Theme 3. Experience of support

As noted in the previous chapter, the well-being and the resilience of staff in schools is a cause for concern and warrants investigation (Mackenzie, 2012;

Gibbs & Miller, 2014; Day & Gu, 2013; Gu, 2014; Greenfield, 2015). Unlike other professionals that work with children and adolescents, teachers are not often provided with a safe space in which to reflect on the emotions and

experiences they are left with at the end of the working day (Hulusi and Maggs, 2015).

For this reason, researchers have explored different ways in which teaching staff can support each other in school as a way of counteracting some of the factors that may contribute to the erosion of well-being and resilience

(Sharrocks, 2014; Davison & Duffy, 2017).

To promote staff well-being, Sharrocks (2014) conducted an eight-week intervention in a primary school that comprised of a two-hour weekly session over lunchtime, called ‘Chill and Chat’. It involved three facilitators; a higher-level teaching assistant (HLTA) attached to the Behaviour Support Team (BSS), a behaviour support teacher and an EP. The rational for running the session for two hours was to allow for all staff to be able to attend, including kitchen staff, lunchtime supervisors, learning mentors and teaching assistants.

By running three focus groups (prior to the intervention, during the third week of the intervention and one-week post intervention) and distributing questionnaires during a meeting explaining the intervention and once the intervention finished, Sharrocks (2014) was able to obtain feedback on its effectiveness. By

administering questionnaires, it was possible to include the views of those who did not take part in the focus group or did not feel comfortable sharing their views publicly.

Findings suggest that school staff valued promoting their well-being, but the school culture did not overtly value it and the staff seemed to be responsible to learn how to cope and carry out their duties. “Chill and Chat” helped staff develop better relationships with colleagues, as well as promoting greater feelings of classroom efficacy, calmness, ability to manage challenging

behaviour and job satisfaction. These findings support Hastings and Bham’s (2003) proposal, that improving social support for teaching staff can help to alleviate stress and burnout.

As this intervention was carried out for a limited time, extending the length of the intervention may have helped to identify whether it was an effective way of supporting staff well-being in the long term; and whether it is a realistic

intervention to implement in schools, given that certain times of the school year are busier than others and therefore attendance may fluctuate. While

Sharrocks (2014) reports that participants made time and arrangements to attend, this could also be dependent on the time of year. However, without data on the impact of the intervention a few months after it ended, it is not possible to know whether these changes would have continued long term.

This said, the study suggests the importance of reciprocally supportive peer relationships and school culture in promoting well-being. Additionally, Sharrocks (2014) highlights how EPs can play a role in helping to establish a support system within schools for all staff. This study also raises some points that are supported by Weare (2015) who discusses the need for schools to have an ethos that acknowledges that staff will experience stress and may need support to help them to recover from the school day.

One intervention that has been explored as a way of supporting staff in school is the development of group-based consultation. One such consultation that has been used is Farouk’s (2004) group process consultation (Davison and Duffy, 2017).

The process consultation approach to group work developed by Farouk (2004), looks to developan independent and consultative working group in a school, through a process of staff training. Initially, teachers present an issue to the group to problem solve. Group members then ask questions to get a detailed picture of the issue at hand. Theories on the factors contributing to the present issue are then collected. In the last stage, suggestions for strategies or

interventions are given. After the consultation, the teacher holding the issue, reflects on the recommendations given; the most appropriate strategies are selected and trialled. The teacher is then asked to give an update on the

outcome of the intervention at the next consultation session. It is thought that by

providing staff with a safe and supportive space for exploring and discussing upsetting or uncomfortable problem situations, the referring teacher’s anxiety will reduce and be replaced by increased self-efficacyand self-confidence.

Employing a mixed method approach, Davison and Duffy’s (2017) investigated whether the Farouk (2004) model of group consultation could be used as a model for professional and personal support for staff working in newly formed NGs across eleven primary schools in one borough within the United Kingdom (UK).

The sample included eleven teachers and eleven Teaching Assistants (TAs).

For the group process consultation sessions, participants were split into two clusters and the consultations took place monthly for six months, with a Local Authority EP.

The self-confidence of all participants was measured as well as the self-efficacy of the teachers. Levels of concern data was collected from teachers making referrals to the group consultation and collected in the follow up session, one month later. Following the final group session, participants were required to complete a feedback questionnaire. Additionally, a focus group was carried out with representatives from each group to discuss involvement in the consultation model.

