We live in a world our questions create. (David Cooperrider)
With the ongoing growth and development of Positive Education, there is increased interest and uptake in schools globally; however, there is a recognised concern around sustainability. Many schools utilise external providers and professionals, particularly in the launch phase, who engage with schools to educate staff on ‘wellbeing science’, which is primarily research applied in educational settings from the field of Positive Psychology. This commitment to a Positive Education approach often involves a significant financial and time investment for staff to attend training away from their regular classroom responsibilities. While many schools have good intentions for their desired end states, such as creating flourishing students, schools and whole school communities, often the initial motivation for change is impacted by the many competing responsibilities and activities occurring within a school setting, leaving staff with a sense of Positive Education being yet another fad that will come and go.
Those schools that have successfully implemented strategic and sustainable approaches often continue to work with an external consultant who guides and coaches the Senior Leadership or identified wellbeing lead or wellbeing champions to successfully apply their learnings into their unique school ethos. Many schools, however, are unable to fund an ongoing external consultancy and are required to utilise their own internal resources — in many cases, this being the inspired and motivated educators who are keen to support the initiative, yet who are generally time-poor, often with other learning and extra-curricular responsibilities.
While school counsellors are an integral part of a school’s mental health and wellbeing service, it is our (the authors’) experience that rarely is the school counsellor (SC) or psychologist utilised as a key resource in the leadership or implementation of such programs. We would argue that this oversight may be based on unfounded assumptions, which will be addressed in this article. We also believe that questioning the role of the SC goes beyond the argument for their inclusion in a Positive Education program, but more broadly in terms of the value a SC brings to a school beyond treatment alone.
The Potential Role of the School Counsellor
It has been well recognised that while treatment of psychological distress and mental health is essential, it is by no means sufficiently applied within a school setting, nor a workplace setting (LaMontagne et al., Reference LaMontagne, Martin, Page, Reavley, Noblet, Milner, Keegal and Smith2014). It is increasingly acknowledged that what is needed is an integrated approach to mental health, including treatment, prevention of harm, and promoting the positive (wellbeing enhancement). As such, a strategic approach to Positive Education should include all three approaches.
While the SC clearly fulfils the treatment role, we would argue that they also have a significant role to play in prevention of harm and wellbeing enhancement through providing guidance on, or in the delivery of, schoolwide social and emotional learning programs or positive psychology interventions. In addition, many SCs, with education in broader psychological science, may have knowledge of and experience in organisational psychology that is required for the strategic embedding of Positive Education into the culture of the school. This includes a review of policies, procedures and systems, and alignment of any strategic Positive Education objectives to the overall strategic plan of the school.
Before discussing the barriers that may preclude the involvement of SCs in schoolwide wellbeing implementation, it would be pertinent to explore the what, why and how of Positive Education. We will also examine the suggested role of the SC in the planning, implementation and maintenance of Positive Education approaches, as well as provide recommendations for schools interested in bringing their SC on board the Positive Education journey.
What is Positive Education?
The term ‘Positive Education’ was coined by Professor Martin Seligman and colleagues (Seligman et al., Reference Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich and Linkins2009), who defined it as being ‘education for both traditional skills and for happiness’ (p. 293) and as a specific subdiscipline of positive psychology. Since that time, there have been other definitions of Positive Education put forward, including the applied ‘positive psychology in education’ (Green et al., Reference Green, Oades and Robinson2011), or, more recently, ‘The strategic and sustainable integration and implementation of the complementary fields of positive psychology, coaching psychology, and other relevant wellbeing science into an educational setting utilising multiple evidence-based initiatives aimed at creating flourishing students, staff, and whole-school communities’ (Green et al., in press).
Why Positive Education?
One could argue that there has never been a more important time to consider the role of schools in teaching the skills of wellbeing to students and staff. The COVID-19 crisis brought the already present need for wellbeing and resilience in schools to centre stage. However, it is important to note that while we believe Positive Education has a significant role to play in mental health prevention and promotion, it offers additional benefits. In fact, Seligman et al. (Reference Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich and Linkins2009) outlined a broader rationale for Positive Education (pre-COVID) in their seminal paper for why schools are uniquely placed to promote the wellbeing of young people and of school communities. The authors asserted that wellbeing should be taught in schools on three grounds: (1) as an antidote to depression, (2) as a vehicle for increasing life satisfaction, and (3) as an aid to better learning and more creative thinking.
