The School Wellbeing Survey
A Year 11 cohort of 180 students completes an anonymous wellbeing survey. Results show 38% report high stress, 22% report symptoms of anxiety, and 15% report they have missed school because of how they felt. The principal wants to publish the results in the newsletter and run a single assembly on stress management. Two students disclose to a teacher that they have been self-harming; one asks that nothing be shared. The school has one counsellor available two days a week and a waiting list. A parent group has offered to fund a guest speaker. Staff report they are unsure how to respond when students raise distress.
1. Evaluate the principal's plan for promoting positive outcomes across the cohort.
Read the worked answer
Strengths: publishing data can reduce stigma and signal that wellbeing matters; an assembly reaches everyone cheaply.
Limitations:
- A single assembly is a one-off awareness event; it does not build skills or change the environment.
- Publishing cohort data without context can alarm parents and may lead to individual blame rather than systemic response.
- Universal approaches alone miss the 22% reporting anxiety symptoms; a tiered model is needed.
- Staff capacity is the binding constraint: one counsellor for two days cannot absorb demand, and staff lack confidence.
Ethical issue: the disclosures trigger a duty of care. Confidentiality is limited; the student should be told what will be shared and with whom, and supported through referral. Anonymity of survey data must be protected, especially in small subgroups.
Verdict: the plan is a reasonable first step but insufficient as a strategy. It risks raising expectation without providing capacity to meet it.
2. Design a tiered response and explain how the school would know it is working.
Read the worked answer
Tiered model:
- Universal (all 180): curriculum-based social-emotional learning over a term, not one assembly; clear referral pathways; staff training in recognising and responding to distress; calm, predictable routines.
- Targeted (the ~40 with high stress): small-group programs, study-load review, mentoring, and access to the counsellor.
- Intensive (the ~27 with anxiety symptoms and those disclosing self-harm): individual support, safety planning, referral to external services, and family engagement with consent.
Capacity fixes: redistribute counsellor time to triage, train two staff as wellbeing leads, establish a clear escalation protocol, and use the parent-funded speaker as one part of a term-long program rather than the whole response.
Evaluation:
- Re-survey at 6 and 12 months; compare stress and anxiety proportions.
- Track attendance, referrals, waiting time to first appointment, and staff confidence ratings.
- Monitor that the gap between highest and lowest stress groups narrows.
- Qualitative feedback from students on whether they know where to get help. Set targets such as halving the counsellor waiting list and reducing the 15% attendance figure.