aim of education policy in Canada

and internationally (Ott et al., 2017; Morrison & Kirby, 2010; Santor, Short, & Ferguson,

2009; Jourdan, Samdal, Diagne, & Carvalho, 2008; Koller & Bertell, 2006). Rodger et al.

argue teachers are “being asked to be the ‘caring adult’ on the front lines of student

mental health, while at the same time being told that legally and procedurally only mental

health professionals should be dealing with issues related to mental health” (Rodger et

al., 2014, p. 20). This is a powerful recipe for role confusion as well as for the underservice

of students. Further, much of this work operates outside of the legal and contractually

obligated scope of teachers’ work.

While teachers’ work may typically encompass pedagogy (professional development,

planning, delivery, revision, assessment, etc.) as well as interaction in the service of

pedagogy and learning such as classroom management or supporting students with

special needs; it also includes additional pieces which are not contractual obligations and


which are optional or extracurricular activities (although often expected by administration

and parents) including coaching, sponsoring activities, academic enrichment activities,

overnight trips, and countless other activities in service of students. Broadly conceived

as curricular and extracurricular, although these domains intersect and interlock, these

two categories of work encompass a great deal of what teachers do. In both domains,

teachers’ commitments and professional judgements are informed by a myriad of

personal inclinations, habits of mind, values, proclivities, policies, past personal and

professional experiences as well as by administrators, students, parents, other educators,

and other context-specific factors, influences, and pressures. These multiple domains

are also mutually informative, as illustrated in figure 1.1 below. Recognizing the complex

and multi-dimensional nature of teachers’ work, it is important to determine where and

how wellbeing promotion can and should take place. Despite significant policy interest,

promise, and commitment in Ontario, it is unclear where the promotion and measurement

of wellbeing will fall within the multiple and intersecting domains of teachers’ work.

Wellbeing as curriculum

Part of the challenge of determining the place of wellbeing promotion and measurement

stems from a persistent lack of clarity on what sort of artifact or object wellbeing is within

education. Is it taught in the same way as a curriculum object is taught? Is it a method?

A way of doing and being? Is it both a pedagogical and curricular concern? Are there

wellness ‘truths’ to be imparted? If so, how might approaches to wellbeing take up holistic

approaches to wellness including Indigenous knowledges and conceptions of sitting in

a good relationship with self, community, and the natural world? A closer look at each of

these questions necessarily precedes and silence on these questions necessarily precludes

any worthwhile measure of the wellbeing of students and teachers in schools.

We can briefly explore the curriculum versus pedagogy/method question. If conceived of

as curriculum, there are challenges of wellbeing as a subject which is taught by teachers

personal inclinations, habits of mind, values, proclivities, past personal and professional learning experiencesexpectations from administrators, students, parents, and other context-specific factors

teachers’ commitments

and professional judgements

Figure 1.1

extracurricular

work

curricularwork


... teachers cannot be teachers of

wellness in the same way they

may be teachers of mathematics or

social studies.

and learned by students. Should schools and teachers be charged with knowing what

wellbeing is? How to create it? How to maintain it? In students? In colleagues? In teachers

themselves, individually? The uniqueness of wellbeing stems in part from the notion that,

to date, it has fallen most often into a curricular space dominated by physical and health

education teachers or in some cases, family studies teachers under a general category

of health. With the implicit and explicit complexities of teaching about self, society, and

healthy relations, such teaching may be better expected from mental health professionals

than from in-service teachers.

While the notion that student self-awareness as well as awareness more generally of

wellbeing issues, indicators, and related appropriate behaviors (including responses,

actions, etc.) appear central to the wellbeing of students in K-12 schools, there is limited

formal recognition of the content of these learnings as being important curriculum.

Unlike the overall and specific expectations which guide teachers in the curricular

domains, ideas concerning social, cognitive, psychological, and spiritual wellbeing have

no distinct/discreet checklist within Ontario education policy. Concurrently understood

as knowledge, practice, habit, being, and doing, it is difficult to imagine wellbeing as

discrete curricular items. Similarly, teachers cannot be teachers of wellness in the same

way they may be teachers of mathematics or social studies. To be clear, many teachers do

incorporate techniques that may promote wellbeing, e.g., mindfulness practices, in service

of teaching curriculum expectations.