Hence, a focus on flourishing in schools goes beyond a reduction in mental illness, with the recognition that young people who do not have a diagnosable disorder may still not be functioning at their optimal level (Suldo et al., Reference Suldo, Thalji and Ferron2011). In addition, a focus on the promotion of wellbeing also has academic flow-on effects. For example, Suldo et al. (Reference Suldo, Thalji and Ferron2011) found that students with higher wellbeing demonstrated the highest grades and lowest rates of school absences one year later, and Howell (Reference Howell2009) found that students who were flourishing reported superior grades, higher self-control and lower procrastination than students who were moderately mentally healthy or languishing. Since that time there has been further evidence to support the investment in wellbeing to support academic achievement (Adler, Reference Adler, White, Slemp and Murray2017; Kaya & Erdem, Reference Kaya and Erdem2021; Marques et al., Reference Marques, Pais-Ribeiro and Lopez2011).
Seligman et al. (Reference Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich and Linkins2009) also suggest that because all children and adolescents spend a large proportion of their waking hours at school, schools provide the opportunity to enhance wellbeing on a wide scale. In addition, most parents and educators agree that the promotion of wellbeing and character (which is a core part of Positive Education) is an important, if not central, aspect of schooling (Cohen, Reference Cohen2006).
The How of Positive Education
Seligman’s original call for a ‘positive education’ was based on evaluations of school-based interventions, including the Penn Resiliency and Strath Haven Positive Psychology programs (M.A. White, Reference White2021). Seligman et al. (Reference Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich and Linkins2009) claimed that given substantial evidence from well-controlled studies, the skills for happiness can, and should, be taught in school. Many schools, including Geelong Grammar School (GGS), the first school to adopt a schoolwide approach to Positive Education, created curriculum with teachers delivering explicit lessons on wellbeing and resilience. As such, one could argue that currently a large part of Positive Education involves the explicit teaching of wellbeing science to both staff (in the first instance) and then students through either dedicated wellbeing lessons or through the embedding of wellbeing science into existing curriculum (White & Murray, Reference White and Murray2015).
However, it was recognised early on that Positive Education not only should be taught but caught (White & Murray, Reference White and Murray2015), and that there was a need to integrate the theories and approaches into school culture, thereby creating the recognition of both an explicit and implicit approach to Positive Education. Green et al. (Reference Green, Oades and Robinson2011) also suggested the importance of schools as positive institutions, alluding also to Seligman et al.’s (Reference Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich and Linkins2009) original article, as well as raising how coaching psychology and its applied practice, evidence-based coaching, may be one approach in unifying the theory and practice of positive education and providing a means to enhance ‘transfer of training’ to ensure sustainability (Green et al., in press).
Norrish et al. (Reference Norrish, Williams, O’Connor and Robinson2013) described an applied framework that was utilised at GGS for the implementation of Positive Education. The framework was based on Seligman’s PERMA model of wellbeing (Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment). GGS also developed the strategy of ‘Learn it, Live it, Teach it, Embed it’, whereby staff were first encouraged to learn and apply the science of positive psychology to their own lives (to live it), then teach it to students through explicit curriculum, and then embed it within their everyday practice and broader school culture (Hoare et al., Reference Hoare, Bott and Robinson2017).
Norrish et al. (Reference Norrish, Williams, O’Connor and Robinson2013) also claimed that the framework guided evaluation and research, and was a foundation for further theoretical discussion and development. They noted though that ‘the practical implementation of positive education is complex’ (p. 148). We, the authors, would agree with this statement, having been involved in several large-scale strategic positive education programs, and would suggest that in most cases, schools take a phased approach that includes first, professional development of all staff on the science and practice of Positive Psychology/Positive Education; second, the advanced training and development of school leaders on the principles of Positive Leadership (Cameron, Reference Cameron2012); and third, the ongoing commitment of School Leadership, together with a dedicated Positive Education Team or Steering Committee (ideally with a dedicated Head of Positive Education [i.e., HOPE] or Director of Wellbeing) for ongoing implementation. Generally, this team consists of intrinsically motivated members of staff, who in our experience are teachers rather than administrative staff, and in some, but not all cases, the SC.
