Resilience and wellbeing within schools: contradictions and silences in global policy texts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines professional standards policy documents for teachers and school leaders in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to ascertain where and how the concepts of wellbeing and resilience are addressed and enacted within each nation’s policy. Eight policy documents comprising four professional standards documents for teachers and four professional standards documents for school leaders from the four countries were selected and analysed using content and critical discourse analysis. The documents were examined through keyword search and then analysed using the policy threads framework comprising People, Place, Philosophy, Process and Power. Analysis revealed that teaching professional standards across the four nations explicitly address the wellbeing and resilience of students and school leaders but are silent on the wellbeing and resilience of teachers. Based on the findings, we propose a recalibration of core policy documents and teaching standards that explicitly address the wellbeing and resilience of teachers, particularly given the increased burden and violence teachers face in the workplace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it