However, such practices are typically optional, dependent on additional teacher training

and interest and are sometimes the first activities to be cut when facing a time crunch.

Until such practices are included in provincial curriculum; supported by required teacher

training; guided primarily by a commitment to student wellbeing rather than academic

improvement; and/or supported by additional time in the classroom; practices supporting

wellbeing will be inconsistent and ad hoc.

If wellbeing is not a curriculum item (a what), then it may be a method item (a how). As

the roll-out of wellbeing initiatives proceeds, it is realistic to suggest that wellbeing will be

positioned by policymakers simultaneously as a way of doing what teachers and educators

already do, as a series of integrations of wellbeing techniques into current practice, and/

or as a set of specific practices which are stand-alone but not linked to particular curricular

areas. An instructive example is the 2005 introduction of a daily physical activity (DPA)


requirement for students in elementary schools in Ontario. Each student was to have at

least 20 minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. While clearly in service

to a laudable goal, it is unclear where this artifact was to ultimately and realistically live. It

was an add-on to the teacher day, with no space made for its inclusion. When something

is supposed to be everywhere, it may, in fact, appear nowhere. In a large-scale 2016 study,

only half of teachers reported implementing DPA, with 61.4% of principals reporting

implementation (Allison, et al., p. 6). Although implementation rates are irreducible to a

specific factor, the significance of time can scarcely be underestimated here.

With teachers reporting policy itself as a source of stress (Ott et al., 2017, p. 5), teachers

not only need the right tools, but the time and space in which to effectively use them.

Additions to teachers’ work, regardless of how well-designed, usually mean more work.

If the learning day is to remain the same length, adding a new piece means removing

something else or at least a portion thereof. Even the very best policy directives often

increase the number of curriculum items, activities, and approaches for which teachers

are responsible in a given period, lesson, unit, and year. There is rarely a commensurate

reduction in other expectations. Quite apart from the workplace justice issues this raises in

terms of work intensification, it is simply unrealistic to continually increase what needs to

be done, without a concomitant contraction of other duties or a significant change to the

structure of the workday.

Where then will the promotion of wellbeing live in schools and in the work of teachers

and other educators? Parallel to our current physical and health education classes, will we

have wellbeing teachers, classes, and periods? Will we soon see a resilience grade and/or

learning skill for each student on his/her provincial report card? Perhaps teachers will be

assessed similarly. Will wellbeing be a watery add-on that is everyone’s responsibility but

no one’s job? Will teachers be asked to act as clinicians, supporting students, cum patients,

through activities typically reserved for different kinds of specialists? Might we see new

Additions to teachers’ work, regardless of how well-designed, usually mean more work.


legal considerations as we move from en loco parentis to en loco parentis et medicus? Will

our teachers be forced to navigate perpetually cloudy but demanding policy expectations

within the existing parameters of their work time and space? How will questions of

equity be addressed? How might commitments to wellbeing honour concomitant

promises to recognize, engage, and honour Indigenous ontologies and health? While

perhaps dramatic, these questions must be considered, not only ahead of any wellbeing

measurement, but also ahead of any real sustainable implementation and promotion.

The role of teachers’ professional judgement

Even with clear answers to the questions above, one key concern remains with powerful

implications for teachers’ work and indeed teachers’ wellbeing. What is the role of teachers’

professional judgement in the promotion and measurement of wellbeing? Amid increased

provincial standardization of curriculum, reporting, and assessment in Ontario, teachers’

voices, experiences, expertise, and professional knowledges are, at times, excluded from

major policy decisions. Teachers must be central players in education policy generally and

within accountability-driven measures in particular. This is a central tenet of professional

self-regulation which needs greater attention from Ontario’s teachers and professional

education bodies, including the Ministry of Education. There is support among teachers

for accountability, but not by virtue of standardized measures or top-down policy (Kempf,

2016). Rather, teachers must have a greater presence at policy tables, as well as in decisions

about effective implementation and measurement.

Teachers often have unique knowledge about their students (Ott et al., 2017; Climie, 2015;

Tolan & Dodge, 2005) which should not be excluded from policy understandings and

articulations of wellbeing and its promotion. Ott et al. argue that

there is another kind of knowledge, not just about mental health but with

those on a continuum of mental health, the knowledge of the caregiver.