Barriers to School Counsellor Inclusion in Positive Education Implementation
Given SCs’ professional expertise and experience in mental health and wellbeing, it would appear to be an oversight of school leadership to not leverage such a valuable resource. Why might that be the case? We believe there are three primary reasons that a SC may not be utilised as a key resource in taking a strategic Positive Education approach.
First, while most schools have access to a SC, they are often required to service multiple sites on an ‘as needs’ basis, making it difficult for these professionals to work systemically on a whole-school approach. For those schools fortunate enough to have a full-time position on site, their counsellors are often responsible for servicing a large population, meaning they are not always accessible to a wide range of students. The Australian Psychological Society (2016) suggests a ratio of one SC to every 500 students is required to meet current need, a recommendation that is based on findings of the New South Wales Coroner in 2011, yet the average SC-to-student ratio in New South Wales, for example, is around 1 to 1030 (King et al., Reference King, Subotic-Kerry and O’Dea2018).
Second, beliefs about the SC’s workload may preclude their input for a program that may sit outside the duties they currently, or are expected to, undertake. Role ambiguity and role conflict is discussed at length in the profession (e.g., see Bettman & Digiacomo, Reference Bettman and Digiacomo2021; Coll & Freeman, Reference Coll and Freeman1997; Thielking & Jimerson, Reference Thielking and Jimerson2006), and there often appears to be discrepancies between the SC’s official job description; the tasks they are expected to undertake by principals, teachers, families and students; those they actually undertake; and those they desire to have the time and resources to undertake (Amatea & Clark, Reference Amatea and Clark2005; Monteiro-Leitner et al., Reference Monteiro-Leitner, Asner-Self, Milde, Leitner and Skelton2006; Reiner et al., Reference Reiner, Colbert and Pérusse2009).
Lastly, while a SC may be seen as a mental health professional, they may not be seen as a learning and development expert for creation of curriculum; an organisational development expert for the schoolwide implementation of Positive Education; or simply as an educational leader. School leadership teams often struggle with viewing SCs as leaders, perhaps because traditionally, SCs have not been expected to be leaders. This is despite SCs’ professional values and capabilities, such as strong interpersonal skills, conflict resolution skills and evidence-based strategic decision-making being seen as key to excelling in leadership positions (Augustyniak, Reference Augustyniak2014; Roufeil, Reference Roufeil2018). Furthermore, given the role ambiguity and role conflict that plagues the profession, SCs are often assigned irrelevant duties that detract from their primary focus and impact their professional status (Bozkurt, Reference Bozkurt2014).
The Role of the School Counsellor
As discussed previously, Positive Education involves both explicit and implicit approaches. While the skills of wellbeing, resilience and achievement are explicitly taught to staff, students and the broader school community, implicitly creating a positive school culture through language, policies, procedures and environments is also key to a Positive Education approach. SCs play an integral role in both explicit and implicit approaches, and are well placed to initiate the interconnecting cycle of ‘Learn it, Live it, Teach it, Embed it’ (Hoare et al., Reference Hoare, Bott and Robinson2017), which is often utilised in the ongoing implementation of Positive Education. Terjesen and colleagues (Reference Terjesen, Jacofsky, Froh and DiGiuseppe2004) suggest that SCs ‘need to be part B.F. Skinner and part P.T. Barnum. That is, they need to demonstrate empirically the effectiveness of positive psychology in the schools while also “selling” this approach to the community’ (p. 165).
This section outlines the three key roles we see as well suited to SCs in the development and implementation of a whole-school approach to wellbeing: Coach, Consultant, and Change Agent.
Counsellor as Coach
Individual counselling and therapeutic support are seen as the SC’s ‘bread and butter’, and traditional school counselling has focused on students who are struggling with learning, behavioural or mental health difficulties. However, with the advent of Positive Education comes a paradigm shift for school counselling programs, with a renewed focus on prevention and early intervention alongside the more traditional therapeutic and critical incident response (Bozkurt, Reference Bozkurt2014). Given that flourishing whole school communities are the aim of Positive Education, the SC’s target population should shift from students with problems to all students, teachers and parents/carers, as part of a holistic mental health and wellbeing strategy.
