Should school league tables measure wellbeing?
Sir Anthony Seldon has recently argued that School ‘league tables’ should include measures of wellbeing.
An excellent idea on the face of it. As Sir Anthony points out, schools respond to the metrics on which they are being assessed. If pupil attainment is the key measure by which a school’s success is judged, then pupil attainment is likely to a major focus for the school. Making pupil wellbeing a key measure of success would certainly turn headteachers’ attention in that direction.
But would the right aspects of wellbeing be measured? Indeed, should we be trying to measure it at all?
Wellbeing is a nebulous concept, with no one clear definition. It is subjective. Wellbeing is driven by the individual, and by their environment — their nature and nurture — so the meaning is ever evolving and will alter depending on the individual’s view of the world, and on prevailing societal influences.
Although it is generally accepted that pupil wellbeing is important to children and young people’s development, there is little consensus on what it means to ‘be well’ in school or on the value of that ‘wellness’.
Our education system is driven by policy and expectations, and measurements of outcomes; resulting in a framework for teaching and learning which is results-driven, highly-accountable and fuelled by the influence of business ideals and models. Pupil wellbeing can be seen as a means to an end: as an important element in achieving academic success with the goal of maximising chances of future employment. Wellbeing in this context is conditional; driven by external goals. It is a long way from the Aristotelean concept of eudaemonia — learning how to be fully human, or learning how to flourish — and further still from the Buddhist concept of mindfulness.
Results-driven systems rely on measurement to gauge success and this leads to an assumption that only that which can be measured is effective. The subjective nature of wellbeing does not lend itself to measurement, yet the results of surveys are often used as if they are objective data. Sir Anthony’s suggestion of a system of school-level comparisons covering aspects such as the resources put into staffing and support services for pastoral care; and surveying samples of pupils could well fall into the trap of boiling down qualitative information to fit into a quantitative framework. This is shaky ground upon which to make judgements or construct policy.
A better approach would be to adopt a system which puts an expectation upon schools to self-evaluate against holistic wellbeing indicators and act upon the findings. Such a system would not work in isolation. There would need to be a strong support system of CPD for teachers and especially for support staff; there would need to be better access to and targeted financial support for child and adolescent mental health services (CaMHS) and other services. This ‘measurement’ would need the Department for Education to go against its instincts and trust the judgements that schools make about themselves.
Dom Murphy
Programme Leader, BA in Learning and Teaching