Educators as caregivers, not just pedagogues, have vital knowledge about the

needs of the students in their care. (2017, p. 9, italics in original)

Research suggests teachers’ professional knowledge and judgement may be increasingly

marginalized within and by education’s larger trend toward a concentration of decision

making at the board and ministerial levels (Ott et al., 2017; Hibbert, 2015; Grimmett &

Chinnery, 2009; Rose, 1999). The downplaying of teacher voice, experience, and expertise

may substantively weaken our ability to promote and measure wellbeing in schools.

Recognizing the firm links between student and teacher wellbeing, and further, that

teachers face stress when they cannot serve their students to the best of their ability,

sometimes with policy getting in the way, the inclusion of teachers and educational

support workers in the wellbeing conversation is a natural place for next steps in the policy

process to promote wellbeing.


Considerations going forwardThis final section offers some brief and specific considerations, in an attempt to

pull together the major themes of the review, before offering final comments

in conclusion.

Policy should work from and reflect an explicit commitment to promote wellbeing as an

end in itself, distinct from all related academic consequences, be they negative or positive.

This means easy measurability must not alone lead to the adoption of any given approach

or strategy. The strategies we need may be complex, long-term, expensive, and dependent

upon the classroom work of trained clinicians.

The current policy and research emphases on the promotion and measurement

of wellbeing should be broadened to consider whole school health and wellbeing

which includes the wellbeing of teachers and other educators, other support staff,

and administrators.

The complicated nature of wellbeing, as well as the measurement of wellbeing, should

be further considered with special consideration of the context of schooling. Of specific

concern are

• the difficulties in determining the effects of schools on students as distinct from other

factors in students’ lives, including personality, home and peer effects, and socio-

cultural or equity-related issues;

• the possible ways that a variety of frameworks, e.g., Indigenous approaches, might

inform the work; and

• the limitations of extant instruments for measuring individual student wellbeing,

which are not up to the job given the current resources available in and

to schools.

Teachers cannot be expected to do the work of trained clinicians and other health practitioners and professionals.


Teachers’ professional judgement must be central to the promotion of wellbeing. For

example, any major decisions to change province-wide assessment should be arrived at

through an extensive consultative process and partnership among ministry, federations

and teacher unions, school boards, teachers, and other educational stakeholders.

Based on consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the place of the promotion of

wellbeing, as well as any subsequent measurement thereof, needs to be clearly identified

within the current domains of the work of schools and within the formal curriculum

and/or policy framework. If we consider school attention to emotional safety in contrast

to the ways schools monitor and regulate physical safety, the neglect of the former is

glaring. If left as a ubiquitous responsibility, wellbeing will be neither effectively nor

sufficiently promoted.

Teachers cannot be expected to do the work of trained clinicians and other health

practitioners and professionals. Requiring them to do so, explicitly or implicitly, can

be harmful to both student and teacher wellbeing. Further, it may lead to teachers

becoming ultimately responsible for success or failure on measures of wellbeing that

are, in many cases, beyond their control and/or purview. As teachers’ work grows more

complicated, intense, and multifaceted, teacher responsibility for their students’ and

their own wellbeing must be commensurate with teacher training, teacher support, and

teacher resources.

Any future measures must reflect an appreciation for the concerns raised above. To

date, the Ministry has been unclear on whether it intends to seek snapshots in or over

time, a system view, and/or individual assessment/diagnosis of students. Does it aim to

take the temperature of the province, districts, schools, classes, students, and/or other

groups? Each answer requires different tools and different use of tools. We are nowhere

close to individual measures, but we may be able to look for trends in wellness across

and within populations, as well as track system-wide and school indicators, conditions,

and approaches that correlate with increases in wellness within these populations.

Close consideration of environmental factors and other social indicators may provide

crucial corollary data, alongside existing school climate data. Schools should neither be

solely credited nor blamed for changes to the levels of wellbeing in schools—no matter

how they are measured; however, schools and related policy decisions cannot shirk

responsibility for working with the best approaches available as their resources allow. All

this suggests that a tidy wellbeing destination may be elusive.