SCs within a Positive Education framework can continue to work reactively with students with difficulties, but also proactively with functioning and high-performing students by providing coaching to build personal and social capabilities and enhance resilience to overcome challenges that they will undoubtedly face in the future. Children with high levels of resilience are more likely to thrive and are less likely to suffer from social and mental health problems (Bernard, Reference Bernard2004). There is also ample empirical evidence to support the development of these skills in mitigating the risk of mental health concerns. A recent meta-analysis examining multicomponent school-based positive psychology interventions found these significantly improved wellbeing and decreased depressive symptoms in adolescents (Tejada-Gallardo et al., Reference Tejada-Gallardo, Blasco-Belled, Torrelles-Nadal and Alsinet2020). Empirically researched and evaluated programs, which could be delivered by SCs, have also been found to reduce psychological disorders in the short and long term (Gillham et al., Reference Gillham, Reivich, Freres, Chaplin, Shatté, Samuels, Elkon, Litzinger, Lascher, Gallop and Seligman2007; Gillham et al., Reference Gillham, Reivich, Jaycox and Seligman1995; McGrath & Noble, Reference McGrath and Noble2003). Research around the effectiveness of evidence-based coaching to enhance student wellbeing, as well as support academic achievement and engagement, continues to grow (e.g., see Dulagil et al., Reference Dulagil, Green and Ahern2016; Green et al., Reference Green, Grant and Rynsaardt2008; Madden et al., Reference Madden, Green and Grant2011).
SCs can also incorporate evidence-based coaching to assist school staff to deal with job stress and burnout, and enhance wellbeing, engagement and resilience. A study by Grant et al. (Reference Grant, Green and Rynsaardt2010) on coaching teachers found significant increases in goal attainment, wellbeing and resilience, as well as a significant reduction in stress. Coaching for parents is also a growing area of research and practice (Bamford et al., Reference Bamford, Mackew, Golawski and van Nieuwerburgh2012). The benefits of creating a coaching culture in schools is well documented (van Nieuwerburgh & Passmore, Reference van Nieuwerburgh, Passmore and van Nieuwerburgh2012), and SCs should be actively involved in this process.
Counsellor as Consultant
When a school is considering or has made the decision to implement Positive Education, external consultants are often brought in to provide professional development for staff, as well as coaching and consulting services for senior leadership and wellbeing teams. While invaluable, this is often financially unsustainable in the long term, and schools must utilise their own internal resources to maintain momentum. More often than not, this responsibility falls to teachers who, while often enthusiastic and motivated, are generally stretched to capacity. In these circumstances, the SC could provide instrumental support and expert guidance to pave the way in the planning and implementation of Positive Education initiatives.
Seligman and Peterson (Reference Seligman, Peterson, Aspinwall and Staudinger2003) suggest that all psychology practitioners should acknowledge that much of the strengths-based work they already do is guided by the principles of Positive Psychology — this is indeed the case for SCs. Key topics in Positive Education, such as mindfulness, character strengths, growth mindset, healthy relationships, goal-setting and positive mood-boosters, are a regular part of a SC’s daily practice, and we would then ask, who better to deliver training on these topics? SCs may continue to expand on and refine their knowledge around the research and practices of Positive Psychology and Positive Education as part of their ongoing professional development, and then provide training and professional development on such topics to students, staff, parents and other key stakeholders. Even if an expert consultant was utilised for professional development in the first instance, the SC could then continue to provide follow-up micro-sessions to staff on some of the topics initially covered, therefore providing a deeper learning experience and enhancing transfer of training.
Collaborating with educators on teaching and embedding these skills within the classroom and beyond, both through explicit and implicit approaches, could also be an integral part of the SC’s role. Given teachers and parents often request consultation due to problems arising, reinforcing the traditional ‘let’s fix the problem’ model of service delivery, SCs are in the ideal position to demonstrate a strengths-based consultation process, where a student’s current resources, past successes and potential are explored.