The results showed a significant drop in levels of staffs’ concern following participation in the group consultation sessions as well as an increase in self-confidence and self-efficacy. Staff reported that they valued the collaborative way of working and that the group process consultation helped to give

reassurance, companionship, reduced stress and eased anxiety. Additionally, participants reported that they liked the support they received from the group, as they felt that it was easier to admit that they were struggling to their NG peers.

With these positive findings appearing, further research is needed. For example, while self-confidence and self-efficacy improved, it is difficult to say whether involvement in the consultation model led to an increase or whether this was due to influential factors such as gaining more experience or other training. This is a limitation that is also recognised by the researchers. In

addition, all participants involved were just establishing NGs and therefore may have had lower levels of self-confidence and efficacy in the beginning due to inexperience. Having a control group of participants in well-established groups may have helped to identify how effective the consultation intervention was, without variables such as gaining experience or additional training influencing outcomes.

While the levels of self-confidence and self –efficacy were reported to have improved, the questionnaires were not completed by all participants, suggesting that the reported increase in these areas cannot be generalised to the whole sample.

In addition, the focus group also only included representatives from the consultation groups and was based on availability at the time, meaning that feedback may have been biased. Thus, further research with more controls and manipulations of potential contributory factors being accounted for may be able to give more conclusive answers as to whether such an intervention is effective in supporting staff. Nonetheless, this study suggests that the Farouk (2004) model of group process consultation could be implemented to offer emotional and professional support.

The suggestion regarding supervision for staff from one participant in Critchley and Gibbs (2012) study complements studies that examined the use of

supervision in school. Rae, Cowell and Field (2017) state that supervision is a valuable resource that can be implemented to monitor the well-being of staff, in particular those working with pupils experiencing SEMH difficulties. Following this, Rae et al. (2017) explored two areas: how teachers in two SEMH schools in England understood and experienced supervision and the importance they placed on it in relation to promoting staff well-being; and the part that EPs could play in offering supervision to teachers.

Using semi-structured interviews, Rae et al. (2017) found that teachers had mixed ideas of what supervision in an SEMH school looks like. Overall there seemed to be limited understanding as to what supervision is and how

important it is in ensuring well-being in the workplace. Teachers stated that they wanted solution-focused, unbiased support with the opportunity to unburden themselves, contemplate and feel contained. However, support offered by EPs

in the form of supervision was not as apparent for teachers, with many teachers viewing the role of the EP as one of working with children as opposed to staff.

Whilst the study has limitations featured by small scale qualitative designs, it nonetheless emphasises that while teachers may propose that supervision would be beneficial in developing their emotional well-being, it is essential for EPs to find out what teachers understand by the term supervision and what their expectations of it are. It also draws attention to the need for EPs to reflect on how they support schools to promote the emotional well-being of staff through supervision.

While the study by Rae et al. (2017) focuses on staffs’ understanding of supervision, Willis and Baines (2018) explored the perceived benefits and difficulties of introducing and maintaining an effective group supervision for staff working in an SEMH primary school in the south east of England. Of the

seventeen staff members involved in group supervision, twelve members of staff agreed to take part in a semi-structured interview to share their views and experiences. Thematic analysis suggests supervision had helped improve relationships between staff members in the same group and also improved the sense of camaraderie. In addition, participants voiced that they could address the issue of stress through offloading, sharing and validating each other’s emotions and experiences. Furthermore, staff also felt that the supervision group had helped them develop their professional practice as they could share their expertise and discuss coping strategies.

It was noted that having an external supervisor for the group was beneficial as it allowed for participants to be more honest in their contributions to the sessions, thus supporting the argument put forward by Rae et al. (2017) that EPs can play a role in promoting resilience and well-being through supervision.

While participants were generally positive, they did highlight the infrequency of the sessions (fortnightly) and introducing new members after the groups had begun as difficulties. However, these are not insurmountable difficulties and highlight a need to consider how often staff may feel they need supervision and the importance of developing a contract, to clarify how new members will be introduced to sessions (Willis & Baines, 2018).

While this study gave researchers a rich understanding of staffs’ experiences and views of a group supervision, there are some shortcomings. Due to being absent on the day of interviews, two participants that took part in the

supervision sessions were not interviewed and their views therefore not

collected; supervision only involved members that volunteered to take part. For this reason, there could be some bias in the results and those who volunteered may have been more aware of their need to have support at work. It could be suggested that those who did not participate may have needed more support and did not feel comfortable sharing their vulnerabilities. Alternatively, they may have felt as though they did not need support. Having them participate in a group supervision may have been beneficial to other members of staff as they could have shared their successful strategies.