Conclusion

In closing, it may be important to raise one further comment, which falls beyond the

scope of this work, but which may be germane to further education policy discussion. In

the years ahead, we may see a blurring of content and method, of science and character

education, of technology and teaching, and countless other new approaches which

disrupt the way things are currently done. In terms of wellbeing specifically, we may learn

how to successfully teach and learn aspects such as resilience and introduce informative

and character-building practices of healthy failure—with kids embracing their own ability

to fail forward. However, as a public service, school wellbeing strategies will need to reflect

and be guided by an attention to equity. Just as we look for patterns of academic success

or failure along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, income, language, ability, religion, and

immigration, so too should we pay close attention to who is being asked to be resilient;

for whom successful supports for wellbeing are being provided; and as well, the degree

to which students equitably access the teaching and learning of global competencies.

Which students need to learn to fail forward? What are the relevant social patterns and

how might structural, environmental, and socio-cultural factors be relevant to student

wellbeing? A blanket call for resilience for example or wellbeing generally, which ignores

these pieces, risks heaping massive and inequitable responsibilities upon the hearts and

minds of certain students and their teachers. Wellbeing, should it become truly valued

and promoted in education, will necessarily rise and fall on a variety of factors in and

out schools.


ReferencesAllison, K.; Vu-Nguyen, K.; Ng, B.; Schoueri-Mychasiw, N.; Dwyer, J.J.M.; Manson, H.; Hobin, E.;

Manske, S.; & Robertson, J. (2016) BMC Public Health, 1-16.

American College Health Association. (2016). American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Ontario Canada Reference Group Executive Summary. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association.

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/21st-century-skills-and-competences-for-new-millennium-learners-in-oecd-countries_218525261154

Arens A. K., Morin A. J. S. (2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 800-813.

Baker J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211–229.

Barell, J. (2010). Problem-based learning: The foundation for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca and R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 175–99). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Basch, C. E. (2011). Healthier students are better learners: A missing link in school reforms to close the achievement gap. Journal of School Health, 8(10), 650-662.

Bradshaw, J.; Hoelscher, P.; & Richardson, D. (2007). Comparing Child Wellbeing in OECD Countries: Concepts and Methods. Innocenti Working Paper No. 2006-03. Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Burns, J. R.& Rapee, R. M. (2006). Adolescent mental health literacy: Young people’s knowledge of depression and help seeking. Journal of Adolescence, 29(2), 225–239.

Climie, E. (2015). Canadian children’s mental health: Building capacity in school-based intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(2), 122-125.

CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education of Canada). (2017). A Pan-Canadian View on Global Citizenship and Sustainability. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/blog/pan-canadian-view-global-citizenship-and-sustainability

CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education of Canada). (N.D.). Pan-Canadian Global Competencies Descriptions. Retrieved from http://www.ontariodirectors.ca/CODE-TLF/docs/tel/PanCanadian_Global_Competencies_Backgrounder_EN.pdf

Davis H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychology, 38, 207–234.

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Diener, E. (Ed.). (2009). Assessing Wellbeing: The Collected Works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer.


Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Reference Framework. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning – a European framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from www.alfa-trall.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EU2007-keyCompetencesL3-brochure.pdf

Ferguson, B. & Power, K. (2014). Broader measures of success: Physical and mental health in schools. In Measuring what matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8.

Fernet C., Guay F., Senécal C., Austin S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 514-525.

Froese-Germain, B., & Riel, R. (2012). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on student mental health: Findings from a national survey. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.

Gordon, M. (2005). Roots of Empathy: Changing the world child by child. Toronto: Thomas Allen.

Griffin, P.E., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved from www.atc21s.org

Grimmett, P. P., & Chinnery, A. (2009). Bridging policy and professional pedagogy in teaching and teacher education: Buffering learning by educating teachers as curriculum makers. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(1), 125–143.

Hibbert, K. (2015). The secret of “Will” in new times: Assessment affordances of a cloud curriculum. In M. Hamilton, R. Heydon, K. Hibbert, & R. Stooke (Eds.), Negotiating spaces for literacy learning: Multimodality and governmentality (pp. 149–166). London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hoffman S., Palladino J. M., Barnett J. (2007). Compassion fatigue as a theoretical framework to help understand burnout among special education teachers. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 2, 15-22.