Counsellor as Change Agent
Positive Education researchers and practitioners frequently discuss the importance of wellbeing champions in schools (e.g., see Green et al., in press; Slemp et al., Reference Slemp, Chin, Kern, Siokou, Loton, Oades, Vella-Brodrick, Waters, Frydenberg, Martin and Collie2017), these being staff members and early adopters who drive the initial implementation of Positive Education initiatives. Given their existing focus on student wellbeing, SCs can play a vital role in championing Positive Education, and in advocating for systemic changes that enhance wellbeing not just for students, but for all members of the school community.
Schools that successfully implement Positive Education do so by utilising a whole-school approach, involving students, staff, families and other key stakeholders (Waters & White, Reference Waters and White2015). This does not come without its challenges, however, and implementation is sometimes met with resistance (Quinlan & Hone, Reference Quinlan and Hone2020; Slemp et al., Reference Slemp, Chin, Kern, Siokou, Loton, Oades, Vella-Brodrick, Waters, Frydenberg, Martin and Collie2017; J. White, Reference White2016). Given SCs’ commitment to evidence-based research and practice, they are in the perfect position to provide cynics and critics with appropriate resources and recommendations to rationalise and champion the Positive Education approach. As experts in human behavioural change, SCs are well placed to guide schools through organisational change, including the implementation of Positive Education initiatives. This may include assisting key stakeholders to understand the value of such initiatives; supporting those who feel cynical, disconnected, or unsure; identifying and engaging early adopters and other wellbeing champions; ensuring changes are communicated effectively to the entire school community; and measuring the impact of said changes.
A Case Study
A SC started work in an Australian secondary school, and within their first month had undergone what they described as a ‘baptism by fire’ — the shocking accidental death of a student, and the following crisis intervention and grief counselling. This set the tone for the next year or so, when the SC worked in what they considered a traditional school counselling role — receiving referrals for behavioural issues, mental health difficulties, family and peer relationship problems, and critical incident response. Seeing six to seven students every day, liaising with staff and parents, and participating in mandatory school meetings, wellbeing team meetings and student-at-risk meetings, the SC was on the fast track to burnout.
The SC read about job crafting, an approach whereby workers make proactive changes to their jobs so that they feel a greater sense of engagement and meaning (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001), and began to think about the kinds of tasks they felt most aligned with. While the SC enjoyed one-to-one counselling, they noticed a particular interest in stress in high-achieving students — students who were rarely referred for counselling, but who regularly self-engaged at times of crisis. The SC found the opportunity to informally assist teachers with stress-management rewarding, and wondered if this could become a more formal process. The SC also enjoyed planning whole-school events and delivering professional development, though they had not had the opportunity to do so in this role.
Not long after, the wellbeing team were informed that their leader — a passionate and dedicated educator who had not long been in the position — was leaving the school. The person who would be taking over this (unpaid) role was another passionate and dedicated teacher who led a number of initiatives in the school and who disclosed to the team that they did not feel they had the capacity to undertake the role on top of their already heavy responsibilities. The SC spoke with this teacher and with their backing approached the principal and requested that they were given the opportunity to lead the wellbeing team. The principal wholeheartedly agreed and also invited the SC to become part of the school leadership team.
SC as Coach
With the endorsement of the school principal, the SC and the rest of the leadership team participated in a coaching accreditation program. This provided the SC with enhanced skills that enabled them to provide evidence-based coaching to staff and parents, and to also utilise brief, solution-focused coaching to students who did not require ongoing therapeutic support, including those stressed-out high-achievers.
SC as Consultant
When the SC started in the wellbeing lead role, the schoolwide mental health and wellbeing implementation plan had lain dormant for a significant period of time, possibly due to disinterest, but likely due to competing priorities of the wellbeing leader. The SC’s role was flexible — they managed their own caseload and appointment scheduling, and so was able to dedicate time to developing this plan and having it endorsed by leadership. This, along with a detailed analysis of student wellbeing surveys steered by the SC, led to a number of wellbeing initiatives in the school, including dedicated wellbeing lessons and cultural awareness classes.
As the wellbeing lead, the SC also felt they had more credibility to provide professional development to staff, and delivered training on mandatory reporting (which one teacher described as being ‘the first time in my career that I have clearly understood my role and responsibilities’), trauma, and a number of positive psychology focused workshops, including a particularly well-received half-day workshop on the principles of positive psychology to enhance staff wellbeing. Workshops for students on stress management and growth mindset were also developed and delivered.