Huppert, F. A. (2014). The state of wellbeing science: Concepts, measures, interventions and policies. In F. A. Huppert & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Interventions and policies to enhance wellbeing. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Huppert, F.A. (2017). Challenges in defining and measuring wellbeing and their implications for policy. In White M., Slemp G., Murray A. (Eds) Future Directions in Wellbeing, pp 163-167. New York: Springer.

Janus, M. & Duku, E. (2007). The School Entry Gap: Socioeconomic, Family, and Health Factors Associated with Children’s School Readiness to Learn. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 375-403.

Janus, M. & Offord, D. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A teacher-completed measure of children’s readiness to learn at school entry. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39(1), 1-22.

Jones, W., Goldner, E. M., Butler, A., & McEwan, K. (2015). Informing the future: Mental health indicators for Canada technical report. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction (CARMHA) and the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC). Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/carmha/publications/informing-the-future-technical-report.html


Jourdan, D.; Samdal, O.; Diagne, F.; & Carvalho, G. (2008). The future of health promotion in schools goes through the strengthening of teacher training at a global level. Sage Journals. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1025382308095657

Kempf, A. (2016). The pedagogy of standardized testing: The radical impacts of educational standardization in the US and Canada. New York: Palgrave.

Koller, J. R., & Bertel, J. M. (2006). Responding to today’s mental health needs of children, families and schools: Revisiting the teacher education training and preparation of school- based personnel. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(2), 197–217.

Koenig, A.; Rodger, S.; Specht, J. (2017). Educator burnout and compassion fatigue: A pilot study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, January, DOI: 10.1177/0829573516685017.

Kunyk, D., Craig-Broadwith, M., Morris, H., Diaz, R., Reisdorfer, E., & Wang, J. (2015). Employers’ perceptions and attitudes toward the Canadian national standard on psychological health and safety in the workplace: A qualitative study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 44, 41–47. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252715001405?via%3Dihub

LaMontagne, A. D., Martin, A., Page, K. M., Reavley, N. J., Noblet, A. J., Milner… Smith, P. M. (2014). Workplace mental health: Developing an integrated intervention approach. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 131.

Layard, R.; Clark, A.E.; Cornaglia, F.; Powdthavee, N.; & Vernoit, J. (2014). What predicts a successful life? A life-course model of wellbeing. The Economic Journal, 124, 720–738.

Marko, K. (2015). Hearing the unheard voices: An in-depth look at teacher mental health and wellness (Master’s thesis). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. Paper 2804. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2804

Marzano, R.J., & Heflebower, T. (2012). Teaching and assessing 21st century skills. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Milatz, A., Lüftenegger, M., & Schober, B. (2015). Teachers’ relationship closeness with students as a resource for teacher wellbeing: A response surface analytical approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1949.

Morrison, Dr. W & Kirby, Dr. P. (2010). Schools as a Setting for Promoting Positive Mental Health: Better Practices and Perspectives. British Columbia: Joint Consortium for School Health. Retrieved from http://www.jcsh-cces.ca/upload/PMH%20July10%202011%20WebReady.pdf

National Research Council. (2012, July). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Report Brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/resource/13398/dbasse_070895.pdf

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and well-functioning society. The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014a). Beyond PISA 2015: A longer-term strategy of PISA. Retrieved April 13, 2015 from www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Longer-term-strategy-of-PISA.pdf


OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014b). PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving (volume V): Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208070-en

Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., Kim-Prieto, C., Scollon, C. N., & Choi, D. (2007). The value-congruence model of memory for emotional experiences: An explanation for cultural and individual differences in emotional self-reports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93, 897–905.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2012). Stepping stones: A resource for educators working with youth aged 12 to 25. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/brochure/SteppingStonesPamphlet.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). Supporting minds: An educator’s guide to promoting students’ mental health and wellbeing (draft version). Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/renewedVision.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016a). Ontario’s wellbeing strategy for education: Discussion document. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/wellbeingpdfs_nov2016e/wellbeing_engagement_e.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016b). Towards defining 21st century competencies for Ontario, Phase 1, 21st century competencies, foundation document for discussion. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016c) Engagement Paper: Wellbeing in Our Schools, Strength in Our Society. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/wellbeingpdfs_nov2016e/wellbeing_engagement_e.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Updated curriculum, new report cards coming to Ontario schools. Office of the Premier. Retrieved from https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2017/9/updated-curriculum-new-report-cards-coming-to-ontario-schools.html

Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion. (2010). School health: Guidance document. Ottawa: Standards, Programs and Community Development Branch. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/guidance/schoolhealth_gr.pdf

Ott, M.; Hibbert, K.; Rodger, S.; Leschied, A. (2017). A well place to be: The intersection of Canadian school-based mental health policy with student and teacher resiliency. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(2), 1-30.

P21 (Partnership for 21st Century Skills). (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Paulus, P. (2011). Education promotion through health: Status and perspectives of the good healthy schools; New Understandings, Better Integration, Sustainable and Equitable Actions – Schools that Promote Health, Wellbeing and Educational Success in the Next Decade. Montréal, Québec, Canada, November 28 and 29, 2011.


Pellegrino, J.W., & Hilton, M.L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Research Council. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Public Health England. (2014). The link between pupil health and wellbeing and attainment: A briefing for head teachers, governors and staff in education settings. London: NAHT.

Ralph, K., Palmer, K., & Olney, J. (2012). Subjective wellbeing a qualitative investigation of subjective wellbeing questions. Office for National Statistics working paper.

Roorda D. L., Koomen H. M. Y., Spilt J. L., & Oort F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement a meta-analytic approach. Review of Education Research, 81, 493–529.

Rodger, S., Hibbert, K., Leschied, A., Pickel, L., Stepien, M., Atkins… Vandermeer, M. (2014). Mental health education in Canada: An analysis of teacher education and provincial/territorial curricula. Ottawa, ON: Physical and Health Education Canada.

Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rychen, D.S. (2003). Key competencies: Meeting important challenges in life. In D.S. Rychen & L.H. Salganik (Eds.), Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society (pp. 63–107). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Saavedra, A.R., & Opfer, V.D. (2012). Teaching and learning 21st century skills: Lessons from the learning science. Report for the first Asia Society Global Cities Education Network Symposium. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://asiasociety.org/files/rand-1012report.pdf

Santoro, D. (2011). Good teaching in difficult times: Demoralization in the pursuit of good work. American Journal of Education, 118(1), 1-13.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Smith, V., Zaidman-Zai, A. & Hertzman, C. (2012). Promoting children’s prosocial behaviours in school: Impact of the “Roots of Empathy” program on the social and emotional competence of school-aged children. School Mental Health, 4, 1-21.

Schuengel C. (2012). Teacher-child relationships as a developmental issue. Attachment and Human Development, 14, 329–336.

Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective wellbeing: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Wellbeing: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). (2003). Key competencies – some international comparisons. Bulletin number 2: Policy and Research. Retrieved from https://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/CoreSkillsPastPresent_and_FutureReport.pdf

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2010). Framework for 21st century competencies and student outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21st-century-competencies.

Slade, S. (2015). Exploring learning and health: What influences a child’s ability to learn? Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development In Service. January 16. Retrieved from http://inservice.ascd.org/exploring-learning-and-health-what-influences-a-childs-ability-to-learn/


Standards Council of Canada. (2013). Psychological health and safety in the workplace: Prevention, promotion, and guidance to staged implementation. Ottawa, ON: CSA Group.

Thomas, J. (2009). Working paper: Current measures and the challenges of measuring children’s wellbeing. Newport: Household, Labour Market and Social Wellbeing Office for National Statistics.

Thomas, D. L., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 291–297.

Tolan, P. H., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Children’s mental health as a primary care and concern: A system for comprehensive support and service. American Psychologist, 60(6), 601–614.

Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vessey, J. A., & McGowan, K. A. (2006). A successful public health experiment: School nursing. Pediatric Nursing, 32, 255-256.

Veugelers, P. J., & Schwartz, M. E. (2010). Comprehensive school health in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 101, S5-8.

Wang, R.; Harari, G.; Hao, P.; Zhou, X.; and Campbell, A.T. (2015). SmartGPA: How smartphones can assess and predict academic performance of college students. ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, September.

White, M.A.; Slemp, G.R.; Murray, A.S. (Eds.). (2017). Future directions in wellbeing education, organizations and policy. New York: Springer.

Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future choice. Psychological Science, 14, 520–524.

winter 2018 the challenges of measuring wellbeing in … · the challenges of measuring wellbeing...

Documents