SC as Change Agent
As with most schools, the SC had not traditionally been part of the leadership team at the SC’s school. While the SC noticed some murmurs of disapproval from at least one staff member with a conventional mindset, most staff embraced the SC’s inclusion in the team, recognising their commitment to the staff and students’ wellbeing. The SC was able to champion a whole-school approach to wellbeing and apply a different lens to leadership discussions from the perspective of a mental health professional rather than an educator.
As a whole, the SC’s appointment as wellbeing leader was a welcome and valuable endeavour; however, there were a number of key factors that contributed to this success, which are included in the recommendations below.
Recommendations for Practice
We would be hard-pressed to find a SC — or educator or parent, for that matter — who would not advocate for increasing the SC-to-student ratio in our education system, and it would be remiss of us not to mention this. At a minimum, we stand by the Australian Psychological Society’s (2016) recommendation of one SC to every 500 students, yet the benefits of increasing this ratio further, particularly having explored the value of broadening the role of SCs to create change in whole school communities, should not be ignored. Furthermore, the traditionally narrow focus of SCs working with a disease model is clearly outdated. SCs have recognised the need for a more holistic approach to prevention, early intervention and health promotion; thus, schools and education departments need to accept this and change and adapt to this new era.
Research suggests that school principals have a considerable impact on a SC’s role and responsibilities (Clemens et al., Reference Clemens, Milsom and Cashwell2009); further, the support of the principal and the school leadership team is pivotal to the success of school counselling programs (Lambie & Williamson, Reference Lambie and Williamson2004). A strong working relationship between the SC and the principal is vital in the development of any school counselling program, including the SC’s involvement in the implementation of a Positive Education framework. This includes a clear understanding of, and advocacy for, the SC’s value and expertise.
Autonomy in the SC’s daily tasks, such as freedom to manage one’s caseload and schedule, is also recommended. While teachers have timetabled classes to attend, the SC, when afforded a level of flexibility, is able to dedicate specific time to tasks and projects that not only promote wellbeing, achievement and resilience within the school, but may very well also see a reduction in mental health difficulties that require intensive one-on-one support.
We recognise that schools’ access to counselling services is not equitable across the system, and that schools have differing levels of autonomy in the role their counsellor plays. We also acknowledge that systemic change can be a long, slow and tumultuous process. However, we take heed of Cooperrider and Godwin (Reference Cooperrider, Godwin, Cameron and Spreitzer2012), the pioneers of Appreciative Inquiry, a positive approach to organisational development, who profess ‘human systems move in the direction of the questions they most frequently and authentically ask’ (p. 740). The question we are asking is: When will SCs, the experts in mental health and wellbeing, be acknowledged as such?
Conclusion
Our hope for this article was threefold: (1) to raise awareness of the ongoing interest in and growth of Positive Education into broader educational contexts; (2) highlight the potential and broadened role of the SC in the successful uptake and strategic implementation of Positive Education; and (3) equip the SC with sufficient knowledge to build a business case (if required) to not only support a school’s commitment to Positive Education but position themselves to play a key role as a subject matter expert and leader in the successful delivery of a broader mental health and wellbeing school strategy.
We identified three key roles that a SC can play in the ongoing implementation of Positive Education, that of Coach, Consultant, and Change Agent. We also identified potential barriers to these expanded roles within the current school climate. We recognise that some schools may have a higher degree of autonomy and flexibility when it comes to the job description of the SC and the reality of fulfilling that job description. We also acknowledge that for many schools there is limited access to a SC, and those SCs are very much in demand and sustain large workloads, primarily pertaining to treatment. As such, despite the fact that it may be accepted that the SC could play a broadened and valuable role in mental health prevention and promotion, proactive wellbeing enhancement, and organisational development and culture initiatives, a lack of time and resources does not always enable that to occur.
In conclusion, our dream is that the questions we have asked herein become more frequently and authentically asked, to support the evolution of the role of the SC and the much-needed recognition of their subject matter expertise in Positive Education programs. However, perhaps more importantly, we hope this article has highlighted the value of the SC as a key leader and valuable resource to support school systems to achieve their desired outcomes for flourishing students, staff and whole school communities.
